if bitcoin core did not change from the legacy rules .. bitcoin core would still only be using only the legacy rules

core split from the legacyrules by enabling weight to get the 4mb weight. and bitcoin cash just increased the base block to get their 8-32mb block buffer

they BOTH changed at the same time..
2 networks.. 2 different rules compared to the rule pre august.  = bilateral split.

as to WHO orchestrated it.. you could argue that is was not core... but then in 2015-2016 Luke JR backtracked out of a consensus agreemnt by saying he was not part of core.
so you can play the social drama of who is or is not part of the core supporters all you like. but if you follow their salaries, you follow who they prefer to side with and who they play these silly social games for. you will see which side was which. and.. guess what

the UASF was not to continue legacy. and was not to create clams 2.0(unnilateral) it was to to be part of a mandatory planned consensus bypassing split where at the exact same block 2 separate rules came into play and the legacy blocks got killed off on that date

after all it it was a whole network of pools wanting segwit and a whole network of nodes wanting segwit.. it would have got activated in december 2016-june 2017.. but the only supporters of it were those tight to a certain team.. but ill let you play around arguing the team game social games as all i care about is code that got implimented without true consensus.

put it another way

a few years ago. some dude copied the code and set up his own network that continued a blockchain from a certain bitcoin block in a different dirction while bitcoin core changed nothing.. that was called a unilateral slit (simple fork) and that guy named his alt CLAMS

but the whole BSCartel of the bitcoin core team, Barry silbert blockstream bloq all converved the august plan where BOTH bitcoin cash began and segit began

learn #478558 its an important number
bitcoin core network starting rejecting blocks that showed a legacy flag instead of a segwit flag and banned nodes that relayed such
so yes core nodes/network did change too

again if nothing changed and bitcoin core didnt fork/go in a new direction. segwit would not have activated
learn about #478558

as for advocating to change the PoW. that is foolish
first of all it will affct EVERY POOL and EVERY block. causing block hashing time delays

also making it a mandatory thing like the core advocates done to get segwit initiated is not consensus. ther would need to be a period of time to get a real true no banning/no rejecting consensus vote.. and then if there is enoughh advocation then a long period of transition to allow both algos to be acceptable to the rules before finally cutting off the old algo when the hashrate of the new algo is good and strong enough to work alone.

P.S no matter what algo is chosen big pools will be inncentivise to pool their rsources to get the biggst slice of the pie they can. so no mattr what do not think it will ever go back to a 1 cpu 1 block situationwhere everyone with a laptop has an equal chance.

a PoW change will not destroy ASICS. as ASIC manufacturers will just redesign and release a new asic and strangely enough they will actually make mor money out of it. while costing average joe more money having to replace old gear.

a PoW change should only happen if there is a flaw to current PoW. eg if sha256 was broke

more social drama to cause community to ruin bitcoin security by changing the mining algo... (facepalm)

funny part is to achieve changing the algo. core would need to do yet another 35% mandatory attack, threatening the network with IP bans and block rejections.. oh but there will be baseball caps available again. (facepalm)

remember this though folks.
one positive lesson about the august 2017 mandatory split.
if blocks dont fit the rules of the network it doesnt matter what they produce, they will get rejected.

the fear is not that a pool can just magic money up 50 billion bitcoins simply by having enough hashrate. their blocks will gt rejjected in 2 seconds no matter what the hashrate is.

the only thing that will happen is that if a pool with large majority does something that does not fit the rules. then the blocks get rejected and the only result is slower block solutions frrom the remaining pools.

changing the algo is DEFINETLY going to cause not only a risk to security but also delays in block solutions from all pools because ALL pools use the same algo.

so a change in algo affects EVERY POOL and will delay EVERY BLOCK
dont let yourself get fed into the fud of what pools can do to blocks(data). and realise the blocks would get rejected if they try..
wise up to the reality that if the network(CODE) changes. it affects everyone

minable coins have an actual cost to create them. thus they have something holding up the value.
miners would be stupid to sell coins at a loss. and so they are a huge part of the support line that keeps prices above a certain level

yes there is speculation above that level that causes the ups and downs. but knowing there is something holding the price up behind it is good.

PoS has virtually no cost of creation so the speculation is nearer to 100% based on emotion and desire and not on cost.
PoW has at present low 90% cost and 10% speculation.. yes last december the $20k rate meant it was 25% cost 75% speculation but atleast people can quantify a bottomline cost value and see where support is roughly set. not the same can be said for PoS coin

for rough math

and because an S9 is 14thash. and uses nearly 1.4kwh (i rounded for easy pen and paper math)
for every 10thash=1kwh
for every 1000thash=100kwh =1peta=100kwh
for every 1000phash=100mwh  =1exahash=100mwh

so with a block being made ~6 times an hour and the network hashrate ~35exa

3.5gwh/6= 583mwatt/block
with 12.5btc a block = 46mwat/btc
= ~$2333 at 5cent/kwh  to mine 1 btc

now for the big question
its the same argument as a farm that produces 10,000 potatos a season but the supermarket only buys 9000 perfectly shaped potato.. the farm then has 1000 potatos that go to rot.. he cant resell them next year.. they are just deemed as rot/waste produce.
so having a family store or a neighbourhood co-op asking to buy 350 'wonky veg' potatos. means the farmr gets more sold and less goes to waste

power plants can produce many gwh.. and once it hits the electric pilons. its gone.. whether its used by resident or industry  or whether the electric is unused. it cannot go back to the power station to then be reused later

EG if a power plant produces 100gwh  but the country/state only USES 80Gwh
the 20gwh does not return to be reused. so its actually good that a industry is buying3.5gwh that would have gone to waste anyway.
yes there is still 16.5gwh that a power plant produces that is being wasted/lost. but atleast now a power plant is getting more utility

id say a good 80% of exchange "hacks" are actually insider retirement plans.

and as long as people stupidly use an exchange as a long term bank account where they are not day trading. then the owner will see a big neon total holdings that will tempt them at one point to retire and run off to a island somewhere, because they can earn more by faking the "i been hacked" scheme, than they could earn by continueing their service for years

so if you have funds in an exchange and you dont trade/use it daily. GET IT OUT of the exchange.

if the only funds an exchange holds is the funds on a daily order book. the exchange will make more money staying alive and allowing trades. instead of running off with the hoards of coins that are not on orderlines but just held in wallets.

put it this way. if there was only 10k coins on orderbooks and daytradres rinse and repeated 5 times a day(at 0.3% fee on 50k vol=150btc/day)
means that in 66 days the exchange can make 10k coins, which is ~55k btc a year  or steal 10k once and forever watch over your shoulder
where as
if 10k coins are on orderbooks. but 300,000 are held on the exchanges wallets like a bank account store.
an exchange would see it will take 6 years to earn 300k. or steal it in one day which is more worthy of looking over your shoulder.

in short dont have more coins doing nothing on an exchange than what an exchange could earn in a reasonable time so its not a temptation

as for the other 20% (well all 100%) of "hacks" xchanges need to stop storing private keys on their webservers. then theres nothing to take from outside hacks because the hackers cant find the privat keys when hacking the webserver

peer to peer is one person to another person.   NO middlemen

not sure what those people above are on about trying to make it sound like peer 2 peer involves intermediaries(middlemen). not sure if they just dont know or they are trying to redefine it to suite some narrative

banks (account wire transfers) are not peer to peer..
cash hand to hand are peer to peer

EG
bitcoin onchain does not need a middle man or the reciever to sign your transaction along side you.(permissionless)
LN does require a multisig authorisation and hopping payments through .(permissioned)

augmented reality.. Pfft
yet another company using buzzwords to make something simple seem complex

the reality is that the IP address attached to a website domain is not the IP of the server hosting the website.
instead its a man in the middle server

think of it like cloudflare. but more intense
with more substance on a cloudflare server than a data push algo, where it will hold thousands of no risk files, code to emulate a real website to waste a hackers time searching lots of files on the cloudflare website and to give cloudflare enough time to back trace the hacker..

here is a simple solution that has been told exchanges should be using as standard for years, but stupidly exchanges dont learn this lesson.
stop putting private keys on the webserver

the complaints were not about the risie/drops of prices causing losses.
the complaints were about not receiving funds/balance when withdrawing/depositing

regulations do not mean that a business is better policed.
regulations mean that the business is following its own policy to police its customers.

consumer protections. which is a completely different category is where policiing the business comes into play.

i truly hate it when people scream businesses need to be regulated, without those screamers actually understanding what rgulations do.
taking the banking crises of 2007-2008. banks have multiple regulations. but ask yourself who got hurt most.. it certainly wasnt the banks

after testing the $6 bottom boundary dozens of times since october and it held well.. it seems that some foolish sellers are going out of the norm. and pushing the limit.
very odd.

even mining pools are now going to start re-evaluating their cost/risk levels as the price is now going lower than the 'deemed value' area

anyway.... DISCOUNT DAY

yep. they bought it.. nope i dont think they will remove cryptos.. unless US laws change where making wallet software is illegal
anyway its old news now. but expect some changes to the terms and conditions.

(satire part)
such as like how getting a microsoft ID requires phone verification,
expect github to ask if you want to install the bing sarch bar with every software fork
(satire part)

market cap is a empty meaningless number. there has not been BILLIONS lost.
there is no bank accounts holding the entire markete cap in fiat.

when a price of $6700 drops to $6500
the loss is not billions. because smart people dont sell at a loss to actually lose
the risk is minus $200 if they bought at $6700
the benefit is plus $200 if they bought at $6300

but all in all there is no billions of loss.

if i made a coin of 5trillion coins and bought 1 coin at $5. the cap becomes $5trillion
but the real funds is only $5. $5trillion in fiat has not ben created, gained,.. the $5trill does not exist to gain or lose
if someone else bought a coin for $4 then my risk is minus $1. but i have not sold my coin so its not a loss, just a risk

if i then stupidly sold for just $2 then i have a real loss of $3. not $3trillion

the "bottom" has been tested dozens of times since october.. and $6k seems to be the flatline..
theres been loads of social drama, theres been hacks, theres been fiat finance guru insults theres been many things. but the price has not gone below $6k

by now anyone willing to sell below $6k would have done so already. and those those weak hand selling near $6k have passed thier coins on and the new holders are not gonna sell for less.. aswell as the cost of mining with the hashrate rises since october holding up a healthy underlying value wont sell for les either, otherwise they too would have done so at the many many oppertunities since october.

$6k is appearing to be the bottomline of value.
ignore the $20k peak that only 1% of the community actively were involved in and only lasted a few minutes. dont stand at $20k as if its 'value'/standard/normal/stable to then look down wondering how deep things are.
instead stand at the bottomline value of this year $6k and look up.

 

wow your rebuttle to me contains so much detail and scope and accuracy.. not
if your only reply is "tinfoil hat" and not lines of code, not financial data, not examples of anything of context. may you just refrain from commenting until you have some substance. like have a cup of coffee and think about things independantly and research whats been said.. without seeking answers from achowe/carlton mindset

P.S your the one saying bilderberg group..  which is you twisting things.. kinda what id expect from people friendly with achowe and carlton. its their usual tactic. much like gigabyte blocks was never a proposal but the achowes and carltons of the world loved exagerating things to discommunicate reality, to make it look like what was really proposed sound rediculous. rather than actually discussing the reality of the situation


the devs made segwit purely for the identification of transaction type to be used specifically for LN,
bc1q(and recently added ltc1q) and soon will come more
LN is not a bitcoin only network.
the hop model has shown not to work for gneral random spend to random people as many scenarios have proven. thus hubs is the way they are going (factory channels are coming too.. research it).. go on, get truly enlightened. research it.

while also allowing hiding how many counterparties (N of N) will be involved in the signing process (research schnorr)
even your friend carlton LOVES the idea of having managers monitor channels with thir own third key to chargeback(revoke/punish) certain users

ask the devs. if they really wanted bitcoin to have cheap fee's why take out the fee formulae.
(you'll hear waffle about free market)
ask them why did they INCREASE the tx dust relay limit from 1000 to 3000
(you'll hear waffle able control. (opposite of freemarket))
ask the main devs (rusty russel for instance) as founder of blockstream how much of the hundreds of millions of dollars is his 'share'. and what those investors expect as a means of return on their investment

 

nothing new
patent application in october and rejected.. thus nothing has changed.

only thing to take from this is that JPmorgan are involved in their own banker cartell DLT(distributd ledger technology) thus no impact to bitcoin, but shows what we already knew from the hyperledger/enterprice ethereum allience. that the banks want to control their costs and reduce audit costs by moving from old database models to DLT(closed private blockchains)

not true
doing some maths
take the 35exa hash average
work out how many asics does that 35exahash
(35000000thash/14= 2500000 s9 ASICS all running all the time)
imagine electric at $0.05c /kwh
an asic uses 1.3kwh
=$162,500 an hour = ~$27083.33 per block(12.5btc) = ~$2166 /btc for electric

then with the asic itself. at bitmains latst release price of $850 per s9i, and assuming they run for a year (52416blocks = 655200btc time)
2500000*850=$3243

make it COST $3248+2166=5409 minimum to mine a btc

so taking the bitcoin price. of ~6700 right now against the $5409 minimal cost makes the cost of mining 80% of intrinsic VALUE
(i excluded some minimal extra things that get added to 'costs' like salary, facility leasing which bring it nearer to $6k cost (nearer 90% value)
but you see my point

in short
the speculation of
supply(amount of coins on exchanges NOT total circulation on network)
scarcity(amount of coins on network NOT on the exchanges)
demand
social drama
other things
makes up LESS than 20% of the price

anyway heres a chart

the top edge of yellow is the actual btc price.
the top line of blue is the combined cost of rigs and electric (s9i @ $850 each and electric at 5cent/kwh calculated using the hashrate changes over the month)

the reason scarcity is not a big percentage is the same as me saying this
my dog will only do ~4000 bowel movements in its life.. anyone want a bag?
lets see if a high population of those reading this says yes.. (they wont)
scarcity alone is small, its the speculation of function, utility and desire along with scarcity that adds more to the price than just cost

as you can see by the yellow speculation area. a month ago thr was 30% speculation ontop of basic minimal mining cost and this week its under 10%

nothing inmportant. people just love patterns/coincidences/magic number appearences happening in random math

21 is the 'magic' number of bitcoin.
21mill coins
halving every 210k blocks

then e8 =00000000 (8 zeros)
number of satoshi's per btc

then take 00 away from e8 =e6 (6 zero's)
21e6= 21million

they shows a law firm

.. just friggen show a bank statement with balance
P.S just like circle is doing.. and like paypal done.. whenever offering a custodial service to hold funds as a balance measured 1:1 as dollar. you need a friggen bankers licence not a a money service business licence.

in short tether is still schemy and scammy but goes all out to throw hundreds of different documents at a law firm to look innocent but not show 1 single piece of paper with a bank balance into the open transparent public arena called the internet

jumped?

unless there is a 10%+ rise that then remains. there is no 'jump'
1-10% movements daily/weekly are normal.

i think the op needs to expand his chart away from the hourly /daily view where 1-3% movements look massive on display. and instead take a look at the monthly price to notice any drastic out of place movements in more of a wider landscape.

and if more drastic movements beyoond the norm occur then find the news worthy reason for why the price might have actual underlying value reasons a price should increase and stay at a new LOW. rather than social drama/adoption that comes and goes frequently

securing the data, yes
EG makes it harder for trump to fake his medical records after slurring his voice because the data is locked once a diagnoses is made.
it also ensures that although patients dont need to be part of validating every other patients record. each hospital/clinic validates each others hospital/clinic records and has access to the data without a single central server. thus reducing costs of IT security, server maintenance, backups etc

EG
imagine there were 65536 different medical conditions the data on a ledger does not need to list all 65536 per patient with a value. but just the conditions a patient has and the result.

the data needed:
an ID of a condition can be stored as just(at very minimum) 2 bytes (256*256=65536)
so diabetes could be in hex(4hex=2byte)  D1ABE7E5
and the value, could be the numberic value of their glucose level which would take 1byte(diabetic range of 0 to 256)
so patients "conditions" could be logged and locked using just 3 bytes of data.

the only lengthy part is their patient ID which can be locked to a separate ledger using just 4bytes per country (256*256*256*256=4,294,967,296 patients)  or 5byte for a international network (1,099,511,627,776 patients)
so as people are diagnosed it could log patient and medical condition using under 10 bytes per diagnoses

so imagine a 1billion population country, and each (exaggurating) patient having 10 diagnosed conditions (10bill records)
100billion bytes of data = 100mill kbyte = 100,000mbyte  =100gb
which is this


the separate ledger of patient/doctor identity can be shrunk down to being a 5 byte(10hex) ID pegged to a public key thus stored as 40bytes(i rounded)
again a country of 1 billion people
40bill bytes of ID data=40mill kbyte= 40,000mbyte = 40gb
thus only needing a 64mb microsd card to hold all the ID data of that country

so each 'node' in each clinic/hosiptal does not need servers or extremely large hard drives.

just remember. the entire population of records and ID's and repeat tests do not need to belong on one ledger all with individual signatures.
EG bitcoin actually has 2 ledgers. 1x the blockchain 1x UTXO set
so although the blockchain has all the data, the UTXO has no signatures and does not hold the 'used'(spent) data.
so when designing the medical network do not think the ultimate medical chain has to be every patient with their full public key and every medical test and signature. (still neding less than 1tb of storage if you went to extremes)
you could have 3-4 chains/ledgers that different nodes validate. and then the majority of nodes only house and validate/view the latest/active data(utxo)

in short
storing and auditing records only needs nodes of upto in 128mb microsd cards which is cost efficient