seems by what you are saying they are less then ethical.

the only other consideration is:
and instead of say, a deposit of 1btc being recorded on their database as 1btc, they are instead recording it as the dollar value when you deposited.
which means when display that recorded dollar balance as a fluctuating btc value which changes.

this does not seem fair as most exchanges dont do this in practice.
have you read the terms or their policies that allow them to treat you bitcoin deposit automatically as a dollar balance.
did you deposit bitcoin or dollars initially

did you swap your bitcoin for dollar and are accidentally just looking at a "valuation" rather than actual balance.

it might be worth
checking their terms/policies
checking that your seeing a balance/holdings, rather than an valuation
checking when, how your initial deposit suddenly no became no longer treated as equal balance.

it may be simply that you deposited dollars and without trading have been looking at an 'estimated valuation in bitcoin' rather then a log of actual balance, mistakenly thinking they converted it to bitcoin. but actually just giving you an estimate if you traded it.

if however you deposited bitcoin but did not convert it to another currency, and they cannot explain how/where/why they have this 'floating value' feature. then i would say its unethical and scammy. and dont deposit any more with them.

bitcoin itself has nothing to do with an exchange.

inside an exchange you are not looking at bitcoins. you are looking at a database balance of credits that (ethically) should represent bitcoin.
meaning
the exchange is ALLOWING you to have some balance of their database. which if the exchange is ethical they will swap that balance for real bitcoins when you withdraw.

the exchange can do anything they want to their database. they can charge fee's just for having a balance, they can charge fee's for making orders they can charge fees for deposits and withdrawals. they can so anything they like to their database. including making it zero for any lame reason they want.

this is why people hate middlemen, banks, exchanges. with all the "we been hacked" lies, with all the negative interest rates, with all the bankruptcy issues you should not trust handing your funds to a middleman in exchange for their "credits"/"balance".

as for bitcoin itself. knowing eventually there will be only 21mill coins. you cannot make the quantity go down. you can however put them into an address no one can spend from, to make them unspendable.. resulting in less than 21million coins being spendable/in circulation.

now that answer the topic.
it seems like an exchange is messing you around, care to name the exchange, describe the events better?
have you contacted the exchange?
have you checked the trade history/transaction history within the exchange to see where/why the balance missing had gone?

QC efficiency vs cpu efficiency has already been solved. bitcoin mining pools.
QC power is not anywhere close to todays hashpower.

also
because QC (in peoples doomsday scenarios) is dealing with solving a binary logic problem. QC becomes limited to the rules of binary logic to ensure it gets an acceptable result in the end. so d-wave cannot work with its 65,536 combinations. it has to stick to 256 combinations to be compatible. because QC has 4 possibilities instead of 2. it allows it to need less bits to solve problems

2 problems at once of base2(byte) instead of just 1 byte in binary
4 problems at once of base16(hex) instead of just 2 hex in binary

ill explain and yes its laymens demonstration, not science whitepaper theory so chill out on knitpicks

imagine a byte 00000000 (8 switches)
and the puzzle is to get a certain Hex(base16) result
in binary, an asic splits the byte in 2. and allows 4 switches(0000) to work on one result and 4 switches(0000) to work on another result
where one can start at 0 (binary0000 all switches off and then incrementally turn them on) and go up to 16
the other starts at 16 (binary1111 all switches on and then incrementally turn them off) and go down to 0

so say you wanted to get hex 9
it would take the first lot of switches 10 attempts (0¹,1²,2³,3⁴,4⁵,5⁶,6⁷,7⁸,8⁹,9¹⁰)
0000(0),0001(1),0010(2),0011(3),00100(4),0101(5),0110(6),0111(7),1000( 8 ),1001(9)
it would take the second lot of switches 7 attempts (F¹,E²,D³,C⁴,B⁵,A⁶,9⁷)
1111(F),1110(E),1101(D),1100(C),1011(B),1010(A),1001(9)

however in QC it wont use 4 switches. as the result it would create once going through all the combinations using its 4 switches would result in a base 256 value when converted to binary.

so QC will use 2 switches to stick to a base 16 puzzle allowing for 4 'chances'. where the efficiency is the
where one can start at 0 (QC 00 all switches off and then incrementally turn them on) and go up to 16(hex:F)
the other starts at 16(hex:F) (QC 33 all switches on and then incrementally turn them off) and go down to 0
the other starts at 7(hex:7) (QC 13 ~half switches on and then incrementally turn them off) and go down to 0
the other starts at 8(hex:8 ) (QC 20 ~half switches on and then incrementally turn rest on) and go upto 16(hex:F)

it would take the forth lot of switches, 2 attempts (8¹,9²)
20( 8 ),21(9)
however QC cannot just send its answer "21" into a binary system. it needs to convert it into binary, which takes resources.

which is like saying
binary:
1.switches show 0(0000) and 16(1111)
2. transmit 00001111 which is 0(0000) and 16(1111) as a whole byte
repeat 6 more times(7 total until there is a correct answer) (7x2=14 processes all together) to get to hex 9

QC:
1.switches shows 0(00) 7(13) 8(20) 16(33)
2.convert 0(00) 7(13) to binary 0(0000) 7(0111)
3.transmit 00000111 which is 0(0000) 7(0111) as a whole byte
4.convert 8(20) 16(33) to binary 8(1000) 16(1111)
5.transmit 10001111 which is 8(1000) 16(1111) as a whole byte
repeat 1 more times(2 total) (2x5=10 processes all together) to get to hex 9

yes there may be some ways to make it efficient. but due to the limits of a 256 combination logic and requirement of conversion. QC is not working at its full potential by solving binary logic problems.

QC will only be fully beneficial in instances that do not even use binary logic problems

yes and no.... drastic changing the algorithm will render the current format of ASICS useless.
imagine an algorithm as a map of a city requiring you to travel the streets. the puzzle is to get to a certain destination.
normal CPU/GPU are not efficient as they need to drive down different streets and allow for other traffic.
an asic is a GPS route planner that knows the route as it is programmed to only follow that route, and there is no other traffic to contend with.
making it super efficient.

if someone changed the puzzle to a completely different town. and ASIC would end up in the wrong place every time
however, there have already been a few optimisations to get to the destination more efficiently without needing to change an asic, but to circumvent QC from a binary system prospective CANT be done effectively without drastic changes, which would effect an asic

however... read on

its also explained in laymans understandable way here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1629903.msg16402345#msg16402345

the surprise is that D-wave use buzzwords like super position and 2 states at once to make it sound like science breaking tech. however its much simpler. D-wave just dont want to explain how it actually works just like the CEO of KFC doesnt want to reveal the "secret" ingredient of their chicken batter (avoid competition)

yep
16 years ago a 3.2GB yes GIGABYTE hard drive was a couple hundred£$
now 4TB is $150

another dooms day based on picking a random number out of a hat and then throw in some sprinkles of nonsense to spice up the doomsday
how about use rational numbers that are in context and part of current/known future discussions

this has been answered many times.
summary
countries have laws (minimum wage, tax, court fines, licences, mortgages, debt) that keep fiat LEGALLY binding to have usefulness in a country.

you can happily work from home in america working for a european company who pays you in euros which you then spend on european retailers websites. but you still end up having to convert some euros to dollars to pay taxes. which in short means that they still get their taxes.
EG america does not care about its residents using the euro because of the LAWS that keep dollars in default usage in america.
even if everyone in america started trading euros, those euros need to be converted to dollars to pay taxes, court fines and licences.
so most countries do not care because they will still receive fiat tax, even if people are personally using something else.

but lets say they did try..
governments prohibiting alcohol last century didnt stop the moonshine and private drinking clubs business
governments prohibiting drugs hasnt stopped anything
governments prohibiting guns in schools hasnt stopped anything.

they can try, but i dont presume they want to stop bitcoin out of feat of fiat value dropping*.. but even if they did prohibit it. people will still use bitcoin. and the price (just like moonshine, guns and drugs) will just go up the more its prohibited, due to peoples perceptions of how much supply is being restricted.

*because due to government debt, governments love fiat losing value because they can pay off fixed debt amounts faster. its why they went for a inflationary model in the first place. (research Zimbabwe dropping from 147% GDP debt to 75% GDP debt in one year2008-2009 thanks to the drop in "value" of their currency to make debt repayments easier)

computers are made using binary logic. and as such a computer cannot be d-wave resistant per-se because a binary(normal) system can only work within its own limits (1 byte=256 possible switch combinations).
Dwave still has 8bits but 4 possibilities(0-1-2-3) per bit bit instead of 2(0-1), allowing for quantum computers(QC) to have 65536 combinations.

however QC cant simply throw its result into a binary system "as is" because the data would get lost in translation(binary:'WTF is a 3?'), it requires QC to calculate a solution, and then convert the result back(like an analogue/digital modem) to binary before a normal computer would understand it. which limits QC capabilities when solving binary logic problems

in short
efficiency due to the limits of binary bytes and logic of such, it only allows d-wave a 2x efficiency at solving binary logic problems and requires translating QC result back to binary result to be accepted by and have impact on binary based systems. (so im not worried)

it simply means unspent transactions.
when you download the entire blockchain not only is the blockchain saved. but a second list is formed holding only the transactions that have not yet been spent/used.

think of it as a summary of the blockchain to help nodes make faster searches to validate any new transactions

im talking more about the comedy of the D-wave CEO doing TED talks and magazine interviews trying to sell d-wave using words fit only for a sci-fi novel

in regards to quantum computing people need to get their heads out of the sci-fi section and into reality.
quantum/d-wave (once you wash away the foolish buzzwords of it) is simple. instead of a micro transistor having 2 options(binary).. it has 4.

and here is where the magic evaporates.
in binary
imagine 0 volts is 0(false/off/no/negative/dark)
imagine 1 volt is 1(true/on/yes/positive/light)

now.. imagine instead of 2 options. there are four options 0 1 2 3
imagine 0 volts is 0(false/off/no)
imagine 0.33 volts is 1(not false not true/not off not on/not no not yes)
imagine 0.66 volts is 2(false and true/off and on/ no and yes)
imagine 1 volt is 3(true/on/yes)

now imagine all this shit about trans-dimensional space, time travel and parallel states as just bait, to keep the very simple logical process from being revealed(avoid corporate competition by not revealing the simple secret sauce ingredient) of micro transistors with 4 options instead of 2

the whole "new states of both on and off" is just wishy washy wording, meant only for sci-fi movies because its not actually any magic of
binary "off / on"
dwave "off / not off not on/ off AND on / on"

as these are just attributes(names) and those 2 new options in the middle can mean anything you want it to mean.
yes / maybe / not sure / no
yes / sometimes / not often / no
night / morning / afternoon / evening

all you need to know is a micro transistor in a Dwave has 4 options instead of 2.
an 8 bit dwave 'byte' allows for 65,536 possibles(4^8) instead of 8 bit binary 'byte' allowing for 256 possibles(2^8)
this allow a hex to be stored using just two bits instead of 4bits
meaning you can store FFFF(33333333) in one dwave byte instead of just FF in a binary byte(11111111)

its utility for compression and speed improvement of data is limited. but its utility in logic problems opens up immensely.

its just going to take time for then to think up some logic problems that can utilise the 2 extra options.

if you want to think of it like a switch.
bright light on / romantic dim setting / movie-gaming dim setting / light off.
if your light switch in your living room or den only has on or off. your missing out on 'mood lighting'. get yourself a dimmer switch
and then spend some time thinking about what you will use the two new dimmer settings for, but be warned they are not for trans-dimensional wormhole jumping or parallel universe hopping

in short
core releasing 0.13.2a with 1base 4weight AND releasing 0.13.2b with 2base 4weight

that way core fanboys dont have to defect away from core to get real capacity, they can choose freely while remaining with core dream team
that way the community as a whole have an open choice without having any bias
that way you can finally be happy of your dream team having code for all the features the community have been requesting.
that way you can chill out your doomsdays because core is no longer vetoing the 2mb base option, to cause controversy

in short
a block is just a clump of data. it can be anything
a blockchain group of blocks where the identifier is made by including the identifier of the last block, which includes the identifier of the previous block.

meaning block 400k's single hash represents the combined data and collection of 400k blocks.. if 2 people recognise that single hasn they both know they have all the exact same data contained in 400k blocks and it all matches

long version in laymens

block is just a block(clump/batch) of data.. which can be anything. a list of favourite songs. book where each block is a chapter of text.. or a batch of transactions.

this block of data then has a hash to identify it.
this way you dont need to send the entire data to someone else. you can just send the hash and if they say they have the same hash, you both know you both have the same block of data and the text is exactly the same. this is because change any of the data changes the hash..
eg - very laymans
data: Joyful Artistic Nice Energetic, hashes to JANE
no need to say do you have data: Joyful Artistic Nice Energetic...... but instead do you have: JANE

next lets describe the chain.
by including the hash of the previous block with the data of the next block.. the new hash not only can be used to say you have the second blockdata but also the first. and both are complete


EG - very laymens understanding
imagine you had 4 people..
now imagine their personality was a long story(i just got lazy and put in 4 words for dummy example)

person 1 is named by hashing their life story (joyful artistic nice energetic, hashes to JANE)
person 2 is named by hashing their life story (joyful artistic caring kind, hashes to JACK)
person 3 is named by hashing their life story (brave intelligent loving lazy, hashes to BILL)
person 4 is named by hashing their life story (joyful obedient honourable nice, hashes to JOHN)

blocks work because instead of asking others do you have data:"joyful artistic caring kind"... you simply ask do you have JACK

and chains add another layer

first we see JANE you tell the other person i have JANE.. they then know you only have one person
next we create JACK.. we combine the hashes.. to get a new hash JJAANCEK you tell the other person i have JJAANCEK.. they then instantly know you have 2 people and their data are complete and correct

now imagine time went on, you dont have to ask for JANE or JACK or even JJAANCEK .. if you now have 4 people you can just ask for JJBJAAIONCLHEKLN and the other person recognises your now at person 4 and all the data is correct for all 4 people without you ever needing to tell them at some point you got person 3 by transmitting any information about person 3 prior.

so say you had 400,000 blocks.. you just need to send ONE hash, that is a chain of all 400,000 blocks that reveals that:
1. you have block 400k
2. you have all other 399,999 blocks too
3. that all 400,000 blocks are complete and the data is valid

bitcoin vs blockchain:
bitcoin itself has atleast 8 other security features ontop of blockchain.. but dont confuse bitcoin and blockchain.
bitcoin uses blockchains and another 8+ things.. but blockchains are not bitcoin..

the data in the blocks dont need to be financial data, the hashes can be made using any algo (doesnt have to be sha256)
the data doesnt even need to be double secured (POW or POS), hense why i didnt mention that part.

its just a way of batching ANY data into blocks/clumps/groups (it all means the same thing "blocks") and then chaining each block together to speed up the checking time.

anything else ontop of what i have said is outside of the "blockchain" descriptor, but can be added to give extra security features to do certain tasks(as i said it takes atleast 8 things to make bitcoin what it is, 7 things to make a POS coin what it is) but they all fall under the umbrella of blockchain because they all use a blockchain as PART of their feature

i think the point of the localbitcoins is to not think of it as a business with 100 customer service staff with a policy to answer calls in 5 minutes.
local bitcoins is a skeleton crew (like most bitcoin businesses) and to expect a few days reply but be extremely happy to get resolved in a day.
rather then saying expect it in a day and get frustrated if a few days. EG dont over promise and under deliver.. under promise and over deliver

and if you want your local store to accept bitcoin.. dont wait for the magic fairy tales of rich dudes on horses to come riding into your town.
go to your local independant store and talk to them about bitcoin, costs nothing to talk

also worth adding
if you dont know enough about someone to slap them with a wet fish should they do you wrong. you might aswell stand in the road and throw mony at people you will never meet ever again.

there is only certain things to reduce risk of people wronging you (staying away from reversible payments) but even then its best to be able to know you can slap then when/if they do

all im hearing from you is benefits of a FIAT price rise.
im guessing you are not thinking of the benefits of how many loaves of bread you can buy... and only thinking of the fiat you can grab. and not realising fiat wont buy you as much bread

in short.. if you can get your local store to accept bitcoin. you wont care about the fiat price because you just hand over bitcoin to the merchant.
eg now buy 3 loaves of bread for 0.01btc and in the future get more loaves of bread for your 0.01btc without even caring what the fiat valuation is. without needing to find a way to cash out to then buy bread with fiat.
you benefit by not having to care about negative fiat interest rate.
you benefit by not having to care about banker booms and busts.
you benefit by not having to care about banks losing your retirement.

but if all you care about is the fiat price so one day you can cash out and hold onto fiat.. then your missing the point of bitcoin totally

ethereum is not the new boss. it has many many flaws

but core still think bitcoin needs a boss for bitcoin to be a boss.

bitcoin does not need a boss. anyone thinking it does, needs to retry learning the purpose of bitcoin.
bitcoin should not have one group running the show. but several groups. letting people have open choice of who they like.
where these several groups have the current rules and then let the community choose the new rules, based on the rules not the groups.

not because one group releases rule 123 and another group releases rule 321.. but all groups release 123 and 321 and the community decide the rule without having to worry or favour or be biased towards one group or other.

this then makes its about the rules not the favour of groups

true consensus can then be reached based purely on the bitcoin rules.
if no rule gets majority based on the rule itself. then it doesnt activate. again its about the rules not the group

again this evaporates the fake social consensus and brings the decision and consent back to code consensus