no one is fond of it..
. BUT
YOU are using an issue you cant fix to solicit donations.. which makes you become just as greedy and scammy as those publishing junk and asking for money for the published junk
both you and them cant move the junk to a new location/owner/system once its published. so both you and them are soliciting funds for something you cant actually offer

the 1980's had universities too
there are people that are 50+ now with student debt meaning they too had student debt in the 1980's

yep even with people now in their 50's paying down their student debt for a few decades they are still only half way out of debt compared to people in their 30's just starting to pay down their debt

mortgages in the 1980's also existed. and if you look at the interest rates of the 1980-1990's when people were settling into families after university. you will see interest rates of the 1990's were higher then 2010's-2020's


yep people in the 1980-90's have mortgage rates above 7.5% and upto 18%
people 2000-2020 were below 7.5% and even down to 3%

the issue with this topic is..
many people do care about their privacy and know how to remain private

however there are a small group of "mixer" affiliate/advertisers that think that mixers aid privacy

the reality is that its a known researchable FACT that using mixers invades people privacy because they are put into a watchlist.. thus doing the opposite of aiding privacy
tose who dont want to be watched/logged/investigated should not be using tools that will end up having their utxo's added to watchlists(common sense)

however this group of mixer affiliates do not care about users real privacy, they simply want to fool people into using mixers so that mixers get paid to then pay their advertisers.

..
there are many many ways to remain private without advertising yourself to be added to a hotlist of people to follow

yes there are corporations playing war games to gain control of coin supply. they want people to lock up value into middlemen services of CEX/subnetworks rather than having users have cheap independent control of btc on the bitcoin network to avoid those middlemen..

having bitcoin annoyances to promote middlemen is the game. so that users are locked in, to spend their value within middlemen services until they have none left, and their account/channel is closed on them. leaving the end btc incontrol of the corporations that settle up for claim their winnings.. but that gossip is not happening on bitcointalk. they have their own private communications via other means

by the time it becomes gossip on bitcointalk. the plans by corporations have already taken affect years ago

bitcoin runs via code. and ASICS have no use for the code of transaction/fee selection. pools do
so pretending that bitcoin runs on the needs of miners is not true

code can be made/fixed to allow good utility of the bitcoin network without punishing everyone equally to need to pay your preferred amount of $100

you thinking bitcoin intents to be a $100 fee per transaction shows you dont know how bitcoin works
there are many ways to code bitcoin so that individuals do not need to pay more, while still giving mining pools a nice total to then distribute to miners as they see fit

the whole spot market economics will compensate mining pools with rich fiat conversion prices for totals of rewards for multiple more halvings. it is not even time this decade where fee's are an essential element of compensation.
and the amount of fee's per user can be mitigated via many scaling methods, of only penalising spammers to make spamming reduce to allow more regular genuine transactors.
making transactions lean can allow more regular transactors
increasing the block capacity can help too..
heck even uncludgy the bad math of miscounting bytes of the 4mb limit can effectively then let in a 2x-3x increase of transactor potential without even needing to go beyond the 4mb currently allowed limit
heck even changing small details like min fee incrementer to be 1sat per 10 bytes instead of 5000sat per kb increments can change how people bid/compete. thus reducing how volatile the fee's can ramp up

all where over the next few decades when fee's do become more of a consideration, there will be more transactors per blocks thus less cost individually

as for your talk of subnetworks. yes in future there will be many subnetworks meeting the needs of many niches of subgroups needs..
however the current limp,buggy flawed subnetwork promoted as the "solution" is not solving anything.

and now you know why the SEC wants end user investors of ETF to do "cash" entry and exit. rather than "in-kind"
because selling shares for cash DOES trigger cap gain/loss

as for the trusts relationship with agents . by AGENTS (not end user investors) AGENTS able to buy coin and "inkind" set a basket of coin to be converted to shares, and back to coin.. AGENTS can escape the cap gain triggers when opening or closing their basket deals for shares

first of all no.
we have passed by the era that bitcointalk forum gossip results in pump and dumps of bitcoin.
yes they happen on/with crap coins where there is a small community that are organised to pump and dump. but bitcoins no longer plays by the whims of pump and dumps

what you now realise about bitcoin is that the bitcoin price if you zoom out to certain levels shows flat times that can last 1 days to 1 month
these are where the futures market dont want the price to rise so whales use a second alotment of coins on the spot market to arbitrage the market order pairs to keep the price down

also when looking at the market cycles base lows and premium highs. you see it correlates more with the min and max mining costs
whereby if it cost $15k to mine in the most efficient way on the planet in late 2022 the market of global users could not acquire bitcoin for less and so no one was willing to sell for less. thus giving a good value support that didnt drop below $15k
whereby if it cost $75k to mine in the most expensive region on the planet in late 2021 the market of global users could acquire bitcoin for less and so no one was willing to buy for more then $70k. thus giving a good premium resistance that didnt escalate above $75k

when you realise there is more to the economics of bitcoin than just speculation you will start to truly understand technical analysis and not think that bitcoin is just speculative about trend anal' stuff

..
when it comes to bitcoin (ignoring the crap coins). the whales in control of the future contracts deciding they dont want prices to go too high or too low so fast dont organise their plans on bitcointalk

as for pump and dump gossip of crap coins
and by the time bitcoin talk users see the patterns its already a done deal and nearly over
yep by the time information becomes public knowledge the pump and dump opportunity is nearing its end and the opportunity is over

if you look at the cludgy math of cores method to count legacy size for fee estimation (witness scale factor x 4)..
legacy users dont then just choose to pay 4x less in fee's to match segwit fee. because doing so means their transaction ends up taking 4x longer to get confirmed

legacy user actually do end up paying more then segwit users just to be on par with confirmation priority.. and that is not even a outright policy nor consensus rule nor causes forks.. its just the over reliance of pools using core as a transaction selector so the fee estimate preferences are built in
to pools method of transaction selection.. by default a legacy paying 4x baserate is the same priority as segwit paying base rate

so the same method can be employed by treated unconditioned opcodes as a multiple of base rate

mining pools were not crying when 6.25btc was ($106k($17k/btc)) last year
mining pools were not crying when 6.25btc was ($212k($34k/btc)) in summer

they dont need the extra fee..
its just used as a scapegoat to try to blame the miners when the inception of this junk spam was due to core dev exploit they refuse to fix and instead want to blame someone else

also asic owners dont even get to choose transactions. so dont try saying they choose it

miners are not poor. thats what the spot market economics is for.
pretending an exploit shouldnt be fixed by pretending the miners need it. is a LIE. its a scape-goat trick to shift the pointy fingers away from core devs

POOLS (i cant beleive i have to correct you about differences between miners and pools still)
POOLS would accept fee policy that earns them more income. and causing junk to be a premium can be a income gainer for them

changing code doesnt need to result in FORKING
however soft or hard changes need to happen to change things..

ordinals users dont need to upgrade node. but if pool nodes ar challenging the fee law, thus demanding ordinal tx pay x rate. ordinals would soon see their broadcasts not enter blocks as quick, thus they end up RBF until confirmed, learning the hard way they were initially paying too little

.. and no dont reply 'but i blackhat was asking how to upgrade without upgrading'
again not all upgrades result in a fork
some upgrades can be soft or hard without causing a fork of differing blocks

did you know core devs do and have messed with minrelay.. dust limit and bumpfee increment defaults and serialisation cost multiples without causing network turmoil

notice how adding taproot did not cause a network block fork

not all changes result in forks..

..
please dont enter 2024 with the witchcraft pitchfork mindset of your forum wife..
his game is core do things soft to prevent forks. anyone not core should be treated as witches and be threatened out of town with pitchforks "fear the fork".. pretend any idea not instigated by core gods will cause forks

visa debit cards can be taken out easily. i use one all over the world. never have i needed to fill in paperwork per transaction/per country visited

as for WU compared to bitcoin
when bitcoin fee's are $30. sending $100 is 30% fee
when bitcoin fee's are $30. sending $200 is 15% fee
when bitcoin fee's are $30. sending $600 is 5% fee

i see many people seeing bitcoin as the annoyance in regards to remittance these days compared to <2016

trying to self custody bitcoin even at $100 allotments is not feasible due to the bitcoin fee..
however some people are taking the risk of just using a centralised exchange as a bank account to keep balance of sats value and not withdraw to self custody.

again..
THEY ARE NOT NFT. they are just published junk

secondly.
unless you are going to enter the house of the junk creators, with a hammer threatening their fingers. you cant get them to transact on other networks

thirdly
LN is not even a side chain. it doesnt even use a "chain"
LN is not even just a bitcoin subnetwork. the LN protocol can be used to bridge to multiple mainnets

maybe try to spend more time learning about crypto and less time begging for donations for something you wont be able to solve in the way you promote

i thought you left!!.. dang it. i was hoping to see the average IQ of the forum would rise in your absence
(dont came back just to play dumb now.. try to actually make an effort this time, now that you returned. start a new chapter of your life, be different than you were before. make an effort this time.. please dont just sound like an echo of a certain person, try better)

as for how to implement it.. its easy..
the same way everyone sees legacy pays more then segwit.. by CODING IT!!!

firstly. you dont apply it to miners.. ASICS do not select transactions, nor are asics using nodes..  
you apply it to node, knowing POOLS use an node as a backbone of transaction selection

also it can be enforced by mandating POOLS comply by blackmailing them that their blocks will get rejected if they dont comply.. you know exactly how that happened before. so its not a precedent that goes against your morals

there are many ways to code it.. consensus enforced or just policy followed
a. consensus enforced:
have a fee formulae that transactions using certain opcodes pay a certain threshold. and if transactions are not in the threshold then the block can be rejected, thus making pools ensure they put certain complying transactions into a block, thus enforcing transactors wanting to use certain opcodes pay the premium to get included

b. just policy followed
heck it doesnt need to be enforced by being a consensus rule. simply knowing majority use core as the backbone of the network where pools API call their transaction selections from a core node. just having it as "policy" seems to have shown compliance..much like how legacy transactions are seen to be paying more then segwit without any consensus enforcement

but like i said code is great. anything can be coded, so its not impossible. it just needs core dev politics to want to add it

as for the fee formulae
the options are limitless
EG
if opcode used, the formulae could be:
(144/utxo age)*100
meaning
a 1 confirm spam respend using certain opcode starts 14400 higher then a normal transaction

meanwhile regular bitcoiners using regular opcodes pay the regular rate

..
thats the beauty of code. devs can code any rules and policy they like.

i see alot of suck ups that would rather kiss core ass when they do wrong, rather then call them out on issues they cause

the fastest way to ruin a network is to not make devs responsible for their actions and instead let them make mistakes and still treat them like gods even when they refuse to fix their mistakes

there is no point reviewing code, scrutinising code, if no one dares call devs out when mistakes are made

being a suck up wont help the network.

..
i feel sorry for idiots that would rather defend core devs when they do wrong, instead of defending the network when devs do wrong

if you care more about core devs than you do about the network. you already lost

most dont..
most the amount of channel users of subnetworks is small.. however if you look at how many members sign up to CEX you see most people leave value locked into CEX. they just avoid the bitcoin network entirely because even moving to subnetworks costs bitcoin fee's of opening channels

yes that is another way too.. theymos buying a new domain/tld which is just used for tiny urls
maybe

 meta.btc.talk
amazon is the registrar of .talk TLD

where other things can then be utilised, where people could then do further things in later updates like

topic.btc.talk/5477847 (this topic)
user.btc.talk/459836 (loyceV)

however many will question if a different domain can be trusted to use . hense why i went with the idea of doing it using bitcointalks actual domain using subdomains

the very original concept of LN was that before opening a channel both parties would agree on a key set and create a multisig and both fund that same multisig address to both have mutual control of funds... that concept didnt last long

now when you open a channel you lock your value to keys YOU own and assign some of your value to a key (future) destined to JJG..
if he also opens up some value on his side to then give you inbound balance he has his own value with some assigned to your key(yet to be settled).. this would be a bi-directional channel with 2 funding locks one for each of you..
but if only you open and channel to JJG its just YOUR utxo value lock.. IOUing JJG
..

funny thing is, you are arguing.. yet proving my point. the value is still locked on your side.. whilst you are alive and JJG has not closed o you
yes he keeps a signed copy of a UNCONFIRMED transaction(thus an iou).. but he does not have the value yet. he just has a copy of a yet to be confirmed transaction.. (emphasising again thus IOU)

after you die. much like withdrawing from a CEX ... by having a transaction broadcast onto the bitcoin network. THEN he has the chance to get btc.. but until then. he doesnt have btc

learn inbound.. it means something is coming yet not arrived to its destination.. it is not JJG yet
..
and then you want to talk about strike
strike(jack mallers) scammed the el salvador leader into using LN as the backbone of chivo wallet  in summer 2021..got it set up by autumn.. but by christmas 2021 el salvador leader got pissed off with strikes antics and ditched it.. many el salvadorian citizens got very annoyed by the broken promises, all broken due to the LN experiment thrust on el salvador under the pretence of saying "sending bitcoin".. they learned very quick that this was a lie.

heck even strike had to change its business model due the el salvador failure

..
if you think LN is going to become the super highway where all subnetwork bridges converge. you are only fooling yourself

if you realise why so many dev teams have tried LN, seen it fail and decided to make other subnetwork bridges. you will soon see why they will avoid using LN as the intersection of their subnetwork bridge

pretending LN is trust minimised is a lie

the promise 6 years ago of trust minimised never flourished. infact all tests for first 4 years didnt battle harden LN, it instead realised it couldnt work well under trust minimised concept.. and they changed LN's business model to need hubs, factories, watchtowers, custodians even more.. meaning more trust is needed. not less
...
nice try to positive spin LN flaws like using sham buzzwords such as "battle hardened" but by spinning it you have actually proven that it has weakened not hardened

. you sound like a great comedian but not a great sales pitcher.. you made me laugh

if you think that LN is instant and irreversible settlement of satoshis. you are not talking about LN
LN doesnt settle irreversibly.. thats what the bitcoin network does after/when exiting LN

i did laugh the most when you used strike as an example..
its funny how much you are making the failure points for me, while pretending to be a LN adoring saleman trying to promote LN

you should try comedy

your sales pitch was the equivelent to saying CEX are trust minimised services that use irreversible settlements.. when reality is the settlement are withdrawals to escape and move away from CEX service. to then confirm value on the bitcoin network
withdrawing from a CEX is not a feature of proving CEX is non-custody.. its actually the case people need to withdraw/settle to get out of a services custody, because whilst in CEX/LN the funds are not the promised recipients(yet)

by you even thinking whilst in LN recipients get instant irreversible settled value.  shows you have alot more to learn

bitcoin has always censored transactions.. thats what validation rules are for!!!
its why we dont see LTC BCH BCV XRP, DOGE transactions in the bitcoin blockchain
its why we dont see double spends, dust and a whole array of other cases of transactions that didnt fit the ruleset


doing a true consensus activation to reduce fee's is not a solution. what needs to happen is actual code REINTRODUCED to actually understand the opcodes used, disable the opcodes with no conditions and only treat unconditioned opcodes as block acceptable if the block version is noted as activated to a higher ruleset
that way people cant just abuse unconditioned opcodes and blocks wont put junk into a block out of fear of having blocks rejected for having junk that the network does not understand/validate

the other option is adding a fee priority formulae again that just penalises users that use certain opcodes.

what happens is this
when a ETF is active. ETF sponsor with ALOT of coin already locked, will want to sell off their shares to customers so wont want to have agents applying with new baskets of coin. not until the ETF sponsor has sold majority of their shares

ETF sponsors with low custody will allow agents to buy btc and hand in a basket of btc to the custodian and have the share allocations created to then sell shares..

GBTC(grayscale) has over 600,000btc of locked coins meaning they are not in a rush to add more baskets

---

grayscales CEO ommited that the SEC is probably not going to do a "all approved" announcement
the ommission is clear.. because if the SEC was going to approve grayscale at same time as say blackrock.. then why is grayscale ceo saying it would be a mistake in doing so..

if the talks were about mutual approval of many, the CEO would not even be arguing a case of why first mover advantage would be bad


if the signs of "all approval" were told to CEO. he would not need to urge or warn
when he then says "SEC should" by saying "should" soo many times he is revealing the sec is implying approving different ETF at different times
its the age old question.. how many 'shoulds' should be said until it imply's they wont

if customers of a business are shouting the business should do something. it implys the business currently has no plans on doing that thing