greed = over hyping, over promising. hiding flaws. and mentioning the 10 minutes event of a ATH as if its a price that everyone gets to reach and grab any time they like

i think whats best is to under promise and reveal the flaws and to mention the lows.
EG
the price of bitcoin did NOT drop below $350 in 2016
the price of bitcoin did NOT drop below $950 in 2017
the price of bitcoin did NOT drop below $6500 in 2018

that way everyone can see the benefit of the price and can actually get something from those prices..
mentioning the $20k one minute event is meaningless

i would sugest people stop screaming out the tip of the purple mountain below, and instead talk about the green fields of stability below


the green line is the LOW's which show where real growth is found on value of where people refuse to sell below

emphasis on CRYPTO.

BTC is not as bright as 2013. sorry but the reality is clear on that. i prefer to be brutal and talk about the reality and then if people are still interested, great. but over hyping something and over promising something actually does not help. as it just makes people think they have been deceived and they then start telling others how its not as described.

i would rather point out the flaws and then if everyone sees them. everyone can help fill them.. than to pretend there are no flaws and have poeople jumping over them and getting tripped up and the flaws never getting filled

unfortunately your statement falls apart. because merchants accepting bitcoin is on the decline. there is an increase of blockchain and DLT investment businesses and an increase of ICO "cough businesses" but the adoption of bitcoins UTILITY is in decline.

this is why bitpay and coinbase are adding support for different coin types as merchant tool services because merchants accepting bitcoin HAS dclined and bitpay/coinbase are having to diversify to try retaining some merchants.

but as you say and the devs say.. "this experiment". which aftr 9 years devs and yourself do not have true solid belief in it to call it a fully fledged consumer ready currency.. dvs still call it a beta test experimnt. which is also a flaw that should have been filled and solidified years ago

P.S i actually have a hoard not touched since 2013. and yes i do detest what the core devs have done to erode the ideolisms/utility/features/benefits of bitcoin. this does not make me a bitcoin hater. it makes me a core hater and a realist. i do not kiss ass and i do not suck up to any devs. i also dont scream out utopian dreams and falsehoods.

bitcoin shot to fame due to its ideolisms of 2009-2013. but slowly the utility, benefits, purposes of bitcoin that made up those ideolisms has eroded away. it has changed from a ideolistic asset to a risky gamble

think about all the ideologies bitcoin had before 2013
barrierless:-
people could earn bitcoin without a bank account and without ID. via:
   selling goods for bitcoin*(fee war stopped it being used to buy novalty goods/daily life stuff like toilet roll and baked beans)
   runnng a node using their own GPU (ASICS stopped it being earned by normal people)
   going to a store and paying cash and getting it swapped for btc without ID(exchange AMLKYC stoped it)

virtually free/low fee:-
people could get small amounts without worrying about the tx fee
   it used to be better than some developed countries banking system (UK now offers FREE wire transfers same day usually in under 10 minutes)
   there used to be a fee priority formulae and idea's to improve it(core instead removed the fee formulae and left it open to a fee war)
   the fee used to be fractions of a penny (now tx fee is above some developing countries minimum wage)

decentralised:-
people used to have their own nodes that they could make themselves and be allowed to run on the network and make their own proposals for new features and use consensus to decide if the community wanted it
   (now its core controlling the proposals and any node that has a proposal that core have not roadmapped get bilaterally split/REKT to avoid a consensus)
   (its now classed as distributed ledger technology. not decentralised blockchain. even the main paid devs of core have started to admit they prefer DLT buzzword)

a currency cannot be a sustainable store of value(asset) purely for the buzz of store of value. there has to be a reason behind the store of value.
yes fiat is not gold backed. but it is minimum wage and tax backed. EG in america a $10 is about 1 hour 20 minutes of minimum wage, and people see that value of it as that once they are truly asked the dep question about how they value a $10 bank note. in short someone having $10 see's it valued at 1 hour 20 minutes sweat equity

if bitcoin has backed value, its not going to be a store of value. and just becomes a speculative gamble.
i have recently only valued bitcoin based on its mining cost "sewat equity"
same with gold. gold would only be $1 if it only cost $1 to mine an ounce. but because gold costs $1k+ to mine an ounce. and gold has ideolism of curuit boards, jewellery utility. gold has more of a stable, les risky and more sustainable asset AND commodity classification.
bitcoin doesnt have commodity classification and its asset values are eroding. all thats left is its "sweat equity" and greed

with all that said. tulips today still exist. but not at the same prices as a few centuries ago

the "highs" of last year lasted minutes
EG
there is no point saying that a retailer sold a 50" TV for $1. if there was only 1 TV and the store manager himself bought it.. such spectacular pricing events does not help anyone and no one benfits from the special price.

.
what people should concentrate on is that we do not go below the LOWS of previous years.

there are ways for a exchange whale/group of sharks, school of piranha to cause a mega spike to a new ATH but it can just correct back down to low levels again that exact same day. thus not being a useful price for many people to take an advenatage of, but becomes just a statistic.

so try not to concentrate on short term 10 minute events. and think about long term stable growth that everyone can take advantag of.

once people start accepting and helping to build good supports for the lows to nevr drop. then th cause/reaction would be it helps the speculative shirt term jumps to hannen and keps the low supports increasing. so that people dont need to hope for one time ATH events.. they can aim for long term increases

not a good idea

i have a hoard that i will not touch for 20 years
a hoard i will not touch for 10 years
a hoard i will not touch for5 years.

i would not want any pool to have the ability to take control of my 20,10,5 year hoards simply because they have not moved for X blocks.

nor would it work if its a "known loss" because people will then start to shout out that X stash that does not belong to them. (pretend) its actually theirs but they lost the keys.
EG we all know craig wright does NOT own the satoshi stash. all he done was copy and paste some public keys. so in no way should any pool decide to open satoshi's stash based on a rumour that someone has lost the privkeys to certain addresses.

also onc there is code that opens up hoards to be spent without needing the privkey of that hoard.. bitcoin literally becomes broken. the point is if you dont have the key, no one should be able to touch them.. end of.. no if's no buts...  no private key, no access and thats how it should remain

nope

millions of people do have bitcoin. but only a few thousand people affect the price. this is because the price is not determined by bitcoin holders. it is determined by the few who actually risked depositing funds into known exchanges.

EG there are many people that trade bitcoin away from public exchanges. via private OTC or localbitcoins. and these trades do not impact the bitcoin price.

what you will find is that there are only maybe 2-3 exchanges that many bots use as trend-setters. whereby if a shark(doesnt have to be a whale) or a few piranha move a price on one exchange. thet bots then arbitrage that change on the other exchanges like sheep, without thinking of the reason or consequence.

this happened in 2014. when MTGox closed its doors. it literally was impossible to trade OUT via mtgox, yet mtgox's prices still dropped and the other exchanges followed mmtgox's price down. yep thats right mtgox had a locked door situation of no in-no out. yet was still letting people mess with mtgox's price (kerpeles wanted the price to sink so that the value it would owe to creditors would be 5x lower).. other exchanges should have stayed at over $1k while mtgox closed door manipulation occured. but nope. the sheep folowed mtgox down.

and that was with only a few thousand people playing.

my main hoard has not been touched since 2013 and my coin has had no effect on the price at all.. only those who put coin on public exchanges and actually set a price to buy or sell are the ones that cause a price change.
EG you cannot blame satoshi's stash for any pump or dump because it has not moved in 8+ years

advertising these days is about being subtle. some conspiracy theorists call it subliminal programming. hearing a certain word repeated several times makes that word stick
eg
note down what you might want for an evening meal.

..

advertising companies dont talk about how dough is made and cheese. they just talk about the price of a 12 inch pizza. you may then see in town a Pizza hut. and then when they get home you'll see a leaflet on their doorstep of a pizza menu.

yet still have not been taught about how dough is made or how different cheeses are made. you just know that for only $xx you can get some pizza


i bet your now thinking about maybe having pizza if the thing you noted down earlier is not available to eat as a evening meal

1. xt, clasic, unlimited were not power grabbing. their code did not involve a bilateral split. they were not taking any power away from core because back then. there was a blief that core had no power to take (but funny how you beleive core have power after all your pretense tha core have no power)

2. xt, classic, unlimited just wanted to upgrade the network where all node "brands" could continue to run on the SAME network. but as you now can actually admit. cores power veto'd consensus against a network upgrade via consensus against xt, unlimited, classic. and. so the ntwork didnt upgrade via consensus.
even so. gmaxwell actually begged them to bilateral split. and those other nodes refused. they wanted a network upgrade not a altcoin creation. there was no political reason about power grabbing. it was more so trying to get more functionality out of the network but (inhindsight) requires core to de-power themslves(backdown/compromise) and to play ball with the rest of the community so that everyone was on the same level playing field.

3. i am not defending ver. im just displaying that core are doing the same practice, because theymos and ver are twins of the same big family tree
bloq and blockstream are not opposition. blockstream codd segwit, bloq coded cash.. both are paid by barry silbert. and both get paid by sponsorship of barry silberts media subsiduary coindesk to go to conferences and play act out some rivalry drama.
the funny part is that most core defenders are not independant thinkers. because they are just repeating the ver narrative. but if they were smart independant thinkers they would be talking about jgarzic who actually made bitcoin cash

4. so with all your research(reddiit script reading) and asking script writers (carlton and achowe) do any of them even mention jgarzig. because in all the debates i keep hearing from the core defenders. its the same script, same buzzwords, sam mantra's.
and ys i say core defenders. not bitcoin defenders. because even they have to admit, they are not defending a NETWORK of open community of multiple node code bases. they are defending one team, and are against any other codebase that wishes to upgrade the NETWORK in a different way than core desires

no one will pass the test as the questions are flawed and are not based on the maths of bitcoin.

if its answers they are looking for based on the statements people will write one number, but if the examiner is looking for an answer based on the reality of bitcoin, it would be another number.

th questions are not hard, they are flawed. theres a difference

the pump groups are there only for the organiser to buy coin first and then get sheep to move the price up. so the organiser can sell. and then get the sheep to sell after.

in short only the organiser wins.. so there is no point joining.
if you are going to join and the organiser says its aiming for a 15% hike.. dont be a fool and go with what he says. be there right at the point the coin is mentioned and just grab 2-5%. dont be greedy and wait for 10% because although the organiser wishes and announces 15% it may not even get to 10%. so be smart. aim for 2-5% and get out

think about it. if you can make 2% a week thats doubling your funds in a year. much better interest than any bank would give. so be happy with 2% a week

never let greed or emotion control your funds. be like a robot. set yourself a rule and stick to it. dont let any pump organiser tell you any different. if they say 15%, grab 5% if they say 10% grab 3%

or be smarter and just dont join these groups and dont be a sheep

LOL
so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

there are other things starbucks can do too. i can think upp multiple blackmail extortion methods. and also due to not involving community validation(blockchain). ways a LN hub can tweak its code to have the upper hand. such as being best frinds with the DNS seed nodes so that their hub is part of the initial list fresh nodes see. and thus grabs as many users as possible. and becomes the hanshaker not the handshakee. to ensure the hub gets the customer to sign first. to ensur the customer is on the losing side and makes the hub th real controller of funds

again run some scenarios. it will shock you.
but even th devs have been public to say that you should not use LN unless prepared to lose because they know there are many flaws. they are still only tsting the handshaking to make a payment. they ar still not at the test it to break it until it doesnt break no more stage

PoS is not safer

there are ways to play around with the "validator pool" so that on person with 20 addresses (if the pool requires minimum 20 validators) could slf 'mine' blocks forever

PoS is cheaper to mine.. again making it easier to attack
PoS is more energy efficient as it doesnt require special equipment. but with that said instead of buying millions of $$ of equipment you can spend a smaller amount on staking a validator pool you game the PoS system

flaws in their plan
*their original fundraiser was to get millions of people to invest just a little bit of money to start their 'planning stage' which was to waste $10m-$20m on a boat that can only bed 30 people so that they have a base of operations to 'plan'.
this was a money waste because they could lease an office somewhere for only a couple hundred thousand for a few years. or ven just have group chat on skype from their homes and start it as a 'garage startup' which is virtually free

*they spent thousands of dollars on graphic designers (not architects) to draw up their utopian dream in colour. problem is they could not even talk about how big a bedroom or bathroom would be. and thus. if you cant calculated the dimensions of a housing unit, you cant calculate the "island" size. and thus you cant calculate how many people could live on the "island" .. so you cant calculate the cost per square foot per person to live there. you cant calculate the amount of supplies needed to feed and clothe the residents. you cant calculate how often re-supply ships will be needed and cant calculate how big/often the disposable of waste would be, or the ecological impact of the island on the ocean would be.
so the thousands of dollars wasted on pretty images didnt even have any architectual or planning input to its design. and there has been no fundemental planing of the basics of supplies, waste disposable, sustainability(farming food space required/how many ships they need to rent/buy for resupply)

*i would reveal many other flaws, but i dont want them doing a rush job of buzzwording some statement of fake numbers to pretend they have done all this planning to scam people into investing into something that actually is unplanned.
this is because last time they ran this promotion, i reverse psych'd them by throwing out a number and funnily enough they ran with that number and made a statement about my mythical number i came up with. and they buzzworded it and made it look like it had substance. but i ripped them apart when i revealed my number had no substance so them using that exact same number had no substance too.

funny part is i brought up these flaws probably 2 years ago maybe.. and they are still not one step forward than then. its like they just want a grab money scheme befor they even do anything.. which to me translates to they are not bothered about doing anything. apart from covering the costs of their own vacations on a pacific island

lol
you make me laugh
so if your dad has custody of you. your mom cant have custody of you. and you cant do your own thing because only one person has custody??
and as a offspring of parents you have no responsibility to maintain and keep yourslf safe too?

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys? and you no longer have rights to your own self preservation?

a apartment custodian has a key to the apartments to secure and maintain an apartment. so you cant have a key to your apartment anad your not responsible for also maintaining and securing your apartment

a custodian is not a sole controller. so dont even think that something like coinbase can avoid being a custodian by simply implementing multisig vaults. sorry to burst your bubble but coinbase would still be a custodian.

maybe you need to revisit the definition of custodian


actually it doesnt. though i am not sure why you are endlessly bringing BCH up. seems you are stuck in the reddit mindset of there only being 2 camps
which seems a narrowminded point of view to have in a decentralised ecosystem

anyway, using a legacy native tx i can make more payments faster than LN can.
ill give you a few days to think about that. have a nice time thinking about that


you said earlier a person has full control of their funds. and could not control the other persons funds, there would be no need for revocations.
again have a long think about that.
use your own scenario and alpha test your own scenario against yourself. dont run utopian scenarios of perfect condition 'does it work' tests. but be a debugger/bruteforcer/blackhat and run 'does it break' tests. make yourself go into the mindset of how you could steal from your wife if you had a joint bank account with her. run scenarios of if you were both sides of a mutlisig how you could gain the edge and blackmail, extort, steal from yourself.  you will be surprised.
ill give you a hint. due to a varience of onchain fee's at different times. a hub would like to adjust the fee when it broadcasts and would prefer to be the broadcaster because your payment affets other people the hub is linked to. so the hub would like the upper hand.
ill mention one such upperhand.. sighash_none.. but be warned there are many more things a hub will have, to have the upper hand.
but enjoy playing a blackhat of 'will it break' instead of asskissing 'utopia works'.. you will surprise yourself


dont assume utopia
dont assume because someone renames a chargeback as being called "revocation" that its not a chargeback
dont assume because someone names a bank branch a hub that its not a bank branch
dont assume because someone names a bank HQ a 'factory' that its not a HQ for hubs(bank branches)
dont assume because maths theory says a tx can be validated in 0.002 seconds, that 0.002 seconds is what real people using the system in real life will experience.

once you get out of your wood cabin named the core retreat. and started to test the walls instead of hugging the people in it. you will see the termites fall out the holes in the wall, when you hit it.
but although i dont live in a glass house. id prefer to live in a glass house than a wood cabin. due to being able to see beyond the wood. and yes i would not fear throwing stones.. no one should fear throwing stones. its the best way to find out whats easy to break and whats bulletproof

but id be the person that throws stones when the glass is being made. not wait until the house is built. but anyway go watch let them build your wood cabin and invite your core friends. live in cabin fever. and only notice th holes once the termites have already invaded

you said your browser is doing 4.5H/s
. firstly its impossible to do half a hash. and a normal PC can handle atleast 4.5 MH/s (4,500,000 hashes)
so lets say your computer is doing 4.5Mh/s (a million times more then you suggested in your first post)

you would earn 9 satoshi's a year

in short
to get the smallest decimal of bitcoin, which is called a satoshi (0.00000001btc)
would take you 1 month and 10 days at the current level

lets interject my thoughts on that debate you two are having.
did you just say that? i am so facepalming that

onchain sole privkey control is a step towards the death of custodial bankers.
LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial so multiig is a step towards custodial bankers
LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model. and will requre hubs (bank branches) so LN hubs are another step towards custodial banking
LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

LN features are multiple steps towards custodial banking.

one thing you need to learn about banking is this. dont think of american banks as one computer holding 300million accounts.
think of it as 95,000 bank branches DISTRIBUTED in different towns. with an average 3,200 accounts per branch

now
swap "hub" for "bank branch"
swap "channel" for "account"
swap multisig countrpart for authoriser
swap hub authoriser for bank manager
swap "route" for "wire transer"
swap "LN" for "swift network"

any system that has a punishment for moving funds without someone elses consent is a banking system.. and is not what bitcoin was originally built for

browser mining BTC? dang thats like 2011 out of date tech.. be careful you probably might have downloaded a trojan as there is no reason to make such an out dated broswer extention these days, unles for naferious reasons

but lets put things into numbers
for a 1% chance of mining a block you need 20,000 ASICS. an asic is a special machine that processes 14,000,000,000,000 hashes/s. and yes you need 20,000+ of these devices just for 1% chance

so with a block being 14btc(with fees)
280,000,000,000,000,000 hashs earns you 14btc a day
20,000,000,000,000,000 hashs earns you 1btc a day
200,000,000 hashs earns you 1sat a day (0.00000001btc a day)
547,945 hashes earns you 1 sat a year

the internet can handle 32mb
users nodes can handle 32mb (its not raspberry pi v1 days of 2009. nor is it basic ADSL of 2009 either) people are living in the fibre/5g era of duelcore multigigbyte ram with terrabyte hard drives

(just for laughs: 1995: floppy disk "no do not release digital camera's there is no way a piece of portable plastic can hold a 2mb image" we should remain with kodak film and get people to not print their own photo's but lock their photo's into a walmart photo printing service hub, where they decide which photos should be printed )

anyway
32mb every ~10mins is 200mb an hour.

netflix/livestream/youtube use more than that.
yep millions of people livestream(liveupload) their gameplay while also using bandwidth for the game play. so if your against 32mb.. go complain to
google that google+ videocalls wont work
vimeo that livestream wont work
apple that facetime wont work
amazon that twitch.tv wont work
microsoft that skype wont work
google that youtube uploads wont work

... oh wait they do work...... shocker

oh.. to add to that although a block may have a 32mb limit. that does not mean pools ar forced to make 32mb blocks.
take the old bitcoin legacy mainnet of 2009-2013
1mb block consensus rule - under0.25mb mining policy
then upto 2013: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.5mb mining policy
then upto 2015: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.75mb mining policy

meaning a consensus HARD 1mb limit was in place with also a stepped increment soft policy limit growing at 0.25mb evry couple years.

if you ar going to rebut about the validation time and that laughable rebuttable of linear quatratics..
a smart contract(ln channel for instance) is usually a 2in 2 out tx.. it does not need a tx to have the ability of 20,000 sigops
so the solution is to limit the signops per tx so that no one can even make a delay causing validation event by abusing max sigops


anyway
my community?
damn dude you really are stuck in the band camp wars.
i am not pidgeon holed in any band camp. nver have been. again just because i detest core does not mean i must belong to some other team.. take a few steps back and move away from the core cabin. and you will see a wider world. gt out of the echo chamber you are stuck in, its not healthy for you

..
as for utilising new OPcodes.. great. more functionality.. but only if that functionality does not open trojan horse back doors for abuse.
EG
one opcode proposal is to have a TX just sign an input thus allow
(il explain the utopia false pretense first)
the ability to alter how much a tx fee is needed without needing to re-sign a tx
(now for the reality)
alter the values of output without needing to re-sign. and thus if there were 2 outputs
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.1btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0995btc
(fee:0.0005)

could be altered to
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.199btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0005btc
(fee:0.0005)
https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/sighash-none
many users of smart contracts do not have technical scope to check if a tx is a sighash-none before signing. yep do not expect LN users to request a clartext rawtx version of the contract before signing. which means the system can be abused by counterparts that create such so that they can then alter the output and broadcast a tx where they get most value back to them.

this is why i detest LN because there is loop holes of moving value around after signing and without a blockchain auditing it while in channel. most users are stuck with autopilot and trusting theeir counterparty. even when the counterparty can compile their own LN node to produce such nasty tx types

my hate of the LN is also that it does not scale to a reliable system of random payments to random people for a billion people.
also the features of locking in funds, requiring co-signing and then having delayed maturity and revokes. and other bugs, trojans and backdoors just turns it into somthing worse than fiat2.0

theymos does the same thing about bitcoin core.

check out the days of bitcoin Xt, bitcoin classic, bitcoin unlimited. these were software that did not want to be altcoins but wanted to be on the old mainnet and continue on the old mainnet. but just not want to sheep follow core.. and theymos REKT, censored and abused them, by saying that they were not bitcoin and only core was bitcoin.

theymos and ver are 2 sides of the same coin (excuse the pun)
so while attacking ver, atleast drop the hypocrisy and attack theymos aswell.. if not then simply accept bitcoin core is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash and neither get to own just "bitcoin" brand