when DCG contracted its portfolio'd devs(blockstream(SWx1) and bloq(SWx2)) to get segwit in by november 2017. which they did.. we seen how they responded by buying up a load of coins to pay the devs the price rise from mid november 2017-december

when DCG contracted its portfolio'd devs(bitgo) to get custodian licencing in america.. well.. i see bitgo getting their tranche of funds released to them too meaning another buyup of coin

dis information can flow both ways. the utopians can provide as much dis-information as the critics

you will find alot of people trying to shut critics up because the utopians want to over promise and under deliver the benefits of bitcoin purely to scramble in as many people as they can so the new people can buy what the utopians are selling

some of the critics are actually long term holders that see too many naive people enter being told utopian dreams of riches and its best to give them the hard truths so that they know what they are actually getting..

but with that said on both sides. there is also the complete obsurd fake news stuff.

so when you do read something. dont just search out if its being repeated by multiple places or certain groups to decide if its valid. look for the source, the bases of whats being said. do proper research if its something that may interest/affect you.

look for the code, look for the statistics and look for the source. dont just take peoples word for it

i might aswell interject here
when people use mobile apps for LN. they are not checking the blockchain. they are not even going to get to view the raw TX, all they get to see is a balance.. so many many things can be played about with behind the scenes.
and because the LN locked funds. and the separate unconfirmed transactions are not validated by anyone. they can be manipulated.
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

and with factories. the factory gets funded onchain. the factory then channels to a hub and the hub channels to a user. so again the user only see's funds it presumes the other party actually has. based on what the hub provides as proof.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.


also wind_FURY
banks are counter party. you cant just throw funds at anyone. you need your bank to be open and the destinations bank to be open to send a payment and you need them to agree to send it. why do you think banks say 3-5 days payment. because funds have to jump between many hoops.
LN is not a system of paying a destination any time of day using just one lump of funds thats guaranteed to reach the destination day or night. in milliseconds without anyone elses signature.
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ... thunderdome.. 2 may enter. but none may leave, if you survive. you exit one thunderdome and realise you entered another thunderdome.. just like how gold got locked into fortknox by making it harder to just get back what you put in
it was you and only you that mentioned the fractional reserve thing.. not me. i was debating fortknox fed reserve.. FEDERAL reserve. not FRACTIONAL
but if you want to talk about fractional reserve. then please take some time to learn about factories first as its better to explain something once you know about what im talking about. so learn factories run some scenarios. but dont run utopian scenarios. run critic/greed/theft style scenarios. then we can talk

and to Doomad
utopian praising and kissing ass something with flaws. (even the devs say things are broke) helps no one
actually being critical and pointing out failures does 2 things: 1 warns people 2. kicks devs ass to fix them

no point with utopian adverts when people use it, see it has issues, gets disappointed and thinks they have been lied to creates more negative adverts and conversations. than to just admit there are issues and limits.
its about not over promising and under delivering.
but hey you call it tinfoil hat. but id love to see you actually rebut how a statement is wrong using lines of code and actual content. and not insults. insults dont disprove or fix the issue.

have a nice day

over 150 numbered questions but some of them have more than one question per number.. Dang thats alot.
but it still doesnt really test true knowledge. any random person with no code knowledge could get the answers.

as others have said. get some broken code on a github repo and get the recruit to submit a solution to the problem.

also with those questions, there are more than one correct answer. some may answer it correct in jargon some may answer it in waffled science and some may answer it in ELI-5(common speak)

also your questions, they are too generalised. for instance: "what are bitcoin terms"
possible context the question can be read as:
'what are bitcoins common buzzwords' EG: FOMO, to the moon, REKT, HODL, LAMBO
'what are bitcoins terms and conditions (ethos)' EG: open transparent decentralised
'what are bitcoins consensus terms (rules)' EG: 21mill coin cap, 1mb legacy block 4mb sw weight block

anyway, its far better to see a persons coding by requesting they do something. or show a project they already done

and the best devs also comment their code or have supporting ELI-5 documentation so that if they are sick, injured, resign or retire. its easy to understand what they done so that when you find a replacement. the work can continue without much rewriting/restarting issues

1. a blocktime decrease doesnt help. it actually affects many other things and has to many impacts on other things to outweight a pro:con balance to make it plausible.
its far better to stay at 4mb per 10 min than do 1mb for 2.5min

2. schnorr sigs are useful for multisigs because it compact multiparties signatures to show as just 1 signature to hide who signs it. there are security risks as people can make a 2of 5 multisig. pretend its a 2 of 2 address and get someone to deposit funds into it (thinking they have absolute 50% control) and then the 2 of the 4 conmen sign it without the user who deposited funds knowing who actually signed it. and the transaction then appears like he consented to it. thus no legal route of recovery due to lack of proof that he didnt consent.
in a normal lean legacy payment system, you dont need dual signing or second party authorisation. thus no multisig, thus no compacting.. that was the point of bitcoin. not needing others. like i said going back to simple lean transactions is best

3. other things can be done instead, like opcodes that just need 1 sig even if there are 500 inputs from the same address.
so that if 500 different people paid into one address i wont need to sign all 500 times. but just once because its all in one address.. which is done by certain opcode not a schnorr

4. other things like new rules that if a mempool is more than 1mb but a block is less than 1mb then the pool is doing an obvious 'empty block' and thus gets auto rejected. thus ensuring pools are incentivised to fill blocks or not get a block reward. and thus help prevent pools backlogging transactions or trying to bottleneck the network by delaying confirmations of transactions by avoid adding them.. which is also a solution to one of the '51% attack vectors'. after all no one is silly enough to 51% a network just to reverse their coffee purchase. so the only 'threat' of a 51% attack is to bottleneck the network by not including tx's

5. if you want to decrease the blocktime to make it more user friendly for the 'i dont wanna wait at a cashier desk for 10 minute' argument.. well sorry but 2.5mins is just as lengthy a wait and doesnt really solve a queue build up at a retailer.
but that can be solved easily by funding a address a retailer owns(bartab analogy) and then let the retailer deduct balance internally on their system.

6. as for sharding. well thats just 2nd layer again. sharding is just LN factories of many tx's and multiple parties when you rub away alot of the buzzwording. sharding is from a banking analogy just like regional bank branches .. id say its better than reducing blocktime. but at the same time its then formalising the infrastructure into what banks do by forcing certain peoples activities being routed to a specific small pool of nodes

after all its far easier to deposit $90 into a starbucks legacy address and they just give you an in app balance of $90(30 coffee's) then to do all the convoluted effort of, make 5 LN locked channels funded with $18 per channel for good 'connectivity'/chance of success, but has the risks of channel offline situations(not able to spend $18) .. just for you to be able to buy at most 30 coffees(as long as all routes are avalable on the days after each $18 channel funds are spent).
think about it 10 onchain tx's to setup and eventualy close 5 channels. and no guarantee of being able to spend all $90.

where as just paying starbucks $90 in 1 legacy tx and they give you an inapp balance is so much easier for everyone and the network and even onchain fees

and especially with the risks that OTHER LN people will spend those $18 channel values by routing through you.. in short LN doesnt guarantee your $90 gets you 30 coffees.. but just depositing $90 (prepay) into a legacy address does

and thats the real funny part. those 'it cant scalers' think that the debate is about buying 1 coffee 3 times a day cant scale so needs offchain systems forced on everyone. when infact it just needs regular coffee drinkers to bulk buy(bartab) their coffee, but done simply using legacy transaction. rather than alternative networks requiring everyone to be online allday every day and where routing is required thus many people signing and agreeing to be part of your payment..

devs are over complicating solutions to issues they stifled and created themselves, all so they can own one of the precious future hubs/shards of nodes to get loads of fee's to repay their investors

loaves of bread value
1btc=6500 loaves of bread

if people want to work out mining costs
before june 2018 take the hashrate in exa and multiply it by 277(old gen asics cost)
after june 2018 take the hashrate in exa and multiply it by 135(current batch asics cost)

i know alot of people will have lots of different electricity costs but based on the main mining done by farms who can get the best deals(below 5c) then the important thing is the ones that can kep the costs down to have the lowest cost prices and thus more inclined to sell for less and still breakeven/profit.

oh and as for the next gen asics. take the exa predictions of october+ and multiply it by 65(next gen asics cost)
im hoping that by november once the next gen 7nm asics are released installed and mining. that the hashrate is above 90exa to counter the new gen rigs of that period to keep inline with the $5800 LOW/bottomline for 2018

when it stops taking just a few hundred BTC to shift the price by $200
alot of faith in exchanges has gone. so orderlines are not filled to the top.
instead of 500 people putting in orders at $xxxx.00 and another 500 people at $xxxx.01
we have 1 person at $xxxx.00 and 1 person at $xxxx.01 whereby they are only risking, say $50 each

but all that really matters in the big picture is
2016 > $300
2017 > $900
2018 > $5800

so just enjoy playing the waves up and down inbetween

bitcoin value Vs price

imagine bitcoins price like a bathtub of water and bubbles.
the underlying waterline is the LOW/bottom price of btc over a period. this is the line people refuse to go below or they collectively drown.
this bottom line is made up of acquisition cost agreement, which is tested over time by those selling and reaching a low no one wants to cross
so lets deal with acquisitions costs. (i cant be assed to repeat myself so ill just quote myself)
so that explains the waterline (bottom line no one wants to cross


as for the volatile stuff.. well the november-december 2017 was stir of the water to create lots of bubbles to make it appear the bath is more filled then it is. but it was not sustainable and once people started reacting to the bubble period. they all popped and corrected down to the waterline again

taxes
no matter what the currency is. there are already laws for people to pay taxes. if you want to pay taxes then continue to pay them. its like living in america but getting paid in EUROS. you still pay your american taxes by just using the exchange rates and paying tax in dollars. so nothing needs to change.
its not like new laws need to be made to force IRS to accept EUROS or Pounds..or btc. so just calculate your income and pay in dollars.
keep bitcoin out of government hands or you'll end up with them hoarding btc and we are still in the same FIAT situation. where btc is just a fiat and not all taxes actually end up in 'public services' but in government back pockets

by handing IRS btc. what happens is every trade that occurs people have to hand over 20% of their bitcoin.

alice (1btc) -> bob(0.8btc)
                  -> IRS (0.2btc)

bob (0.8btc) -> dave(0.64btc)
                   -> IRS (0.16btc)

dave (0.64btc) -> bob(0.512btc)
                      -> IRS (0.128btc)

as you can see it doesnt take long for the IRS to hoard half the coin circulating.

as for regulations
these are to allow businesses to police their customers. its not a consumer protection. its a business sherrifs badge to make people trust they are honourable so people give them funds.
what people should be lobbying for is consumer protection. meaning consumers police the businesses and so the businesses have to not break the law or suffer the consequences

we do not need millions a second..
think about it 1mill a second
= 60m a minute
= 3.6b an hour
= 86billion a day.
thats ludicrous

first of all visa stats and mastercard show that people on average do 45 transactions a month. which is 1.5 a day
obviously bitcoin is not as acceptable as visa/mastercard. so for now we should be working on less than visa and scale up as we go.

so with that said. we dont need a 86BILLION tx a day network we dont even need a 8.6 billion tx a day network. because not everyone is going to use bitcoin everyday right now.

so forget 1m tx a second. forget 100k tx a second.

the stupid fools that think what the community are begging for are move from <7 to  >million overnight and shout out "gigabytes by midnight" , are the small minded people that never actually think rationally or logically.
i really find it funny that the onchain scalers are not screaming for millions per second. but instead steady progress over time.. and its actually the offchain people who dont understand, dont trust or have been paid to give up on blockchains that are screaming for millions per second and gigabytes by midnight as the only options.

the true comunity are begging for progressive onchain rises over logical time. not huge leaps of onchain jumps or lse needing to abandon blockchain utility for some locked fed reserve network of swapping account of promissory notes

what we need to do is not let bitcoin get stifled so much that it ends up as a 0 tx a second and then just 5 mega factory TX's every 10 minutes where the LN factories swap their reserves with other factories onchain.. (bank reserve swaps) yea the devs want bitcoin to be the backend of the LN network. where reserves are swapped.. yep thats right they want bitcoin as a bankers reserve currency and where LN is the bankers payment system for their clients(channel users)

anyway we need to preserve onchain utility for normal people. that involves going back to basics. and then expand as we go too

so lets start by making tx's lean. to gt to a possible 4200tx per mb. then with 4mb being allowed by the devs. lets open the legacy limit so the full4mb can be used by such 16,800tx for 4mb.
16,800 =2million a day
(oh look the 2million users a day in YOUR 2million ideal scenario)

so using actual stats from visa of spending per day. 2million users would only need 4mb blocks of normal lean tx's where legacy transactions can utilise the full 4mb

also to note in LN 2 million users with LN is actually an average of each user needing 5 channels so thats 10million tx's to open and 10million to close.
which means people have to preplan and organise funds for about a 10 day lockin.

...

and before you rebut that blockchains cant scale.. that was like the deluded script of kodak saying digital photography cant scale because of floppy disk data limits. (look how that turned out)
if you want to doubt the limits of data and the internet. please go tell skyp that HD video calls dont work or go complain to EAgames that online gaming cant work. or speak to youtube, twitch, and other livestream sits cant work

or do the rational thing, and realise technology expands all the time and things progress as time goes on.
but whatever you do dont even try to say blockchains are broke and the only way forward is locking funds into channels(accounts) that need someone else to sign for a payment and needs every middleman and the destination to be online to accept payment.. as that is the same AND worse system than what bankers already offer

the majority of those buying in during the $4k-$20k were actually institutional money. buying up coins to settle up and buy coins to pay out a contracted tranche of funds to the devs for reaching their contractual duties of segwit by mid november.

(yep it was no coincidence that so much pressure was to get segwit activated between november 2017-2018. and then a sudden price spike)

anyway as for the yearly changes
2016>300
2017>900
2018>5800

i fully agree we have been on a continued growth of bull run.. yea there have been temporary ups and downs in between but i dont call them bull and bear.. i call them calves and cubs(younger, small ages/time bull and bear)

how do you regulate currencies.. the same way you regulate liquids and plants

you cant destroy the cannibis growth or the beer growth or its consumption.
the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition era proved that.

all that is done is outlawing or controlling the people and businesses. but thats IF agencies find whos selling or buying it.
but yea
blackmarkets, street dealers still happen
moonshiners, 'speakeasies' still happened

also stayed at mcdonalds and ate left over burgers
ended up in hospital with hypoglycemia
1. when in china you can hang around many restaurants and eat left overs from many different varieties. why only at burgers.. dang. even if you stayed at mcdonalds, they do serve more than just burgers.. so again why only eat burgers
2. if she had hypoglycemia after just 3 days. i guess she has an underlying medical problem and should have thought about and naturally known about trying a varied diet. so again why only burgers... EG stand near a vegetarian restaurant or dare i say it a chines restaurant

seems her choice of location to be in was the flaw. not the currency.
even with no currencies of any type. i would atleast explore the variety of locations and see whats available

your not going to find many bitcoin hotels, restaurants if you decide to go on strike and just sit in one restaurant for 3 days only eating leftovers of one food type

maybe the chinese lady should have tried 'beccy and austin' (life on bitcoin) as a tutor before doing the project, they done well and lasted longer

sorry intervalue
but your just devolving blockchain back into banking infrustructure

shards are just regional banks with several clearing houses. where the 'suffix' each region has is just what banks call routing numbers or sortcodes.

sharding is not blockchain +x.x.. its actually blockchains minus X

yea the shards suffix is not based on physical location of people. but people with the particular sortcode(suffix) are tied to a particular shard to verify their payment, much like bank accounts today

by the way how do banks become banks. by showing they have a certain reserve and will follow rules or lose their reserve sounds like PoS to me.

all your patchwork of grabbing x idea and y idea and z idea is just reinventing the banking infrustructure.

i have read your posts and looked beyond it, ive been around since 2012 so i understand all your ramblings behind the buzzwords and i even ran simulations.. i done close minded scenarios, open minded, inside and outside the box scenarios.

end result with good data your still not going to get your peak txps in real world usage. and ofcourse with bad data it will get far worse. and with manipulators even worse.
your system is not ready or battle tested as all i see is that you are utopia testing.
(many flaws you have young grasshopper)

P.S i know your trying to advertise your altcoin. but please do go take it to the altcoin section

currently bitcoin mining is profitable. if you living in the right area and have the right equipment

and so this topic will eventually squabble around and eventually say but what about the residence and the impact to bitcoin sucking energy away from them causing issues.. well ill just leave this quote here.. oh and it also includes the stupid "china have 50%" screams and worries addressed too

anyway for reference of math, the network utility of power is 20TW a year
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4976730.msg45537985#msg45537985


have a good day. china love that someone is buying their excess

thrown 'into a strange city'
whatever the currency is.. the first few days will be living by the skin of your teeth learning your new surroundings.

but there actually are hundreds if not thousands of people that work and live but have NOT received an income in fiat for at least a year

i for one have been living happily on bitcoin since 2012

remember the days when bitcointalk was majority american.
seems now bitcointalk is majority russian


13.33% Russia
9.42% United States
7.47% Ukraine
4.58% Turkey
4.45% Brazil
... and so on

as a brit i got used to using $$ and american slang. now i might have to learn some russian to talk to the forum majority in their terms

people are excited about it because
1. when blockstream completed their contract and got their contractual deadline of segwit by november 2018.. they got paid. and they wanted it in BTC. so the investors bought BTC  (look what happened from midnovember to december)

2. if you look at the markets and see the order lines and see it only takes a few thousand btc to move the price by thousands. then when an ETF wants to add another "basket" of coins to their trust to offer more shares once the ones already pre rserved and share divided have been bought guess what will happen

its mor likely that they will suspend all novice institutions right up untill the date the top 2 institutions are ready..

as we all know first in wins.. so SEC is just making sure it aint the winkles'
imagine if you could control who will be the very first company to sell something. wouldnt you prefer it to be one of your buddies rather then a set of twins whos only fame is going to the same social parties as zuckerburg in their college days

even if all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. SEC will choose their buddies first. its that obvious.. its a waiting game for their buddies to be ready. nothing to do with legal issues or problems its just in "the public" interest.
and guess who "the public" that is interested... the SEC after their workshift in a bar with their buddies

in short:
their buddies are late, but its ok the SEC have their seats reserved

by the way
Reid Muoio, Esq is a goldman sachs buddie.. hmm i wonder who's sat is all nicely warmed up and reserved.