Six years ago, you were spouting the same nonsense under the now-banned fxsurfer account.
he has had a few accounts over the years, i started to not even bother trying to remember all his accounts. he keeps doing this every 3-6 months or so. for years.. but he never spends the time actually learning the bitcoin technology or the cost factors or the utility. or economics, or, or, or the most annoying thing about some trolls that persist for years.. is when they stick to their own story for soo many years even though they get debunked soo easily. and never even use the time they waste to even learn bitcoin read code read blockdata, learn economics, common sense or logic it like watching a blind person walk into a brick wall. and then just keep doing it. sometimes you want to help them. sometimes you want to let them just keep looking like an idiot sometimes you want to respond not for their benefit but to teach other onlookers what to do to avoid hitting a wall for others benefit |
|
|
|
|
hoarding since 2012
my reasons:
dont need the lump money yet(think retirement fund)
i support bitcoin
i see bitcoin has longevity so no need to "get out early"
that said i do take very small % of holdings out for my yearly living expenses. but thats small fry.
if i was to take the hoard. there are tax implications so for now i just enjoy my life, travel the world and when i want to settle in a place of better climate(tax haven) and do my own thing. then ill think about selling it all.. but no time soon. there are decades to go in my bitcoin life
|
|
|
|
Off-chain doesn't have a strict limit. On chain does. Whatever you set the on-chain limit to be, no matter how many times you increase it, the off-chain throughput always has the potential to be greater. That's scaling.
LInear growth isn't. And that's why we talk about gigablocks. Because off-chain can easily handle the volume that gigablocks would theoretically enable, but without the accompanying risk to decentralisation.
If you still aren't able to grasp this after 7 years, please read more and talk less.
doomad talks about leaping again (facepalm) And before you cry too hard, yes, we can have *some* linear growth. But if you think that's the only thing we should be doing, you are very much mistaken.
and only talks about blocksize rather than increasing tx count via uncludging the current code that causes spam/bloat allowed to occur he really is stuck in his head thinking the only option that deviates away from core roadmap is "gigabyte blocks" where he then pretends its all other people talk about.. when infact its the only thing his group keep circling back to also i said many times in many topics that the option is not just "bigger blocks" (doomads group mentorship campaign of "gigabyte blocks") subnetworks (not current flawed ones) .. wait ill emphasise this: future subnetworks that have purpose without flaws will have utility for their niche userbase.. but .. and i sincerely want you to take time to read this.. BUT. telling everyone to abandon bitcoin and offramp to a shady, screwed up current flawed subnetwork is not the solution and with bitcoin blocks SCALING not leaping. to cater to those that want and need secure bitcoin confirmations and settlements. more utility can be provided to the community.. and before you check your old cult notes.. my opinion on scaling is not just bigger blocks.. as i summarised and dumbed down for you in previous post try to read responding to below im not the one promoting people to offramp to subnetworks or fork to an altcoin as the solutions .. YOU ARE edit again to respond it can be both YOU are offramping USERS.. and bitcoin doesnt leave the blockchain USERS use another network to play with IOU units(borrowing unit transfer of routed middlemans balance) called millsats. millisats that sit in channels but are not settled bitcoin of the "promised"(pfft) recipient bitcoin does not leave the blockchain, the the security of it |
|
|
|
|
learn that real world costs create value/premium...
value is minimum cost
premium is maximum costs
no one can create for less so wont sell for less thus creating the value suport line
if everyone can create for less than premium, then no one buys above premium creating the premium resistance line
if something has utility. people then desire it and they speculate a PRICE inbetween value and premium
bitcoin does things. provides functionality many uses to people, its not 'just creating numbers'
if you really want to do some value research you can look at the cost bases of mining.
compare that to other tokens and crap coins that have less utility less functionality less security and little/no underlying cost.. then go see why bitcoin is different to them..
if you want to cry about zero value units being speculated at premium prices.. go find the many altcoins/tokens.. but along the way learn what make them different to bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
january 2023 EU bans banks from holding crypto custody..
why(rhetorical), well because it was not illegal before january..
so they ban it just so they can then impose rules to then permit/licence it.. and all done within a year
anything not illegal before.. gets banned, just so they can charge fees for licences later to allow it again (under condition)
they done it for drugs, they done it for alcohol... not a new story. its the game they play
|
|
|
|
wait you say "100 chicken littles".. i thought you said i keep mentioning one big thing.... ever thought that its actually more like 3 flaws all linked by the same central point of failure.. in which actual block data, code statistics show are actually 3 flaws that are showing their repercussions now as for scaling YOUR cult family (mentored by you) keep pretending scaling is GIGABYTE blocks or offboarding/forking to other networks .. no. thats not scaling. thats exaggerated leaping and displacing you keep trying to lie by pretending my opinion is some altcoin fork "bigger(massive) block" you keep pretending and inciting your cult family to recite your mantra that franky only wants "bigger blocks" you actually ignore what i actually say. so here it is again. dumbed right down to a short summary even you might have no problems reading in 20 seconds and its not just "bigger blocks" its actually
leaner transactions.
count every byte, make every byte count
condition all transaction formats to perform, whereby every byte serves a purpose.
limit the transaction overhead computationally
make spammers/bloaters personally penalised to not cause everyone to be expensed out of using bitcoin
penalise spammer/bloater by enough of a multiple that they actually stop due to the expense
ive also made MANY posts over 7 years of this debate not about bigger blocks=gigabyte blocks(your cultish groups story of the 'core opposing offer') but about blocksizes that increment over time/need |
|
|
|
Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.
funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving because yea, data in the blockchain and time.. proves whos right in the end. not the circle jerkin of cultish social games ive been highlighting the abuse of opcodes creating "FUNKY" transactions without conditions even before segwit activated, when they proposed using opcodes in this manner for posterity (2016) Yes, but only for spending from an output of the type OP_0 <20 bytes> or anything similar. The witness data must still be in the transaction when you are spending from an output that has anything like OP_CHECKSIG in the output script.
old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid. again the signatures are not in the same expected area. segwit abuses 0x00 to achieve this. thats the whole point of how segwit can work as a softfork! because the signatures are not where they are expected. old clients treat it as just a valid funky tx. the 20 bytes after 0x00 (op_0) are not going to be what old clients expect to see. yet they would automatically look passed it, without care. i think you are blindly trusting the dev's to make pretty code with zero bugs. instead of thinking with a critical mind that things can break and to think that its better to have a things might break mindset rather then a devoted faith that it will elegantly work. because blind faith is the mindset of people who wont bug check/hack it to its limits. they will just do a couple standard transactions and praise their lord that funds move.. rather than trying to break it come on.. the code is not even released and ur already thinking its perfect.. real that last line 5 times. let it settle in your head. and think about the mindset you have. even scientists who spend years developing space rockets, still end up with them blowing up. 'funky tx' 'look passed it, without care' again 2016 secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
...
just checking the blockchain history. how often has a legitimate transaction actually required lots of signatures to the extent of causing issues.
the funny thing is limiting transactions sigops actually ensures that we never get a situation where one person can fill a block alone..
but instead, not limiting transaction sigops and just making it fast to process. along with offering a discount on signatures, actually makes it easier, cheaper and more rewarding for someone to spam the block with a single transaction. yea it wont cause network delay. but still causes the community to get peed off that someone is filling the block with one transaction.
limiting sigops was/is the obvious route that should have been taken.
and here we are 7 years after talking about the risks. we are seeing the consequences.. and again we are seeing a group of idiots pandering to the core gods saying "lets do nothing it will sort itself out, go back to sleep, dont argue unless you have a inside track to core. something core will accept" |
|
|
|
they imagine a number and write a protocol for attributing units of that number to online addresses.
oh look who it is again.. trolling that bitcoin has no economics/function/utility and is just numbers even when using AI to hide your normal whiting style, it still seems obvious your the same troll.. havnt you learned anything from the last several accounts you made to fail at basic economics .. lets dumb it down for you, again bitcoin doesnt just create numbers. it uses WORK (calculations that cost electric to perform a task that generates bitcoin as a reward for work(cost)) for security... people then trade that reward for money or use that reward for many things... speculating above the most cheapest work cost on the planet, because different people have different work costs to generate bitcoin so some people want to just buy instead of work for it. yep some lucky places can work for $20k/btc. while other island nations its more like $150k work cost to generate fresh bitcoin rewards.. so the market speculates in between value and premium the reason why bitcoin is above $20k base value and market speculating at $35k.. vs an altcoin of similar PoW method that trades at $1.20.. is that the amount of WORK the altcoin at $1 puts in is 20,000-30,000 less work cost bitcoin is not just a "unit generator" its purpose is to do many things. the work and reward is for securing the other features bitcoin does and people want to do things on bitcoin using it
there are some crapcoins that market speculate outside of their underlying security cost. even hyper speculate above the most world wide premium of security cost (most PoS coins).. there are some tokens that dont even have proof of transfer, dont have secure auditing, dont have secure ownership proofs.. bitcoin are not like those PoS or token crap. bitcoin does have many features that make it useful, secure, provable |
|
|
|
[franky again ignores many paragraphs about bets and personalities, .. boring]
I am inclined to think that Grayscale would be in the mix of the approvals, even though some of the charges against them could constitute some rational basis to delay (or even deny) approval of their attempt to convert their BTC fund into a BTC spot ETF without some kind of specific assurances regarding that the Grayscale conversion process is not otherwise causing injustices towards various claimants or even being in the public interest to do so..
im inclined to think because coinbase is grayscales sister company. it makes grayscale more complex case for the whole "separation" of shares-coin custody/access detail, which this little back and forth discussion in recent days started with where as blackrock<>coinbase share less relations thus appear as less of a risk to nefariously collude internally, which is another factor thats a pro for blackrock and a con for grayscale and yes with the grayscale and coinbase legal battles with SEC with the US attorney general suing DCG and genesis last month with the SEC suing genesis in january vs SEC experience with blackrocks many old school ETF is another pro for blackrock con for grayscale DCG with the FTX-DCG-genesis mismanagement of funds saga is another con for grayscale. analogy: if a guardian is trying to adopt a kid. but one kid is causing enough trouble that guardian takes him to court or he takes the guardian to court for allegations of misbehaving.. you dont then adopt him and call him the best choice of kid all other foster kids should emulate if they want to be adopted too. they are not going to become the poster child for the foster-adoption system .. with DCG CEO B.S being charged with defrauding upto 230,000 investors and the public by trying to conceal more than $1.1 billion in losses.. i dont think the SEC is going to approve a DCG sister company as the "best representation of funds management". well not untill the case is settled or DCG is found innocent
other conclusions summarised about points raised in last couple days (ontopic) it was said that JJG was not completely sure that SEC/wallstreet is purposefully creating barriers of entry to avoid competition. and yet year long battles with the SEC show the SEC isnt so open handed about what their preferences for acceptance are. they are not so transparent about minimal standard or any standard and instead want to build the standard to then be precedent for all others to follow it was also said by JJG that unit bias was not a thing.. yet just look at ark21.. shares are $0.59 and their total cap is about $5m meaning they have only 150btc collateralised.. compare that to grayscales.. and also the annualised fee's between the two... people will make different decisions based on that alone lets go one step further. with only 150btc collateralised in shares21. they dont even have enough volume/liquidity to take to market. yes there are lots of microshares. (like penny stocks) but not enough to cater to millions of people. imagine it they only have $5m of collateral which is like only 10k people putting one month of minimal grade pension money aside($100) if we go back to the discussions about impact on the spot market(CEX) of agents buying baskets.. grayscale wont need or want to adopt agents untill they sell their own shares and buy up new baskets to not have competition to supply to investors.. however shares21 wil definitely need to call around to brokers to become agents and go on a buying frenzy of basket of btc to increase the pool of coins available to collateralise as shares |
|
|
|
|
OP doesnt want to be satoshi.. he wants to emulate scammer CSW
|
|
|
|
if its not core coded its an altcoin airdrop If it would be "core coded", then there is a risk, that some other people would still maintain the old version, and users would land on that, because they were taught about backward-compatibility, and a lot of people believe in that. Which means, if anyone (including "core") would try it, then they could reach the same fate as BCH. older nodes with no block reject fee priority added code. wont reject blocks they will just "assumevalid" as the backward compatible trick assumes .. . they would continue to accept blocks that upgraded full nodes accept and relay.. no harm, no difference.. it would be for the upgraded and consensus activated nodes(economic nodes mainly have power these days) to be the full validators. so it still fits the "backward compatibility" and doing the activation much the same way as the NYA mandatory threat did. force mining pools to comply or the economic nodes will reject blocks (but reject in this case if they dont check for priority. ) yes im suggesting using the tricks core already set precedent in using. just in a way that benefits the majority of the community.. .. i wont be surprised if the "fee war" loving crowd dont take this idea and suggest core do the opposite, and instead starts making nodes reject confirmed blocks if the fees are not above Xbytes/sat based on a arbitrary politic set number to push fees higher.. its the kind of thing they would love. |
|
|
|
{franky ignoring JJG desperate begs and endless cries to try to get a bet} you also made a comment in other posts about the "let the market choose" well seeing as these spot etf will all be shadowing the bitcoin price the ups-downs of the market would be the same and the fiat-share-fiat of triggering cap gains/losses will be the same. the only main differeince of choices will be
a. preference of the company brand (grayscale, ark, blackrock)
b. preference of the agent brand
c. fee's
d. share/sat rate
many people that are big income earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.001
many people that are min wage earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.00001
I don't see how unit bias makes much difference. there are going to be some employers who have these options in their various 401k plans, and then the workers can choose the extent of their exposure through the plan, and they might ONLY be able to choose based on which ones are offered in their plan. Some employers do not have very many options and others have greater number of options, and there could be various reasons that employers will set up their plans in certain ways that may well limit which ETF might be available. unit bias is a thing imagine 1btc was $100,000 where 1 share pegs to 0.001 each share is $100. meaning someone putting aside 10% of their minimum wage (40hrs*4wks*$15)/10= $240 someone cannot invest 2.4 shares.. so end up losing investment potential of $40 or has to invest more then 10% to round up to $300 where as if shares are 0.00001 meaning $1 a share.. anyone can buy.. even on things like robinhood. in dollar amounts without having to round up or down the $240 can buy 240 shares. thus has 0.00240 pegged exposure
JJG get over yourself.. you seem obsessed to think theres any chance of a bet i already told you i dont gamble, trade on this forum.. GET THE HINT you have been now trying to poke me in my private messages begging.. you are desperate.. chill out. read the room.. there is no deal thr never was. dont get desperate posting my reply to the PM for all to see me telling JJG to chill the hell out you are obsessing about trying to get me to agree to a bet.
one last time.. I DO NOT GAMBLE, TRADE, BET on the forum
but for a zero cost laugh id give you merit if something got approved in 2023
its not a deal/negotiation/bet/promise.. its just a damned laugh
stop pretending you have any power in trying to tender me into any deal
there is no negotiating. chill your pants. ud lose anyway. move on
that said. if something is approved in 2023 ill still send 50merit to the post i mentioned about first.. because merits are non-monetary, crap things. worthless things thrown about to pat people on the back
|
|
|
|
I've never really heard it put like that, it's always been "I'll give away x amount of my wealth during my lifetime" and not a fixed number like a billion. The reality is though that most billionaires may only donate after they die because they've become accustomed to reaching ever higher, it becomes a sort of accumulation competition and they feel like they're stuck in some global ranking. There may be the odd billionaire that worded it the way you suggest, but they're generally not stupid people and don't necessarily care to deceive anyone. Even if they were giving away that money while keeping their wealth, they are still making a massive charitable donation compared to the average person which should be applauded and encouraged.
ok think of it this way.. warren buffet, bill gates, zuckerberg made pledges YEARS ago. so they should be many pegs lower of their wealth compared to pledge date.. now go look at their positions 2010 2023 warren buffet 47bill 118bill bill gates 53bil 116bill M zuckerberg 6bil 118bill point is when they say giving away most of their wealth, but never lose any wealth.. but then you see the small % they do give is a below investment interest amount and is also classed as a taxable write off.. its not all as it seems |
|
|
|
The environment was very hostile in these years circa the "block size wars" because many had jumped on the opportunity to profit against BTC itself by forking off to their own coins and whatnot.
If a sound solution to scaling was to be proposed now it would probably receive better level headed discussion.
nah, looking at the comments of those against it, they still wouldnt see it as a bitcoin proposal but a REKTing opportunity to suggest the proposal should altcoin fork itself independently so nothing changes to bitcoin but the objectors get a free airdrop in their mind. if its not core coded its an altcoin airdrop |
|
|
|
priority formulae CAN be made a consensus rule.. anything can be made a consensus rule.. the rules are just code. and anything can be made a rule and enforced by the code..
No, it's not that easy. Nodes don't have an uniform view about the mempool. So you can't force miners to include certain transactions that pay a certain fee or have waited a certain time, because you can't know they have seen them. It would be necessary to know which transactions "exist objectively" for an efficient priority mechanism, but that's simply not possible when we have decentralized mempools. If we could enforce a priority mechanism by consensus rule, then we would also be able to enforce an "anti-censorship" rule, i.e. that no transaction that pays enough fees could be discarded by miners. But that has the same problem. its not about that. code can do wonderful things. its not just about nodes own mempools. thats just the first post/checkpoint that makes transactors think about the transactions they produce to have best chance of even reaching a mining pool... when broadcasting to peers at the pre-confirm relay if they want better chances, they organise there transaction to be lean, mature utxo and not use certain junk opcodes separately.. the consensus enforcement.. its about when mining pools solve a block. nodes check if they contain junk that has not paid fair fee according to fee formulae.. reject the block. thus enforcing pools to actually choose transactions wisely. its what consensus rules are for you call it censorship resistance.. but just look at what mining pools do now. they cherry pick transactions anyway. atleast having decency rules about what should get priority to get included first.. where the indecent junk get penalised personally if they want to be included. again its not censorship if a spammy junk bloaty transaction has to pay 200x higher than a normal tx. The only way I see to implement such a thing is with a two-step confirmation process: Miners in a block simply collect transactions without verifying them, and in the next block another miner confirms them. This would need collaboration of two miners to override the priority mechanism, but still would be possible. (I have previously mentioned in some discussions a mechanism where nodes have to sign the txes they "know", but this could be gamed, too.)
not even a 2 step mining process.. just a fee formulae score reading. as soon as it reaches a threshold of priority, put it in the block template, if not just leave it in mempool until utxo age matures or transactor RBF. or mempool of mining node prunes low priority thresholds ... my posts about a fee priority formulae are not about censoring (default reject, no question) transactions. its about penalising transactions specifically independently without penalising everyone.. transactions that spam(young utxo). bloaty transactions(tx length). junk transactions (abuse unconditioned opcodes) |
|
|
|
|
im not the one making claims and setting deadlines.. im doing the opposite. im dispelling peoples "certainty's"
for me the odds of 1 application in 2024 is higher than some at same time in 2024
for me the odds of some at same time in 2024 is higher than most in quick succession but separate in 2024
for me the odds of most in 2024 is higher than 1 in 2023
for me the odds of 1 in 2023 is lower then majority of alternatives
all 12 at same time. lowest of all alternatives
there is also no point in blanket statements of "four get approved" because although readings of previous applications in last few months may indicate only 4 may be fairly treated. the companies can re-file and adjust any day and change before 2024.. but im sure that 2023 is not an approval year. and if more then one is approved in 2024 it wont be most/all at same time.
you also made a comment in other posts about the "let the market choose" well seeing as these spot etf will all be shadowing the bitcoin price the ups-downs of the market would be the same and the fiat-share-fiat of triggering cap gains/losses will be the same. the only main differeince of choices will be
a. preference of the company brand (grayscale, ark, blackrock)
b. preference of the agent brand
c. fee's
d. share/sat rate
many people that are big income earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.001
many people that are min wage earners would invest in ones where 1 share is 0.00001
the markets will play the same market patterns but minimum wage earners investing in their pension wont be able to put their 5% monthly to buy a whole 1 share of one brand. but can buy dozens of shares of other brand
so the differences between the ETF offerings is their peg rate and fee's
have you noticed how you went fro a stance just days ago of meriting others suggesting 2023 approval OR 12 at same time suggestions.. and you repeating them suggestions as high odds
to now have a more rational possibility of 4 within first quarter of 2024..
im not setting deadlines.. instead im hedging against the suggestions/ calming down the suggestions.. the only HUMOUR i will give is 50 merit to you if one was approved in 2023
|
|
|
|
i dont make claims of superior knowledge but i do admit i do do research. my claims are of opinion based on math logic common sense and research.. the parts that get me annoyed, (and yes i confess i do show my annoyances when i write. im human, not a script bot).. is when people pretend to be influencers or hope to send their message out to go viral or get attention, trying to shout deadlines of big news to cause some media hype.. but they themselves have not even done any research.. (not personal to just you. a few have done it which is multiplying the annoyance.. which then requires poking at suggested reasoning) for instance december is not actually a deadline of approval/rejection of the 12.. yet some keep saying it is for instance the hype of "all 12 will get approved at same time" based on what!!!?? if people even took a non-superior, common sense glance at all 12 they would see many of the applications fall short on even basic/standard fiat asset ETF practices of fund management security/processes.. so it does annoy me when blanket statements are made to suggest market movements are approaching due to all ETF being approved on X date.. but lack any reasonable justification for why they think all of them will be approved at same time(non superiorly, just logically, commonsensically based on even a glance of the applications) Yes, and it would be a mistake to select the winner as Blackrock only, even if they might be superior. The market can choose in regards to which product is superior as long as each of the products have mechanisms in place that protect consumers in regards to rug pulling, price manipulation, lack of truthful disclosures or whatever it is that the SEC is supposed trying to protect when it comes to different ways that the various ETF applicants might set up their ETF and try to distinguish themselves from other players.. whether it is fees or liquidity or some other kind of term/service that they might offer.
but thats the thing.. a passing glance at all applications shows not all of them meet the min SEC standards. and the SEC is not there just to rubber stamp any boiler room scam into running on nasdaq and just play "let the market decide". there would be lawsuit hell if the SEC took that much of a back seat (though yes decades of seeing fiat boiler room scams and inaction of SEC may appear the contrary) however mentioning it again. the SEC also wants to ensure the first approval "sets the standard" as its a precedence. setting minimal requirements for the next application to reach/exceed. you might be right that the SEC doesnt want to set a super high bar/barrier of entry standard so "might" approve more than one/in quick succession/same time. but looking (even at a glance) at the applications. not all of them have the basic kinks worked out
you know what.. just for pure humour. non mometary. not a gamble
if approval happens 2023.. ill merit your post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529.msg63181711#msg63181711
with 50 merits..
if not 2023 you merit any post of mine you like with just 1 merit |
|
|
|
he didnt dismantle anything.. try to read like someone that knows the code.. not someone on auto pilot allegiance to core dev gods sponsorship deal preferences.. .. .. he twisted words and pretended x crap didnt happen (but then debunks himself by then saying it did but not in the way he read me saying it). then he goes on and says things cant be consensus because by definition its not. but then says how nodes are consistant in things based on known parameters.. priority formulae CAN be made a consensus rule.. anything can be made a consensus rule.. the rules are just code. and anything can be made a rule and enforced by the code.. got to love gmax's twistings everyone this week has seen mempools pruned purely for low fee rate.. everyones seen it. the prune rule is remove transactions due to a fee rate.. where as a fee priority would remove spammy, bloaty transactions first.. so when this was said the solution is much more simple.. get rid of the free market that lets nodes drop tx's in the initial relay. thus they would ALL have them all first go-around. without having to interrogate EACH connected node, after dropping.. because their would be no drop in the first place.
The need for nodes to potentially drop transactions has nothing to do with free market behaviour and everything to do with nodes not having infinite storage to keep the transactions. he pretends pruning mempool has nothing to do with the fee rate, "market". (facepalm) its the fee rate level, rules and code that decides what to prune!! which affects the market.. its all related and symbiotic rather than a proper coded formulae that would have decided that spammers should be pruned or bloaters should be pruned first THEY CHOSE to make the pruning no longer remove spam/bloat first. and instead remove low market fee first the point i raised then and keep raising is we keep getting occurrences of congestion where junk and spam are allowed in and many peoples genuine transactions are dropped due to a fee rate rule. rather than a rule that actually prefers to drop junk/spam first.. rather then a rule that penalises just the junk/spammers they prefered to "simplify" to "just a fee market" to cause everyone to be penalised when junk/spam occured but not deal with the junk/spam problem.. .. next funny is how he says about how this stuff reduces all the transaction relay repeats.. but then due to their actions, guess what.. people need to re-send their transactions to get back into mempool if the market goes down or respend with a higher fee RBF before being pruned or after being pruned if still not high enough or even send a child transaction to try to keep the low fee in mempool.. thus more transactions do get relayed just to fight the pruning mechanism |
|
|
|
It's because of the partial reserve system that the banking sector uses which helps them generate money from thin air. If a bank gets 100 USD from a user it can keep 10 as a reserve and use 90 to give a loan. The actual figure for this money distribution is backed by $100, but the total amount of money owned by the bank is 190 dollars. So their total wealth increased to 190 dollars, which is backed by only 100 dollars and 90 dollars they just generated by using the partial reserve system. All the banks in the world follow this system.
thats not how it works fractional reserve system is about not having to have 100% physical money ina bank vault for security reasons of said bank branch fractional reserve lending is a different fraction 'pot'. for different purpose. for different function and reason but lets delve into it banks do not take 10% of someones bank balance to lend out.. instead imagine a bank had 1000 customers of $7.5k each account ($7.5m) the bank without touching deposit amounts has a separate facility to allow them to CREATE $6.75m(90% comparable) of new money as loans without taking any money from their customers.. think of it as not taking money from customers.. but more of a "heres how much we have in custody we will take a 90% risk bet and create new money to the amount comparable of 90% of custody.. " but they want the borrower to repay that amount so the bank can burn that money(lessen the interest) to reopen/unlocked that risk allowance loan facility for the next loan EG when 100 people ask for $1k ($100k) in a loan.. the banks facility can only make another $6.75m loans.. meaning if $100k loans are done a week, the loan risk buffer is emptied in under 68 weeks so if more loans were made but no money was returned they cant make new loans. as the risk bufffer gets down to zero what you find is. instead of customers deposits being used.. banks sell the already created but not settled loan agreements, to other institutions so that the other institutions pay in and burn there money to unlock the risk buffer allowance.. and the borrower pays the other institution indirectly(im over simplifying) bank customers balance is not locked, decreased, used to fill a lending pot. its just a risk measure of how much a bank can create a pot and create new money in it to a certain tolerance based on total value under custody |
|
|
|
|
"unique" pfft your echo chamber circle is small. yes your fiction is not unique because you rely on drone echo's reciting you like a hymn-sheet
you even admit if you: "were entirely independent and self-reliant, the lack of structure would be to my detriment."
try to look outside your own small circle. try to be an independent thinker instead of a blind repeater of nonsense sold to you with empty promises..
EG you were sold promises that if you make a fiction go viral that people should use other systems, it would make you welthier.. years later you are still not independently wealthy.. how has that worked out for you so far
there are thousands of people that dont follow your prospective, thousands that dont even script repeat it the way i say it but understand the facts of what i say are more correct and to the point compared to yours. they can do research if they want to check and find the data code and agreements and proposals that support my methods of explaining things..
doomad. try to use blockdata, code and actual events when you try to say your versions of drama story telling..
what i say can be backed up by data, code, source material if people want to do their research..
your mentorings are the fiction.. you quote other fictions as your proof, you dont use the blockdata, code, proposals (echoing a fiction does not change it to fact)
your HOPES lay in befriending people to trust what you say but not check what you say via actual code/blockdata. i prefer to do the checks and correct the fictions, where people can then look at the blockdata, understand it better and then see it for themselves.
if you were a true educator being paid people should ask you for a refund. you are a story teller not an educator. you are the worse kind
and one final thing
i bothered to learn the code, read the blockdata understand all the nuances. i learned it independently. i gained from it independently i am financially independent and i am beholden to no one. independence is a virtue not a detriment
maybe gain a little confidence soon and stretch yourself outside of your echo chamber.
try to motivate yourself to learn bitcoin not stories. gain from actual knowledge and free yourself from the circle you entrapped yourself in
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
