and the bonus number........... 12
december=12
the day=12th
year = 2010 = 21 =12

investors are not deducing the average cost, the mining/market dynamics is always at play
heres a few points

VALUE is not PRICE
VALUE is multlayered.
imagine bitcoins $8k
what if i told you:
$0-$5k was the cost/mining value
$5k-$6k was the utility value
$6k-$8k was the FOMO speculative/hype/bubble value

again if you took away the cost/acquisition. but still had utility then the price would not be $8k
same with gold, if people could mine gold using a spoon and a coffee filter, gold would not b at $1k. even if gold still retained the same utility.

saying that bitcoin is just 100% hype/bubble/speculation shows they dont understand basic economics.. even you admit without utility or cost no one would buy it because:
1. if theres no cost, its free
2. if there is no utility, no one will want it

hre is why the value is not just some random number picked out of a hat by 2 people but is based on a few underlying things

what happens is once the hype /fomo corrects down, people then look at the cost they acquired it for and refuse to sell for less, which given enough time reaches a certain equilibrium. for instance winters mining costs were around $3500 and there were months of opertunities for people who previously bought early on below $3500 to sell out.

those new purchasrs bought at over $3500 and so now more people wont want to sell for under $3500 again because they had their chances and now there are more people holding coin valued at over $3500 than before winter

firstly. seems your reading very biased information from lets say 3-4 years ago, and here is why
1. 'china own mining' is a dead rhetoric thats been around along time. if you actually go and check the numbers the hashrate for china is actually low.
pools such as bitmain(the main one people misinform about) have an OFFICE in china. but the actual factories housing the asics are world wide.
other pools like slushpool are deemed as asian too although they are international and managed by someone whos actually in thailand. same with f2pool which is internationally mined physically, but office managed in the asian region

2. 'keep up the damand for transactions'.. bitcoins mining process does NOT get easier or harder based on transaction count.
no matter how many transactions there are, whether it be 2 or 2million. the length of the initial block collation hash is the same 256bit hash length. which this 256bit hash is then sent to asics(miners) who then re-hash another 256bit hash based on a difficulty that has nothing to do with transaction count, but due to asic competitiveness (number of asic machines trying to hash)
ASIC machines contain no hard drives and do not store or view transactions. the mining algo has nothing to do with transaction demand and is just about calculating a hash of the same 256bit length

3. unlike PoS coins which cost literally nothing to 'mine' because there is no expense put in and lost (no large electric/hardware) pos coins are not going to be valued highly. but because there is alot of value in bitcoin. people put alot of investment into mining it. and as such this retains some bottomline value. for bitcoin to return to desktop mining where one person gets X every 10 minutes the value of bitcoin has to drop first to make it not worth using expensive hardware and electric, and then it has to remain at a low value to keep people from being interested in mining it. unless bitcoin becomes completely useless for real world utility, i cant see this happening

seems 3 people have no clue.
firstly we all know gold has utility value. (circuits and jewellery) and ontop of that it actually costs more than 1cent to get it out of the ground.

imagine gold, exact same utility value, but anyone and his dog could mine gold using a cutlery spoon and a coffee filter in their own back yard. i guarantee you gold would be much much cheaper to buy because it only costs pennies to acquire from other means.

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious
saying bitcoin is valued by only 2 people agreeing on a random price is hilarious.

seems people dont understand basic economics

bit refill go into detail about msats vs sats.. i dare you
by this i also mean the detail of cltv vs htlc.. i dare you

dont blanket over the details. actually explain how LN functions in the process of
locking funds onchain.
how LN as a separate network decides what/when/if a locked funds tx is valid
then explain how the LN part of 'pushing' payment occurs. including what denomination/tokn is used and if that denomination/token is broadcastable.

dont try skimming and hiding and ignoring the difference between htlc and cltv. dont try to make it sound like only cltv are ever handled.
actually explain it fully.
remember to explain how if there is magic that only permits 6confirm locks to be collateral. how your system breaks the magic to allow 0 confirm collateral, or where users can buy in using coinbase balance/altcoins.
or you can admit there is no magic and that channel partners can agree to whatever they like as the contract/iou is btwen them and only them(no community audit of LN agreement)

---

too many people only talk about the on-offramp in and out of bitcoin for small case scenario of bitcoin utopian utility in setting up/closing channels. but everyone is missing the point of this topic. which is about LN specifically. not the bitcoin on/offramp


anyway.. for those wondering if windfury even cares about bitcoin. or is just a core kiss ass... here's windfry's opinion on bitcoin
he actually thinks people should stick with fiat (facepalm). let me guess he thinks bitcoin is not digital cash but LN's Msats are? as its very apparent h feels bitcoin is not a viable currency and how only LN's token can do the job

bit refill go into detail about msats vs sats.. i dare you
by this i also mean the detail of cltv vs htlc.. i dare you

dont blanket over the details. actually explain how LN functions in the process of
locking funds onchain.
how LN as a separate network decides what/when/if a locked funds tx is valid
then explain how the LN part of 'pushing' payment occurs. including what denomination/tokn is used and if that denomination/token is broadcastable.

dont try skimming and hiding and ignoring the difference between htlc and cltv. dont try to make it sound like only cltv are ever handled.
actually explain it fully.
remember to explain how if there is magic that only permits 6confirm locks to be collateral. how your system breaks the magic to allow 0 confirm collateral, or where users can buy in using coinbase balance/altcoins.
or you can admit there is no magic and that users can agree to whatever they like.

pushing the price up is just providing a big gap between the bottomline value and the ATH. you will always be fighting off speculators taking their profits and letting you pump it again for them to just raid you.

the best thing is not to push the speculative ATH up. but to keep the bottom corrections balanced/above a sane level. that way your fighting less people trying to raid you dry and your helping keep value up so that when community speculation returns there is not as much of a jump needed, thus prices remain higher and increase more naturally without needing to pump/get raided as much

EG
summer 2018 value was $5800~ and the price was over $6k. trying to pump the price to $8k thousands of people would have just raided you dry. then when it got cheaper to mine(value drop) to $3500~ in autumn. and price went down to near the same it would have taken much more to get things back up.

however. if you tried to keep value above $3500 in autumn then the community would have got to this months $8k much sooner and without raiding you dry

tl:dr;
dont pump the high's.. pump the lows

for me the shrem/pizza parts of the show was 'meh', just social drama entertainment.
but when they interviewed the woman who is at a digital currency initiative department of MIT i thought there would be more accurate and deep content. but it seemed she was not very 'MIT' ish

firstly comparing it to fiats 'belief in value, and thats it' (facepalm)

next was the whole describing mining segment involving genesis mining.(facepalm)
ASIC's do not store records(asics have no hard drive).. so saying the mining done by genesis is the location where records are kept can be misguiding people to think genesis mining are 'the bank' and user software just 'watches the numbers and letters'

lastly the MIT woman then has the 50/50 mindset that 'it can flame out and die'. meaning she is on the fense and hasnt really got into understanding the potential

maybe i got this all wrong and the show '60 minutes' is not about 60 minutes of indepth reporting. but 60 minutes of how much effort they put into preparing, researching, interviewing and travelling.(meaning no spare time to double check before publishing)

coming to a international forum to promote a project, but then pretend its just a simple hand out a dozen bags of food in exchange for a dozen photo's seems weak.

also trying to get international volunteers to advertise YOUR payment address where you pretended its a safe escrow, but thn admit YOU are the sole controller seems weak.

then there is the whole paying $10 a meal and saying if you seen other homeless you would have to split the food between them, seems weak.

again asking an international viewerbase for donations whereby no matter where in the world it is YOU that want the crypto. and where you have shown little evidence of ongoing support of the homeless. (ie one sandwich per person just to get their photo, rather than building a relationship with a few homeless on more repeat visit/more than one occassion), aswell as no concern for the economics of spending the funds.(for $10 people can make 5 meals and include a t-shirt, socks and some soap)

it just seemed more like feeding a guy as payment to get his photo, just for you to get funding.. not a proof of concept of feeding homeless regularly and the homeless then wanting to help by agreeing to have pic taken as a thankyou

i have seen many people, both good and bad try to do similar things. some i have donated to, some i have not. i would say over the years i have given away thousands and my gut feeling has always led me right. EG 'seans outpost' was a worthy cause. but many things are just not sitting right with your project. whether it be your excuses to not want to project manage it properly by blaming time/scheduling/saying its just for fun. whether it be your money management lack of skills by paying $10 for one meal and saying if there was more than one homeless you would split the food to make it stretch..

just seems you are not the right guy to be managing a international project of getting people around the world to pay YOU

looking at the 'buy/sell philly' stuff month ago.

seems the OP is using the EXACT SAME address to buy/sell items (facepalm)
seems the OP wants to pretend that the addresses are escrow/safe..(facepalm)

funny thing is though
"How can an address be confirmed safe? If this page grew large the admins would be in charge of a lot of money at once. It just takes one asshole to bring this whole idea down"
.......
"It’s only one admin at the moment (me) and I’m trying to build trust by starting with small transactions to collect positive feedback. Its the only way I can think of doing it."

how can brolikk say his funds are escrowed (third party held) if he is the only person (facepalm)

to m i just see it as a guy that for 1 week went out and handed out say $25 of food to half a dozen homeless. and is now pretending its a daily/lifes ambition in the hopes people will send him thousands of dollars in exchange for the $25 of food

this concept is not new. and if he wanted to do it right/ethically. i would have seen it done other ways
sorry but my spidey sense is really tingling with this one

other points to raise.
a) title of topic... um the homeless dont get crypto. so its not crypto for homeless
b) none of the descriptions show of active daily commutes to feed the same people, it seems more of a 'one free meal for a pic' PR campaign. rather than on ongoing feed and help the homeless ongoing
c) if the OP cared about homeless health and effectiveness of funding. homemade sandwichs can be made for 10x cheaper and be of a healthier option

the section of the interview where they interview a women from DCI from MIT shows that MIT is not as smart as people think and she has not really grasped the depths of it.

alot of people dont understand the underlying value (intrinsic) of bitcoin
i dont mean the topline current price based on hype emotion, speculation.. but the actual underlying value.

there are 2 main value points.
utility value: what you can do with it
acquisition value: what its worth to create/acquire

the first is obvious. if a coin has no real world function, its useless and has no utility value
the second is where people buy it at a cost and reach a point they wont sell below

for instance PoS coins have no underlying cost of creation so the value has no real intrinsic value and can drop to zero.

but bitcoin has utility and underlying cost(mining)

take for instance gold. everyone knows it has a purpose (circuits and jewellery) but imagine the price if it only cost a few cents to acquire it. EG using a spoon and a coffee filter using soil in your own back yard. golds value would be way way less even if the utility was the same.

now because it requires excavators and sluice machines, gold costs $xk no xcents
PoW coins cost more than PoS

right now its judged that the acquisition/mining cost is $5-6k and the couple thousand ontop is the speculative hype based on utility/fomo

if media actually went and explained the 'what if gold could be dug up with a spoon and a coffee filter' to explain the underlying costs that build up the value which then has a layer of speculation. people will see that bitcoin wont zero-out and thus can create some positive assurance.

yes the speculative area of $5k-$8k may jump about abit due to fomo/fud which no on can predict but then people will learn and atleast start talking as if bitcoin is an actual asset with some value backing it, instead of thinking the whole $0-$8k is hype

so lets see when/if real media start talking about bitcoin in the logical terms of intrinsic asset value and not just speculation.

anyone else notice that its the same exact qr code each person is holding. just look at the dot pattern.

the homeless are not getting individual addresses they are just holding up the same piece of paper where funds all go to one location.

this means an individual homeless guy cant individually get funded and spend the funds individually for his own food. i smell something fishy and i dot think its a mc Filet-O-Fish

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

i am not 'cash' camp nor core camp. as i think no one should own 'bitcoin'
but since core own btc rule proposals btc is not the same as the 2009-2015 intention/ethos. thus its just best to treat things as separate communities/nations of something that was unified years ago

but if you take 5 steps back away from the social drama and ask yourself this.. you may see that things are not scammy. but just social drama provocations

if you have $10k.
if you 'accidentally' bought bch, you would get 24.3 coin
if you 'accidentally' bought btc, you would get 1.26 coin

when realising the mistake of not understanding which community/nation you bought into. you could just convert one into the other and be equal.

the only time there would be a scam is if they were selling bch where you would only get 1.26bch per $10k right now. which is not the case

the best way to view it without getting into social drama is this
no one should own "bitcoin" neither the cash crew, not the core crew.

yes there is alot of drama from the core crew trying to point finger in a subtle underhanded way to try gaining control of 'bitcoin'
 but ultimatelly no one should own it.

as for differentiating the 2 without drama..
think of bitcoin core(btc) as american dollar
think of bitcoin cash(bch) as canadian dollar
think of bitcoin sv(bsv) as australian dollar(well zimbabwe dollar)

that way conceptually in your mind you realise there is no single owner of 'dollar' but then learn to grasp the fact that different communities have their own 'dollar' and locally in their communities they just communicate it as such as 'dollar'

its not about causing a civil war. its about communication understanding.. EG if you walk into a canadian retailer and see something priced at $10. you would be correct to just presume that in that community the price is canadian dollar and not zimbabwe. its not a fight over who should own bitcoin. because no one should. its just about learning that core do not own 'bitcoin' just like america dont own 'dollar'

if the bch/sv and others reset the blockchain to genesis and changed the source code to change the function of their coin right to the start then none of them have the right to call themselves bitcoin as none of them have any evidence of linkage to satoshi

1. 'coinmarketcap' is crap. anyone can make a coin of 5trillion tokens. sell one token for $1 and instantly have a market cap of $5trillion.. even when the coin is useless. so dont make any judgements based on the market cap.

2. the market cap is not a bank balance holding. again as explained in (1) the holding is ZERO.. even the $1 used in example(1) is not held anywhere. the seller got the $1 and probably spend it on gum or soda.. again the market cap not a bank holding balance, it is just a multiplication of coins in circulation by the latest price. so do no i am repeating do not think a coin is healthy due to market cap

3. coins can have lots of technology(or atleast jargon impressive buzzwords that sound good) but if the coin has no real world purpose. its useless. dont look for coins based on jargon/buzzwords. look for ones that can display real world active usage. not potential/not theoretical, but actual real world usage. take for instance tokens based on healthcare, yet none of them are actually used in healthcare. but simply suggested that the 'technology can revolutionise healthcare. if the coin inventor has not been contracted/commissioned by a healthcare provider to make a coin, then dont expect the coin after public release to then suddenly get adopted into a central system like healthcare. as its too late for them to control it once its in the wild(hense why governments wont adopt bitcoin as a national currency as its already too wild to be government controlled)

4. generally if the coin/token appears to be made by some unknown group/script kiddies that came up with an idea, treat it as a pump/dump crap coin. if a business/establishment creates a coin and has a use for it themselves, then it has potential.

issues:
if you want to be a full node. then take the big boy pants, put them on and be a full node. if your just gonna leach the blockdata from someone else and then strip signatures, prune and filter to be left with pretty much just utxo's your no longer a full node. no longer able to seed the full data to others.
so just give up starting as a full node if next week your going to be a useless litewallet.
make the choice be a full node or a lite wallet.

solutions:
the main concern for full nodes is not the physical space. nor the actual time to download the full sync. but the fact that the main reference software is coded that you cant even see a estimated balance or send out a transaction until the sync is complete. thus making the sync appear slow because your sat there doing nothing twiddling your thumbs waiting for it.

but, you dont actually have to wait. so the solution is simple.
instead of starting as full node leaching off others to then downgrade to spv/litewallet. wasting others resources. do the opposite
get a UTXO set first to get users active and making transactions with a 'independently unverified balance' as a spv/lite wallet which is still safe because if your personal utxo is spent the network wont allow it to relay/confirm in a new block. then. the syncing to get the full archive and verify all transactions becomes a background task, thus no twiddling idle thumbs.

tl:dr
dont start as full and downgrade to spv
start as spv and upgrade to full

so lets summarise it all and just end the whole satoshi/craig drama once and for all..

craig pretended to be satoshi or friends of satoshi by saying he set up a 'tulip' trust containing addresses of satoshi's stash of coins amounting to ~1m coins.
which when looking at the blockchain data and extranonce reveals ~20k addresses of 50coin
craig could never prove ownership, and failed foolishly to prove owner ship of the satoshi stash

craig now says he has control of a trust of ~1m coins of some clustered amounts of coins (not satoshi stash) where some addresses contain 110k, 53k and other large clustered amounts(to atleast try to say he still has ~1m coin collateral)

now this new cluster 'trust' has been disproven to be owned by craig.

he finally put a nail in his own coffin and the australian government who gave him some tax privileges due to a 'trust of ~1m coin collateral' will come after his ass. as will many corporate investors who also invested in craig based on the assumption craig had collateral of ~1m coins

THOR TURBO
https://www.bitrefill.com/thor-turbo-channels/?hl=en

you already been told about this several times, ..
dont be ignorant/arrogant. try to research instead

https://blog.bitrefill.com/the-hottest-lightning-network-tech-features-for-2019-and-beyond-dbaaac6ddfa4

you do realise for longer than you have even been a forum member i have been mentioning ways to fit more tx per block without needing to jump to "big blocks" ('big blocks' refers to not progressive small adjustments but huge leaps such as the fud propaganda of 'gigabytes by midnight')

there are many ways to gain more transaction throughput, things such as
reduce the sigops:- reduces ability to fill a block with just a handfull of transactions and helps relay speeds
less wishy washy bloated tx formats
a fee structure that changes people habits
progressive buffer growth, not leaps

also it was core with their mandatory bilateral split (a buzzword gmax uses) that was organised and struck first.. should you care to read some code and blockdata(like i told you several times in many topics). so dont go now trying to meander the conversation into bitcoin cash social drama and again try to concentrate on learning about bitcoin.

really go try it.
i find it funny how either you are ignorant to research things told to you sveral times before, or how arrogant you are to keep mentioning things you dont know about but just repeat just to cause social drama to deflect and meander the topic away from actual topic discussion.

now do not reply to me. spend time learning about bitcoin and lets have the next reply you make concern bitcoin. not social drama. if you end up replying to me because you dont like what i have said. press the ignore button instead. then go use the spare time to learn about bitcoin