yet another topic trying to get core centralists to own "bitcoin"

so here we ago again
NO ONE ONES BITCOIN. and core definetly should not. this is all just a ploy to hand the brand and trademark to one central team

bitcoin is like dollar

america have dollar
australia have dollar
canada have dollar

in normal conversation a canadaian CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint U.S dollar
in normal conversation a american CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint canadian dollar

an australian forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy U.S dollars"
an american forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy A.U dollars"
a bitcoin core exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin cash
a bitcoin cash exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin core

EG
if a european wants dollars, so the conversation is.. "do you want U.S at ~0.8Eur/$ or A.U at ~0.6/$"
if a fiat holder wants bitcoin, so the conversation is.. "do you want core at ~$9,000k or cash ~$900"

so the conversation is there is U.S dollar AND A.U dollar
so the conversation is there is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash

there would only be fraud if Australia was selling australian dollar at the american dollar rate

there would only be fraud if bitcoin cash was selling bitcoin cash coins at the bitcoin core rate

an american can say "i got 99 dollars but a A.U dollar aint one"
an australian can say "i got 99 dollars but a U.S dollar aint one"

an american cannot say "australia is fake,fraud, non existant, a myth, a dream they dont have dollars"

once you stop being a foolish sheep protecting core as a centralist group... and instead ignore the core team and think about DECENTRALISATION and noone should own bitcoin. then you see that this social drama of lawsuits/banning/reporting. is just cencorsip to drive out consensus/decentralisation/competition.. and just promote centralisation towards the core team becoming a monarchy

so, how did it all occur you may ask..

the 2017 event was a bilateral split instigated by the core team and their partners (blockstream: samson mow... Bloq:jgarzic) to do a bilateral split where BOTH SIDES become an altcoin
yes both blockstream guys and bloq guys(the main paid devs involved in core) who are all paid by the same investors created both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash
yes we all know that the core team are point fingers at jihan and ver.. but it was actually BLOQ that made bitcoin cash.. yes thats how desparate to cause propaganda they are that they wont admit their own partner made it

anyway the bilateral fork..
unlike UNILATERAL forks like clams. .

its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash
(unilateral)

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash
(unilateral)

but was a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash
(biilateral)

yes BOTH sides split

this whole thing would not have happened if the bilateral split did not occur and REAL consensus was used. but no.. core hated that they only had 35% of the vote and so forced a bilateral split using their partner and then tried blaming a third person.
(facepalm) at cores shadiness to try making bitcoin centralised


so. the solution is simple..
when thinking of bitcoin. think of it as the same conversation you would have travelling around the world and talking about dollar.
"is that U.S, A.U. CAD your talking about/want"

then things become simple

if anyone sent coins to the wrong address.. just get the private key from the wallet and use it on the correct wallet for the coin that got sent

as for the lawsuit.
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a A.U dollar at a U.S rate
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a U.S dollar at a A.U rate

i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin cash coin at a bitcoin core rate
i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin core coin at a bitcoin cash rate
so no fraud.

there is no regulation/law that prevents watermarks
as long as the watermark does not cover the information on the identity

EG a photo should only watermark over the shoulders/below the neck area so they can stil see the face to compare to other faces

usually best water mark it with the service your sending it TO
EG
"submitted TO coinbase". when sumitting to coinbase

that way if a naferious coinbase temp/employee tried making a bitpay account using your ID. bitpay will see its not a fresh submission but ID grabbed from coinbase. which would usually raise red flags

it also helps if bitpay then contacted you. you can see that your ID was stolen/cloned via coinbase and not via other services you have signed up to

most countries KYC policies dont actually do anything with the identity. they dont pass it onto authorities nor do checks at the application stage.
meaning you are not being vetted and scrutinised at application stage. they just need an identity on record for 3 reasons:
1. it stops people making more than one account
2. when issues do arise, its harder to then ask for ID.. compared to asking upfront and then only using it if problems arise
3. it scares away naferious people for even signing up as they fear their nefarious future actions will haunt them later

in short most services just store it and only do checks if red flags are raised. the only real time there are checks done is if the business offers
services that can cost them money. EG offering credit/loans/bartabs. a business will want to chck if your able to handle repayments, had court issues they need to know.

but straigh 1 for 1 swaps with no loans or delayed payment usually doesnt need scrutiny. and as such just having ID with readable information on it is enough

this is why reputable exchanges do not accept paypal/credit cards. due to what has been known for years as "chargeback scammers".

yes visa and mastercard have actually themselves banned purchases of bitcoin via their credit cards,
as has paypal not being helpful to bitcoin sellers
not due to 'protecting customers investment risk' but actually to protect visa/mastercard from the costs of fraudsters doing chargeback scams. because it became soo rampant.
visa/mastercard/paypal wont fully admit to this. because that then is advertising a flaw in visa/mastercard/paypal that anyone can use to get their goods and their money back.. literally would cause a bank run of scamming if everyone knew/done it

i feel that this is just trying to make LN seem like it was always part of bitcoin. even though the concept is actually
part of blockstreams 'liquid' concept 2013+.
EG multisig was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011
EG CLTV /CSV was not part of bitcoin in 2009-2011

but lets be devils advocate

the 2009-2011 nlocktime would be used by people (real world analogy) in a poker game, players writing their own cheques to 'the house' dated 10 days in the future,
(the house does not counter sign nor has a joint bank account with the poker player)
while the poker game is in play, the house never hands th cheques to the bank to clear/settle.

then if the player needed to buy more poker chips. the player would write out a new cheque dated in 9 days. and the old cheque gets destroyed as its now useless. because the house would obviously prefer to cash a cheque that is dated sooner and for a larger amount
there was no revocation keys. no house having a joint bank account with the poker player to hand funds back inhouse

it would be just a one way payment system.. like a bartab..
satoshi envisioned a small private bartab concept for a small group of people that knew each other.. not a full pupulation co-signing offchain bank branch concept

in no way was it mentioning a single offchain NETWORK for everyone to use because bitcoins blockchain is limited and not able to scale. it was a concept of small parties (friends/family in a room) signing away from the payment system so they can (play poker for instance) without waiting for confirmed funds to get their poker chips

so trying to say satoshi/hearne invented LN or said LN is the acceptable/endorsed as a sole solution is really trying too hard to hide that LN is actually a 2013+ concept by blockstream(liquid)

LN is by magnitudes meandered away from private small group concept
LN is by magnitudes meandered away from the whole purpose of blockchain peer community validation
LN is by magnitudes over promoting but under delivering promises of limitless trustless fast payments.

i have used offline signing concepts and even multisigs between me and family/friends/business partners. i have seen the flaws and limitations
i have run scenarios about the funding of multisigs and replenishing funds and how often it would be required to do so.
i have run scenarios about how centralised the offchain network would need to become to be reliable and well funded and not an obstacle to average joe.

so far all LN devs have done is ensure node A connects to node B to connect to node C to ensure payment gets from a-c.
they have not yet done the long term multiple spending scenarios to see A raids B's holdings when routing a-c and/or B closes the route causing issues between a-c.
EG to use LN you need to have a certain amount just to be an acceptable channel partner, cover punishments and other fee's and then reserve part of that for use of routing. and splitting those funds over a couple 'accounts' just to be a reliable route.
meaning forget a third world user having just $2 and having all the utopian promises so he can buy 20 loaves of bread for the next month+ without hassle.

the devs have not seen that LN is not a scaling solution for everyone. because there are limitations. they have over promised, over promoted and under delivered.

and so there is a requirement to expand the blockchain scaling. NOT stiffling onchain scaling to force people into using limited use LN because of fee wars caused by stiffling onchain scaling.

rare.. scarce..

hmm
rare = you cant easily find any because there isnt really a place normal people can get to it
scarce = its available and many can have a bit. but it has limited supply

bitcoin actually has 2.1quadrillion sharable units. and average joe could get their hands on it quite easily.

however.. rarity/scarcity alone are not the cause of large prices.
take for instance my dog. it does 2 poops a day. (730 a year, as it gets older it will start to poop less. and so eventually when it dies there will be no more poops being roduced.

anyone want to buy my dogs poop.. only about ~4000 will ever be produced..
.. no takers?
.. thought not

..
its more about utility/function that gives bitcoin a value. EG it had no value until 'bitcoin pizza' event when people seen a practical use for bitcoin.
the cost of production has mor of a factor into a price than 'rarity/scarcity'

EG if it didnt cost gold miners thousands of $ to mine an ounce. and instead cost 10cents /ounce. they would sell it as fast as they can mine it and the price would stablise at somewhere near the cost of production (10cents as oppose to +$1k)

victims?how many people paid ~$9k for a coin thats not bitcoin core.

just like dollars
a)if a european paid ~0.60eur for 1 A.U dollar.. its all fine as thats the going rate for a au dollar
b)if a european paid ~0.80eur for 1 A.U dollar.. its not fine as thats the going rate for a US dollar

c)if a european paid ~0.80eur for 1 U.S dollar.. its all fine as thats the going rate for a US dollar
d)if a european paid ~0.60eur for 1 U.S dollar.. its better than fine as thats cheaper than the rate for a US dollar

only in scenario (b) would there be a problem.
but i doubt anyone is a victim. its all just a ploy for CORE to grab the brand/trandmark.. which NO on/ no side no team should
its all about open to  anyone in conversation to say they have 'dollar' / 'bitcoin'

core are just butt hurt that their bilateral split plan to control the network did not automatically come with any rights to "bitcoin"

also reading the article

Hayden O, a cryptocurrency technical analyst and trader and organizer of the meetup, will represent Bitcoin Cash

it was actually BLOQ (paid by same investors as blockstream) that created bitcoin cash (node: bitcoinABC)

to me. its all kardashian drama just to finger point distractions of look at these people shaking their ass.. while not taking notice of core(trump) taking over the country.

but hey.. seems the OP is a reddit sheep and just believes without checking or even open minded out of box thinking about the realities of real information

lets use a fiat analogy:

american visits a australian tv show about fiat
american... U.S dollar is the dollar
australian.. then whats with the australian, canadian, singapore dollar
american... U.S dollar is the dollar
australians.. no it aint. we have the dollar, they have the U.S dollar
australians.. "i got 99 dollars but a U.S aint one"

then an australian visit a american show
australian... A.U dollar is the dollar
american.. then whats with the american, canadian, singapore dollar
australian... A.U dollar is the dollar
americans.. no it aint. we have the dollar, they have the A.U dollar
americans.. "i got 99 dollars but a A.U aint one"

in short "dollar" is owned by no one.
if anyone from europe wants a dollar. then it depends on what community they are talking to. or more simple to ask A.U or U.S before handing them what they want at the appropriate rate of what they want.

if anyone from fiat wants a bitcoin. then it depends on what community they are talking to. or more simple to ask core or cash before handing them what they want at the appropriate rate of what they want.

bitcoin is no longer decentralised.
core seen to that with thier and bloqs team effort to create the bilateral split to give core the main power of the (now)core network
they are even going as far as suing people for using the bitcoin brand.. even though no one owns it, and neither should core own it

..anyway..

so "distributed" is the new term
the big investment companies behind blockstream and others that are paying the main devs of core. already know and planned this. its why they are buzzwording "distributed ledger technology(DLT)" rather than decentralised blockchains
google already has 628,000 results just for that term. top results for me included the UK governments R&D papers and worldbank

the main devs know that LN is not a blockchain. but for the major hubs(banks2.0) having a ledger of managing multiple channel multisigs. distributed ledger, covers not only things like LN but also the now centralised blockchain. all in the same new buzzword

which is what all their investors are pushing them to develop.

 

i just grabbed the data for just the last 30 days (upto 29th)
and the price is still not quite out of the woods.
left side of the vertical red line is where the graph of previous post stopped. right of the red line then shows the next(recent) 10 days


once the blue (price) line stays above the orange(cost) line. then we are safely out of the forrest where the forrest bears live (out of the pocket) and then we will probably be n the field of bulls

but again still kinda on the edge and still can run in either direction right now

i have not found a good public chart that displays this.
but the data is available. i got the hashrate and market price data (in CSV format) from blockchain.info and with 30 seconds of copy and pasting, i made the chart

most dumb trend anals only look at price data and nothing else which i find shameful.
i found mining cost data to be informative because the october 2013 ramp up in price was due to ASICS first coming online and the
cost of mining jumped. simultaniously the market price jumped too. so there are some patterns to using mining cost data

but when you mentioned this recent drop being a "bear pocket" i instantly noticed the out of trend "pocket"(U shape).. wher the price went below mining cost (red zone in my previous post chart)

so yes this recent period was a "bear pocket".

error of first paragraph

it did not start with seashells
it started with goods barter

1 caveman axe for 1 cavemans daughter of adequate age
then
10 loaves of bread for 1 horse shoe

sea shells were not a currency used at the coast because seashells were abundant
it was not a world wide trade thing and was not something that was wid spread. basically sea shells were only used by certain clans (villages)

however.. where barter did turn into 'coin' was done here

IF people paid ~$9k for a bitcoin cash.

i doubt any did.

so australia should not use "dollar" because america has more population

the solution is simple
"bitcoin" is for conversational purposes the same conversation nations have about "dollar"

in conversations with people that ask for a dollar. .. ask 'is that US or AU you want'
in conversations with people that ask for a bitcoin. .. ask 'is that core or cash you want'

as long as australia dont charge the US rate... as long as america dont charge the AU rate
as long as cash dont charge the core rate... as long as core dont charge the cash rate

then there is no conflict or fraud.. its just opening the mind to the broader conversation and understanding of decentralisation

like i said..
australians will continue to say they have "99 dollars but the U.S aint one" no matter how much america want to cry they own the dollar
americans will continue to say they have "99 dollars but the A.U aint one" no matter how much australia want to cry they own the dollar

whats next..
india Vs pakistan fight over "rupee"
Mexico Vs Philippines fight over "peso"
 .. based on what.. population

no
ok my last couple posts where ELI-5.. lets take it a layer deeper and go to ELI-15

core is a team that develop bitcoin-CORE.... NOT BITCOIN (2013-2016)

the core team do not develop other nodes they only develop one node bitcoin core.(2013-2016)
there are other nodes of other programming languages that in a decentralised world would run on the same currency network as core does.
in a healthy same network consensus competition of decentralisation..

but core want to own the network. to have no competition. unless the other nodes are subsiduaries of core and want to be SHEEP to core rules rather than consensus/decentralisated competition

think of it this way
imagine core as 'bank of america'(BoA)

the currency network which BoA runs on is U.S dollar. there used to be other banks that also run on the U.S dollar network.
BoA(bitcon core)
JPMorgan(bitcoinXT)
wells fargo(bitcoin classic)
goldman sachs(bitcoin unlimited)

all wanting to run on the U.S dollar network and all have to lobby with the nation on how U.S dollar regulations should change
(all wanting to stay on the same network and all wanting to use the beauty of satoshis 'consensus' invention of one network and upgrade by majority decision.)

but BoA REKT them
(2017+)
so now BoA own the U.S dollar network and those other banks are gone (for bitcoin analogy purposs only)
now BoA not only control a payment network. they want to claim they own "dollar" and say australians cannot say/trade or use "dollar" any more

so.. people..

get your heads out of the gutters of kissing cores ass.. and ask your self
are you protecting "bitcoins" decentralisation of no ownership, no centralisation..
or
do you want a central team core owning bitcoin.

lets reword the OP's question and see how you feel..

remember not to wear team core defence helmets.
wear the bitcoin decentralisation cap

just like wearing the dollar cap. and treat the question like a debate between america and australia.

many of you hopefully should surprise yourself at how team centralist defensive you are, rather than currency decentralist

no one owns bitcoin

and no the core team should not either
this is just a big assed ploy to give core team more centralised control of bitcoin

handing bitcoin.com to the core team is the opposite from decentralisation.

bitcoin is like dollar

america have dollar
australia have dollar
canada have dollar

in normal conversation a canadaian CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint U.S dollar
in normal conversation a american CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint canadian dollar

an australian forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy U.S dollars"
an american forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy A.U dollars"

if a european wants dollars the conversation is.. "do you want U.S at ~0.8Eur/$ or A.U at ~0.6/$"
if a fiat holder wants bitcoin the conversation is.. "do you want core at ~$9,000k or cash ~$900"

so the conversation is there is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash
so the conversation is there is U.S dollar AND A.U dollar

there would only be fraud if bitcoin cash was selling bitcoin cash coins at the bitcoin core rate
there would only be fraud if Australia was selling australian dollar at the american dollar rate

...

the bilateral split last summer. which was instigated by the BSCartel(barry silver portfolio of blockstream and bloq) ensured that
the 2 projects went in different directions

unlike clams which was a unilateral fork... bitcoin core and bitcoin cash done a bilateral split.. not unilateral
its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash
(unilateral)

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash
(unilateral)

but was a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash
(biilateral)

yep it was a bilateral split not a unilateral split..

core DO NOT OWN brand bitcoin............ no one does!!!

america dont own the dollar and cannot claim trademark rights ro it. and cannot claim that australia is a figment of peoples imagination

so just get used to talking about bitcoin the same way as "dollar"

if your only half sure on something... obviously only sell half

solves both problems

if it goes up, you are still making profit
if it goes down, you still have fiat to buy more at the new discounted price

win win in short

bitcoin is the vehicle. but core want to be the one way street. if you do not follow their one way roadmap. they will divert you off thier one way street and use all their roadblocks to push you off their road unless you accept thir toll and their maintenance plan. even if you see pot holes. if you complain about their pot holes they will just divert you off their road.

you may run a vehicle but your not in control of the direction

NO ONE should own bitcoin
the bitcoin brand is decentralised. no one has ownership

meaning core do not either

bitcoin core is not 'the only' bitcoin

the community decide what they personally hold in their pocket is cash or core, and only in common terms of talking to others in the same
currency do they abreviate it. but it does not mean the other side cant use the same common abreviation terms aswell

its best explained like this

dollars
no country owns dollars.
there is canadian dollars
there is australian dollars
there is american dollars

an american can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have american dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean an american can claim that australia/canada dont have/use dollars

a canadian can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have canadian dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean a canadian can claim that american/australian dont have/use dollars

an australian can for the simplicity of common conversation say that what they have in their pockets are dollars.
bit the reality is they have australian dollars in their pocket
but in no way does it mean an australian can claim that america/canada dont have/use dollars

back to describing bitcoin events:
..
unlike clams which was a unilateral fork... bitcoin core and bitcoin cash done a bilateral split.. not unilateral
its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash

but a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash

it was a bilateral split not a unilateral split..

core DO NOT OWN brand bitcoin............ no one does!!!

th conversation is

european: "i want dollars"
exchange: "is that american, canadian or australian your interested in"

fiat holder: "i want bitcoin"
exchange: "is that core or cash your interested in"

.. and remember this vital point
the BScartel (blockstream & bloq funders) were the ones orchestrating the bilateral split.
namely gmaxwell employing samson mow to USAF propaganda a fake NON-consensus election.. and bloq to implement a fake opponent to core.

so it was the same BSCartel that created bitcoin cash and core fork.. ver did not even instigate it.
so wheres the finger pointing at jgarziq, gavin, and gmaxwell for making bitcoin cash

as for the "victims"
if they wanted to buy bitcoin and only paid ~$800 (under $1k a coin) then they are not a victim

much like fiat
european: "i want dollar.."
exchange: "ok thats 0.61euros per dollar.." hands over 1australian dollar
european: wow thats cheap, but its not a US dollar
exchange. no, you never requested U.S. and you paid the correct amount for a australian dollar
european: ill sue you for not giving me a U.S dollar at the AU rate
exchange: "good luck trying"
vs
european: "i want dollar.."
exchange: "ok thats 0.81euros per dollar.." hands over 1australian dollar
european: whats this crap, its not a US dollar. i paid the price of a U.S dollar
european: ill sue you for not giving me a U.S dollar and giving me a AU dollar but not at the AU rate
exchange: "oh crap i dun goofed"

or more simply
a: "iwant an apple"
b: "thats 50cents" .. hands (a) a fruit apple
a: "i wanted a phone im gonna sue"
b: "for 50cents.. not gonna happen you get what you paid for.. but your a good comedian, goodluck with the day job"
vs
a: "iwant an apple"
b: "thats $500" .. hands (a) a fruit apple
a: "$500 for fruit. i wanted a phone, im gonna sue"
b: "oh crap i dun goofed"

i wonder how many victims paid more than $7k for 1 bitcoin cash... i would say there were none.. so they paid for what they got

it is NOT as easy as setting up in country Y. and offer exchange of btc to FIAT A where you hope country A governing Fiat A cant touch you..

mark kerpeles learned this lesson.
while being set up in japan. he infact did offer the exchange of bitcoin for US dollars. and so although he was in japan he did have
US SEC on his back

other exchanges have seen this too. even ones set up on them special island have had to refse to serve US customers and not trade to USD

and those that had some licences for some US states to offer USD trades. still could not offer services to New York state residents without
having a NY bitcoin licence.

so its not a simple set up in island Y and be free to serve the world authority free.. if you are going to handle fiat A, expect to have to obide by
FIAT A regulations. even if your not in country A