bitcoin cash was not invented by ver.
much like bitcoin core was not invented by theymos

theymos is just the social drama leader of core by owning the forums and bitcoin.org
ver is just the social drama leader of cash by owning the forums and bitcoin.com

when it comes to development.
bitcoin core has the blockstream paid devs
bitcoin cash has the bloq paid devs

and it makes me laugh how all the finger pointing is directed at mouthpieces and not the code controllers.
bitcoin ecosystem is about code and rules followed using code. not social drama. so once you look passed the social drama of mouth pieces and concentrate on who is doing the coding. things become clearer

in the future we may well see that the bitcoin core network become part of a master chain for USA customers. we may see bitcoin cash as a masterchain of asia. that way its not a whole world population on one network but a multichain/sidechain style vision of co-operation.

and yes even visa do this. they have a USA network and a Euro network and another network for each major continent.

but what needs to happen first is for the community to stop with the social drama that does not impact the code, people need to stop ignoring the code changes that can adversely hinder/delay/cause friction to the community.

this does includ having the courage to step up and voice your concerns when devs are going the wrong path or a path that takes the longest route.
becasue if you do not challenge the devs, they wil just do what they want because they do not hear objections and thus treat it as community desiring what they do (to them ignorance is bliss)

so speak up against code changes for purposes that seem less about meeting community concerns and seems more about corporate adoption. do not be afraid of devs. do not let them control the code just because they have done the job forever.
after all some devs may retire, some may get bored and move onto other projects. so dont blindly idolise them and let them do as they please because they may not be around in a few years to undo any work they created now

in short
adam back did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period
craig wright did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period

theymos has not wrote code in a couple years
ver has not wrote code in a couple years

so dont start arguing about mouthpieces and concentrat on the code

were people moaning about the majority of green days in 2017. nope
well take the balance. if there was a huge period of green in the past you have to accept that there will be a point when there will be more reds...

but over all. if people stop giving a crap about an all time high point that only lasts for 10 minutes every few years. and instead look at the periodic LOWS then you will se that the price is actually healthy and on a rise
so ignore the highs, ignore the speculation and concentrate on the base value which is wher the lowest prices are found. the point were people refuse to sell below
this is the base value line in green

bitcoin prices moves by upto 10% daily
others called bitcoin rat poison even as far back as 2013..
the two events are not linked.


the interview with warren buffet was the interviewer using the term "rat poison" by mentioning the charlie munger refernce and warren bufft with a smile saying "probably rat poison squared"

the thing is..
once you know the RATS = bankers. then i probably would agree that bitcoin should be rat poison. but right now, bitcoin is turning into cheese and they are eating it all up

for a reliable use without needing multiple channels all prefunded and without neding mutiple hops of many middlemen agreements. people will use the banker hubs (custodials) which will end up being AMLKYC

the creator, using the pseudonym was one person. although he did patch multiple idea's from many people (using their own names/pseudonyms) there was only one person using the pseudonym satoshi nakamoko

every day there are 1800 new bitcoins

from 2009-2012 it was 50 coins per block, with ~144 blocks per day (7200btc/day)
2013-2016 it was 25 coins per block with ~144 blocks a day (3600btc/day)
2016- it is currently 12.5 per block with ~144 blocks a day (1800btc/day)
satoshi nakamoto was NOT the only person mining in 2009. the amount of coins mined by satoshi by the time he stepped back is calculated to be less than 1million coins
this date keeps getting revised. as the maths was meant to be that 210,000 blocks the reward halves. but due to the variance of difficulty and the mining competition of increasing hashrates. 210,000 blocks are not solved to schedule. the block halvings have been occuring earlier than predicted and thus the final event will happen sooner than 2140
the mining proces halves the coins per block produced every 210,000 blocks which is suppose to be roughly every 4 years but due to the mining competition this schedule is not exact
of amounts being re-binded to new/updated publickeys. whereby the history is locked into a chain of blocks of data
in bitcoin cores code there are 77thousand lines . but bitcoin clients can be wrote in multiple languages. only those who want core to be "bitcoin" make the mistake of only concentrating on core as the only codebase/project. but many beleive core is THE project and so its just been deemed that bitcoin core is the project everyone should follow. hypocritically though. if you highlight their desire for centralism of bitcoin core by calling it bitcoin core they then pretend they are not bitcoin core fans

you do know segwit+LN was never about malleability... but was about BC1q addresses and multisig features. so that bankers can be our co-signer(owner of funds) and so that.. (yes yes i know many will orgasm at this rvelation) so that U.S banks can have USD1q addresses and UK banks can have GBP1q addresses so that banks can then do currency swaps on their hubs(bank branches) within LN

yes LN is not the solution to bitcoin decentralisation. its the pathway to non immutible banker co-signed offchain fund management.

but hey i bet most are just salivating at the prospect of people having their funds locked into bankers "factory" UTXO's and having to endlessly user bankers hubs, just for the ability of jumping in and out of fiat.

lol
here we go again. the over promised hyped up LN utopia. and the many sheep thinking its the end goal solution to bitcoins woe's

i really hate it when people say theoretical because they have not ben bothered to do the physical act of using it in real scenarios of real bruteforce testing the system.
the 0.002 is based on a over promised statistic of a rout with minimal hops thats pre setup the route, the hops(channels) in the route are all fully funded and have the minimal fee set up and agreed on. everyone is online and then bam its then timed... in actual fact i dont think even that its 0.002seconds. decker probably just done some maths on validation of signature times to treat payment is accepted, rather than real scenario time

1. it cant do 500 tx a second regularly/everytime guaranteed. that 0.002 is only possible AFTER it has found its routes and only transacts through those routes theirafter.
yet to find a route and make a payment takes longer, because with each hop (channel) it has to pass through causes a payment to take longer. and finding a route that has funds available and an acceptable fee. takes longer

2. emphasis the theoretics are of if you had a active connection to a very nearby channel that is online and active and accepting payments

so imagine you set up a route to buy starbucks coffee. once that route is set up. then yes theoretically you can pay starbucks in 0.002 using an existing route(deckers 500/sec stat). but imagine one of the hops in the route does not have the funding reserve to hotpotato your payment through. you then have to find a new route. which means it wont be 0.002seconds. also this 0.002sconds is for a theoretical route with very minimal hops. as i said the more hops the longer it takes.

also imagine instead of wannting to buy coffee from starbucks you then want to buy groceries at walmart. this is not a 0.002second payment because you have not pre-setup the route and also its harder to find hops(channels) with more than $2 to guarantee payment flow.

3. because not all channels will have say $100 per participant/per channel to hot potato your walmart grocery payment. EG to be a reliable participant in a network of say 5000 users either requires a node to have 8 channels for it to take 5 hops to get end to end
in short to allow everyone just 1 payment. each node has to have $800($100 per channel) on reserve MINIMUM just to allow a few people to make that 1 payment. before some routes have to close

X[$100 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$100 - $100]C   C[$100 - $100]D   D[$100 - $100]WALMART
imagine X wants to buy $100 of groceries. above shows A xinging a healthy route. now each HOP(a,b,c,d) has just 2 channels for easy display
lets see what happens when the payment is made

X[$0 - $200]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $200]C   C[$0 - $200]D   D[$0 - $200]WALMART
X has now paid walmart. problem now is (a,b,c,d) dont have $100 on their side to make another X-> walmart payment.
infact A cant buy anything from walmart because (b,c,d) are empty
infact B cant buy anything from walmart because (c,d) are empty
infact C cant buy anything from walmart because (d) is empty

all that is able to be done is a refund backwards

this is why nodes end up needing more than a couple channels and needing even more funding than $200($100 per channel)
take D for instance if D wants to be a reliable route for walmart just for 4 participants D would need $500 just to allow each participant to buy their weekly shop once each. C would need $400 Bwould need $300 A would need $200 and X would need $100.. and thats without preloading the reverse channels

by reverse channels i mean both directions are not loaded and its treated as a one direction payment x->walmart.. as shown here
X[$100 - $0]A   A[$200 - $0]B   B[$300 - $0]C   C[$400 - $0]D   D[$500 - $0]WALMART
at this point walmart cant pay D anything. D cant pay C any thing. and so on. its not a walmart -> x direction route

anyway lets allow X to buy walmart groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$200 - $100]C   C[$300 - $100]D   D[$400 - $100]WALMART
now A can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$100 - $200]C   C[$200 - $200]D   D[$300 - $200]WALMART
now B can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$100 - $300]D   D[$200 - $300]WALMART
now C can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$100 - $400]WALMART
now D can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$0 - $500]WALMART

ok so now all 5 users have bought 1 week of groceries. but now they cant buy next weeks groceries

hopefully this shows that with just being a route of 2 channels would mean that you would have to in a 5 hop system hold $500 to be able to be a route of 4 others and yourself for just 1 payment each.

now imagine having 4 channels, = more funds needed and pre participants routing through you... if everyone were only 4-5 hops away walmart .. then D would need $12100 just for him and 120 others to buy just 1 week of groceries

as this shows.


take a good look at that image.. imagine that after the first week D done the groceries. now everyone needs to refill (close open channels) all over again and the main route A,b,C,D would need to have the big extra buffer reserves for all the connections.. ABCD cant just have $100 in the route reserve. even if they only personally spend $100 on themselves
and this is only amounts for 120 users only wanting to spend $100 a week..
i dare anyone to start running scenarios of a decentralised (non factory hub/node) where by it doesnt require people to have more than 8 connections and doesnt need to be more than 8 hops away.. where by everyone can be connected up to 1 billion people.

do the maths people how many hubs/hops/channels and funding pr channel would be needed for a reliable network of
20,000 people
100,000 people
1million people
100million people
1billion people

you will be shocked at how a decentralised system wont work.

take banks. in america there are 95,000 banks serving 300mill people. imagiine that like each bank branch having 3157 channels (customer accounts)
and each bank has to communicate. there would need to also have
~95000 connections to be 1 hop from another hub(bank)
~308 connections to be 2 hop from another hub(bank)
~46 connections to be 3 hop from another hub(bank)

so work out how many channels each individual person would need to not be in a bank branch hub situation
and how much funding per channel that individual would need.
and how many hops away (degrees of separation) to be connected to everyone

then look at the banker branch situation of hubs with ~4000 channels where each individual is only atmost 4 hops away

youll soon se a decentralised hop model does not work, due to reliance of multiple hops all bing online funded. by the cost to each individual to be funded and the time to route and make payment.

LN's utopia only works in a bank branch (hub) model where your multisig counterpart has authorisation over thousands of users

LN's model/niche/ appeal is not as a scaling solution for everyones needs. it should be treated as a 3rd party srvice managed by hubs(paypal2.0) and used for those making regular paypnts to a regular end recipient..
not a pay anyone anywhere anytime instantly..
but a pay regularly to known recipients service

banks dont hate crypto

banks themselves are actually making their own cryptocurrencies (research hyperledger). this will reduce their maintenance/auditing and scurity  internal costs.

for a bank. all they see is a crypto buyer has fiat. and transfers fiat into someone elses account so that the buyer can get crypto.
no fiat is destroyed/taken out of circulation. its just fiat movements between one account to another much like buying an apple iphone or doing grocery shopping. so it does not affect FIAT

banks are still covered by legal tender, minimum wage and tax laws and so fiat will still circulate. so again banks dont care about crypto being a threat.

the majority of "bans" are not about stopping banking customers. but are REMINDER memo''s from government for a bank themselves to not offer a in bankbranch teller counter for crypto, not offer a BTM in a bank branch. and to continue to just handle fiat. this is the same laws that have been around for decades and why you dont see a bank selling baked beans, teddybears and toilet role. because a banks job is fiat. a banks 'product' is fiat.

but this does not mean citizens cannot hold or use currencies from different countries/colonies/communities.

though my research was more about their prospect of actually making the village.
when it comes to the currency. i seen it as a commune/cult coin only used by 300 people daily. whos gonna pay billions needed to make the floating village just for (deducting staff) 100 residents/guests

they have wasted years of planning and researching and spent too much time on mney grabbing promotions

i have been following the seastead concept for years. and they are no where near building anything. they are just invstment grabbing to promote a concept which when doing all the research still has many flaws that need to be filled before a single sheet of material is purchased.
alot of the funding has been and will be wasted on their so called "planning phase". (they are still in the same scripted promotion of being not yet at the planning phase because they need funding, a couple years ago)

a few years back i was optmistic until i drilled down into their paper work and action plans and seen the emptiness of the concept. yes they used buzzwords and hopes of utopia and lots of graphic images of paradise. but the reality of a crypto village just did not get well thought out.

they want billions, for something few people can use. even just that. demanding more than $5million per possible "resident" is not a good request.
nor is the fact that to run such a island requires employee's who would take up some of that space. thus thus dilute the amount of "residents" that could/would afford their asks.

i could go on about their lack of research and plan for utilities as that has a impact not just on the lifestyle expected on a island but also the ecology of the area/water they promote to want to stead in. i wont say to much as they will just make some buzzworded reply that its all handled. ill just wait for them to get some hints and do the research and planning and provide solutions to show they are ready. which hey are not. even after a few years of me looking into their concepts

by choice?
lol

users wanted to use XT... core REKT campained it
users wanted to use classic... core REKT campained it
users wanted to use unlimited... core REKT campained it

core devs then demanded the other clients that were not core to not use consensus on the same network. but to split (fork-off)
then
core devs then demanded the other clients that were not core to not use consensus on the same network. but to come to a joint agreement with core to bilaterally split

and guess what happened in august. yep. it was not a consensus upgrade of a single network. it was a bilatral split of 2 networkds that had 2 different rules/netwok topologies and protocols that differ from the original network known as bitcoin(pre summer 2017)

cores segwit protocols are not the same as bitcoin 2009-2016
the block data. the transaction types. etc etc. it all changed. both sides went in separat directions.

and before you even bother saying "backward compatibility"
old nodes cant just take in block data as is. it needs a translator.

its like having an invasion by forigners where the natives are no longer part of society but treated like PoW rfugee's getting handed downstream rations and having translators. but are no longer allowed to WORK(mine/validate) in society.

learn downstream filters (gmax bussword) or bridge nodes(Luke JR bussword). then learn that 2009-2014 nodes cannot relay all current blocks in full current serialisation.
yes the new segwit direction can understand legacy. but the legacy cannot understand segwit

WAKE UP
infact.. take a day off.. have a good sleep and tomorrow. remove the core defense cap. stop thinking from a position of protecting/defending core. if you truly beleived that core are not your king. then dont defend them. instead think of it from a proposition of other nodes that are not just core partners/sheep.
you will start to see why core are so heavily demanding they are called the "core" reference.. because they dont want other nodes competing using consensus. thus it their network. and they pretty much admit it

so either take off the core defense cap or just admit it and say. "decentralisation is dead, long live distribution.."
yep core devs love the new buzword distributed ledger technology(DLT)

i gues someones been reading my posts. and then made their own report about it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3402789.msg35629250#msg35629250
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3298025.msg34424094#msg34424094
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3140327.msg32495804#msg32495804

which yes shows that for years mining has had a support line. it does not explain "the dip" that began in march where the bitcoin price dipped below the cost of mining(very rare event over the last 9 years).

this "dip" as everyone is meming.. is due to naive trend anals that just draw triangles on a price chart with no understanding of cause and effect.
such as the 2013 spike and the 2014 drop.
those events were caused by
the October 2013 ASIC adoption/release - price rise
the MTGox 2014 fiasco - price decline.

and so the trend anals simple draw a triangle that X PRICE happened autumn of one year so Y PRICE will happen winter/spring.. without understanding that in 2017/2018 there was no new asic nor major exchange events this time round so no reason that the past spike and drop would repeat.

but due to trend anals, trading bots followed these empty triangles to trade away from rational thought and just fiollow empty triangle lines into a dip that should not have occured.(im talking about irrational dip below 9k(march'18) not the correction below 20k(december'17))

so with that said. unless trend anals stoppd being anals.we shall continue to see trading bots blindly trading without rational reason.
so trend anals should start to analyse better to be technical analysts and begin to actually produce indicators that have meaning and proofs based on real life current events. not history of empty numbers they have not researched the cause of

in short.
in a rational setting before the recent influx of teenage youtube wannabe anals.... following the mining cost was good advice. but this recent dip is proving other wise (hense i cal them trend anals, instead of technical analysts)

my personal opinion on the price is to never, ever give a darn crap about ATH(all time highs) and instead look at the 2-6month Lows and draw a line between them and you will see that we are currenctly still on a stable and noticable rise. if you use the LOW as a indicator
(green line)




note: many alts/crapcoins mining is REACTIVE to pricing. because they drop off and mine another crap coin if its not profitable. but bitcoin mining is a trend setter as they will hold on and let early holders spend their coins until what is left if soins that cost more to buy/mine and thuse the price reacts to mining. rathr than other way round.
in short dont use this analysis on crap coins as they do not cause price movements like bitcoin does.

the housing market had bubble periods
the gold market had bubble periods
the dot com market had bubble periods

it does not mean the asset is empty air.. but that at some periods the "price" exceeds Value

some call it speculative spike caused by hype.. some call it bubbles caused by stirring the water.
either way its old news as bitcoin has settled back down to supported water lines

amazon wants to take over the 'reporting' / journalist / researcher that happens behind news media.

but this is what the result will be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

news media always had a background system of pre wrote stories that media would purchase to then broadcast. they are just patenting a updated versio using crypto.

network hashrate recent minimum was 28 exahash = 2mill s9 ant miners at 14terrahash

now the top GPU does 1mhash so would need 14000 gpu to do 1 asics job. yet an asic only uses the electricity of a few gpu's, thus is more energy efficient than the past.

imagine how things would be if this was still a GPU hashing era, but with todays difficulty

28billion GPU's would use ALOT more electric

..
i wont even get into the details of the electric needed if we were in the CPU mining scenario at todays difficulty. as that electricity requirement would be soo much more.

bitcoins 21m cap is the same as saying there are only 175,000 tonnes of gold

at code level there are not 21million coins going to be produced. its actually measured in satoshi's at code level. and thus there are 2.1quadrillion sharable units of measure(analogy: gold ounces)

but the main point is. bitcoins whole ethos falls flat if bitcoin took over the world and became the only world currency. bitcoins ethos and purpose is/was suppose to be a open barrierless choice away from FIAT. so having a choice and options is good.. but being forced to only use one currency is bad. so dont expect everyone to store their entire life savings in bitcoin.

but yea if you imagine 1 billion(12.5%) of the world using bitcoin partially invested as part of a portfolio then each person can have a noticable amount of satoshi's in their control

i see things like coinbase custodian service not as a bitcoin bank account. but as a trading account, holding just the play funds i want to risk day trading through fiat and back..
separetly id still hoard my main coins privately under my own privkey control.

anyway give it a couple years and coinbase will run a LN hub. with channels for both btc (bc1q addresses) and USD (us1q addresses) thus you will get your multisig desires.. aswell as ability to trade fiat/btc.. but yea expect AMLKYC if you want to have a channel with a hub thats owned by fiat custodial services like coinbase

but due to schnorr and segwit you wont know how many 'managers' have co-signing authority over the channels master public key funds because it wont reveal that info on the blockchain prior to it being spent. and by the time a counter party spends it without needing your authorisation its too late

so thats why im still gonna stick to legacy keypairs and not play around with segwit/LN with my main stash.  
but im pretty sure too many people are salivating about letting regulation in and KYC customers of custodian hubs. and also allow those custodians to have control of funds. purely for the greedy benefit of having FIAT trading available via LN

so im also not gonna put my main funds on LN and not treat LN as a end goal/solution to btc issues. and just treat LN as a side custodian service for niche uses of small amounts

(about as unbiased as i can make my comment)

lesson one
there are 17mill coins produced so far

lesson two
EXCHANGES which is where the public price is derived from only has a few hundred coins on each exchanges market depth.. not millions.

lesson three
each order line. (price) is filled with small amount of coins..

master lesson
it does not cost much to make a market price move. infact most bots are programmed to sheep follow. so if one exchange moves more than 1% the bots on other exchanges would follow automatically and some would arbitrage the change in price for a quick 1%. this can then cause a trigger effect to make other bots move. and ventually they all settle down when they all get to a price they agree is too low to sell below.

its not about large whales. its not about even small group sharks.. its about schools of piranha all taking a nibble and all folowing the same current/wave as others

your getting it.
bitcoins underlying value (the bottom/ all time low value) is based on cost of production.. much like gold mining. a gold miner would never sell their gold for less then it cost to extract the gold. and thus bcause it cost $1k+ to mine gold instead of $1 .. its why gold has a baseline support value of ~$1k+ not $1

lets thnik of it like a bathtub of water. where the waterline is the true value... then ontop the water line is the speculative area based on utility/function/desire. and how many thousands of coins(out of the millions) are on an exchange to satisfy a demand.
this speculative area above the waterline is the bubble area. that can rapidly inflate or pop. depending on how much the bath water is stirred up by many different reason. but stilll leaves the waterline(base value) intact

BITS
100 sat= 1 bit(ubtc)

should be what we should all start using commonly. i already started using it years ago and started seeing some services following suit, so we should all start using bits for common measure

0.00010000 = 100bits  (thus satoshi's are then treated like cents)
(dollar analogy..   bits=bucks sats=cents)