higher cost to build?
im sorry to inform you but to run bitcoin needs LESS resources then a PC used gaming
im sorry to inform you but to run bitcoin needs LESS resources then a PC used to stream online movies all day

so if you want to cry about the developing countries and think bitcoin is dead because x y z.. then you are saying that netflix and gaming industry is not fit for people to entertain themselves with

a normal desktop computer at standard spec has more resources to run bitcoin.

normal desktop computers only possible consideration is the hard drive for futureproof-ness of the data..
yet 1-4TB hard drives are real. they exist. we are not stuck in 1993 where 4GB was seemed to be the limit of hard drive

even funnier core devs themselves used the quoted stupid/debunked arguments even in june 2017.. yet by august 2017 were happy with 4mb blocks

again we are not stuck in 1993 the data resource argument is stupid..

but with all that said..  not everyone NEEDS to be a full nodes. yes some "nerds" that like gaming like to up-spec their PC to dominate and do fantastic things. but you dont need a super spec PC to "nerd out" on bitcoin

even this year when people are mentioning that a 4x of lean bitcoin transactional ability compared to 2015 lean transaction thresholds has not occured.. yet certain idiots are happy that one transaction with only a couple inputs and outputs but a 3.95mb bloated meme image is perfectly fine
yes they are ok with a block only having a few transactions and 99% junk data.. but argue forever that bitcoin should not be doing 10k+ transactions a block

read between the lines of myth busted arguments the core devs make.. their "conservatism" has not been about allowing the 3rd world full node access.. its about not expanding transaction counts because they want people to get annoyed by bitcoin and be promoted into using subnetworks that give middle men fee's
remember the core devs were given hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship to add features that open gateways to subnetworks.. these sponsors want to get returns on their investment on the subnetworks..
read between the lines and work out the real reasons stupid illogical arguments were made to not expand transactional ability on the bitcoin network

as for fee's instead of charging users 4x more per tx. they should have allowed 4x more transactions per block.. if their real reason for wanting higher fee's were to compensate mining pools

LN has a flaw of only 20 hop distance.. so they create "trampolines" where you send a message to a service that is distanced somewhere else on the network where they create the onion to the destination on your behalf.. meaning you tell them teh amount and destination you want..

LN has a flaw of only channel imblance and bottlenecks.. so they create "hubs" where you let them have your value, let them set up a channel and you just have some msat balalnce where you tell their software what destination you want and they read the gossit to create the path

LN has flaw of complicated integration of LN node and bitcoin node and scripts inbetween.. so they create "greenlight" that manages the node and communication process and onion routing paths and you just do the signing of value to the channel partner

[i can go on, and on]

and yet people think that LN is a decentralised system of user full control of funds..

when you look at all the big services that are all sister companies of DCG or other institutions that have to follow MSB regulations. it should awaken you to how many nodes are sharing data to chainanalysis

unless there are underlying faults of the network code, causing people to run out and exit their holding en masse
unless the most efficient mining cost on the planet drops, its currently above $20k in q2+ of 2023

we shouldnt see sub $20k again
..
as for the highs
if everyone on the planet can mine for under $200k no on would want to market buy for more than $200k if they can get it cheaper by other means
(its why bitcoin topped out at $70k in 2021, because everyone on planet could mine for <$80k so no one wanted to pay more)

funny. you two always make me laugh at your ignorance
look at the DCG portfolio.. notice the main LN devs are in the same portfolio as chainanalysis. notice all the other portflios of services that share information

it only takes a few nodes in certain network positions to intercept paths of data. especially now those teams in DCG portfolio are also offering monitoring LN software
when "greenlight" manages the channels and payments. guess where that data goes

you are guided by your insane forum-wife that has gaslit you into thinking that 2017 segwit activation was a UASF.. it was not soft. nor user assisted

stop listening to your forum-wife and stop playing dumb just to stay in a happy relationship with your forum wife.. then you might learn something

there is actual blockdata. code and historic events.. you have been informed of them before so dont play dumb pretending its new to you. its just not what your forum-wife told you so you ignore it to stay in a relationship with your forum wife even when they are wrong

it FOLLOWS
im talking about and this topic is talking about implementation clients that offer a proposal for a change of the protocol... and its these protocol proposition changes that are treated unfairly and as the enemy

only clients that FOLLOW core and just allow core to make the decisions are not given grief

again to answer your question and break through your amnesia, (the tool you use so you can stay happily married to your insane forum-wifes beliefs)

with core being the CORE implementation/reference client/ authoritarian brand.. other dev teams get REKT even before they have a chance to allow users a client they can download and populate the network.
(there are proof of REKTS, dont play dumb)

when non-core implimentations that offer protocol level fork options. those clients are treated not as bitcoin clients, but opposition/enemy/altcoin clients.
(there are proof of REKTS, dont play dumb)

the only time hard forks do happen in recent decade(such as the mandatory hardfork done by blackmailing pools to upgrade or be kicked off the network) are done now by core and only core.
(there is literally code and block bit flagging signal proofs of this, dont play dumb)

each time there is a mandatory deadline for mining pools to comply and upgrade or be ignored by the economic nodes(thrown off network) is a hardfork.
the threat causes a UNNATURAL 100% compliance super majority.
EMPHASIS: UNNATURAL
(there is literally code and block bit flagging signal proofs of this, dont play dumb)

and if you want to pretend these conversations have never happened or pretend there is no proof .. please check your post history, and stop asking for me to blast you all over again with the proof just for you to ignore all over again..
emphasis the graph of the blue red lines of how the activations occured to an unnatural 100% diagonal+straight line (you know exactly what i am referring to: dont play dumb)

nope. each application has different review/deadline dates..
however you are right the SEC do not want to make a mistake of accepting the wrong candidate first as it can put huge legal risk back on the SEC
which is more reason to not blanket accept all at same time

this legal risk is another reason why non-experienced grayscale vs for instance very ETF experienced blackrock. gives more weight to blackrock winning.

blackrock already have the platform and technical communication ISO standards to nasdaq platform. where for blackrock its just adding another asset to its system. however grayscale with no nasdaq experience has to create the platform, conform to ISO communication standards with nasdaq and set up alot of legal compliance frame work for the first time.. its not a case of just adding an asset to nasdaq for grayscale, there is alot more to it to show experience of compliance and readiness.

i believe there would be a first mover advantage. followed by other applicants adjusting/editing their applications to be templates of the blackrock application to then "fast track" their acceptances

a. you dont declare tax each day you receive income from customers. you file your taxes at the end of year of what is left after to separate out your deductibles.. its the same as the common man, before tax they can invest part/all of their salary into a pension or a tax free investment and such. so the amount of money going into an investment is not post-tax, nor taxed at source.

b.you forgot all about the loan service i mentioned.. the point of a service is not for the loan receiver to make repayments that include interest. the point is for the loan receiver to give collateral to get the cash and then ..hint hint. default the loan so the service takes the collateral. that way instead of selling coin to then be taxed on normal CEX. you have instead been given cash equivalent in loan form, thus no tax. and surrendered your coin... (hint hint its a tactic to sell coin get fiat without selling and being taxed)

and thats how the rich never pay tax, but get to handle alot of money

after another discussion with someone when a topic came up about the super fiat rich
how do they get away with paying no taxes, but then suggest they will eventually give all their wealth away

the simple answer is this
when their business gets revenue, they invest it. and because they are not spending the money personally outside of business purposes, and because they are not selling the investment there is no tax. (investing is a pre-tax event)

then if they need some spending money, they do not sell the investment. instead they ask for a loan using the investment as collateral. and because funds from a loan are not taxable they get to use the money without paying tax

so here is a tip for us bitcoiners who ask how can governments try to tax bitcoin but yet, fiat billlionaires dont get taxed
there needs to be a bitcoin service where people who want to buy bitcoin join(lets call it a credit union or loan company). but instead of "buying" they become investors/funders of loans.
so the service offers loans to bitcoiners that want to cash out. but the bitcoiner doesnt sell the coin. but instead hands the coin over to the service as collateral.
the bitcoiner is then a non-coiner and receives cash. but has not sold the coin but instead received a 'loan' of cash for his collateral. thus no tax. yep loans are not taxable.
obviously never making any repayments the coins become the service investors property. and the deal is done.

buyers have the coin. the ex-bitcoiner gets the cash.

.. sidenote
the only time the rich sell assets is if the asset is performing below its purchase price. so they sell it. and instantly buy it back. (no loss due to sell-buy being equal price/time) but it triggers a "realised value loss" they can put on their financial statement, which they can then use the loss against any tax their main fiat business could not avoid within the business.. to not have to pay tax because the asset loss writes off any fiat business tax

the way i see it. due to the legal stuff of grayscale. the application review process stopped for them months ago. however the application reviews of things like blackrock continued. now the SEC has been asked to re-review grayscale. they are at the bottom of the pile(back at the start)

grayscale recently submitted its promotional material and prospectus pamphlets to the SEC to show their wording is not misleading. but this is not a sign of them being a stage closer than other applicants, it shows the SEC is scrutinising the small print and terms more


with the added stuff of the bankruptcy's/debts of grayscale sister companies, and lack of documented experience in the ETF industry, also does not add positive weight to their review. where as blackrocks long history does add positive weight to blackrocks review

i know some will say ARK21 deadline in january is closer than blackrocks march deadline. but the SEC can do another delay on ark and favour to give 'first mover' to blackrock on or before march

first lesson of economics. if you need $160 but can get hold of $160 in 2 weeks. just wait 2 weeks and pay what you need with your own funds

doesnt matter if it is medical bill or household utility bill.. you will have more success negotiating a delay in payment by asking to pay in 2 weeks, rather than trying to scam/scheme money from strangers that cant trace you when you abscond

find the funds via family or friends

i understand if we put bitcoin into context of fiat. bitcoin and fiat should not be limited to one payment app/method of spend. a dollar is not locked to only be spent as cheques. people can use wire transfer, visa-debit cards, store branded giftcards/loyalty cards, heck even store branded debit cards. but to just go with the argument "cheques are dead, bank of americore visa credit is the only solution" is not the answer. especially if everyone knows bank of americore visa has many flaws and bugs the managers admit they cant fix

saying that cheques should only also be bank of americore cheques and any other brand is an enemy is also bad precedent to by implying

---

the most funniest of the REKT campaigns was certain group screaming how 2mb per block of valid transactional lean data would kill the network
and then later same group are saying 1mb base+3mb of junk space bloat filled with meme images unrelated to transactional data(4mb) is fine and we should not do anything to stop the nonsense junk bloat. nor should we reutilise the now acceptable 4mb to be fit for just lean transactional data to propel transactions per block average to be 4x the 2016 1mb limit.

there are other subtle things they imply, such as bitcoin transactions are no longer (in their view) signed by the owner, but instead "witnessed" as being moved. where the evidence of proof is just a weight of evidence from a witness.. trying to make bitcoin seem less secure in its proof
other things like trying to force people who have sole ownership of keys to instead use newer transaction formats by premiumising the cost of legacy transactions. where the new features are only beneficial if people deposit funds into multisig(more then one person control).

these people are not interested in making bitcoin more useful for the many users wanting self control of wealth. they want to make bitcoin become a headache inducing network to make people avoid using it and pick their subnetwork that has middlemen fee's and require fund managers controling the flow of value

anyways
these subnetworks that function via middlemen is how the sponsors of core devs 2014-19 want to earn returns on their investments. its why certain people are hyper promoting a certain subnetwork to the extreme and getting aggressive if anyone announces the flaws of the subnetwork in question. because they are paid to promote it and hope millions of users move over to the subnetwork and abandon daily use of the bitcoin network

it has become soo obsurd that they have even invented 'greenlight' and other hub/factory systems of account/channel management to centralise their subnetwork all so they can be the payment processors taking a fee. yet their favoured subnetwork still has not garnered the popularity it thought it would. some call it Eltoo solution.. i call it Elvis. everyone has heard of him but 99% have not experienced him personally

i am not against subnetworks that fit a need and function securely.. much like im not against all the different fiat payment apps. but when their last 6 years has been headstrong driving down one roadmap direction of one flawed path. its time they build a new road, several roads, all offering different experiences(niches).. and we still need to expand the bitcoin network. and not just push people down these niche routes to avoid using the bitcoin network

as for stats
did you know
in 2022 avalanche had more liquidity in its 3 years of existance than LN had in its 5
other bridges like WBTC have multiple amount of liquidity than LN

i personally have other issues with those two too. but when certain people exaggerate LN's utility and popularity and yet dont take time to fix the flaws or learn from mistakes. LN becomes the worse example of subnetwork bridges trying to steal bitcoin fame while actually making bitcoin look worse

dont play dumb you are fully aware of the term REKT campain. it has been told to you many times. do not play your forum-wifes game of selective amnesia every 3 months
instead of forgetting things every three months. just check your post history of the last few years to remind you of things been said to you before

the initial segwit consensus vote began as a november 2016 origin requiring super majority mass consent to activate.. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB
in june-july it never got above 45%. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB
it never reached above 45% becasue what core was offering was not what the community wanted..

so the sponsors of the core devs (DCG(NYA) via blockstream) then instigated the bait and switch via a mandatory activation by august.. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB
the mandatory activation was a blackmail event to force mining pools to comply or have their blocks rejected by the economic nodes(cant spend rewards).. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB

it activated not due to community desire. but by threat and blackmail between mining pools and economic nodes
it was also not requiring the super majority of user nodes to vote, due to the non-requirement of usernode to upgrade to be compliant, due to the "backward compatibility" trick to bypass needing network readiness of usernode to accept the new rules. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB

if a new feature that needed a hard fork had actual community benefit then usernodes, economic nodes and miningpools would review, accept the benefit and upgrade their nodes. they would not need threats and blackmail and bypass tricks to get something activated

if core actually offered things the mass community were begging for. core would not have had 2 years of fighting. core would not have needed to get their sponsors involved to push a few malicious campaigns. there would have been no 2015-2017 drama
the only reason there was drama is because the community wanted a onchain upgrade to allow more transactability onchain and cheaper fees onchain. however the core roadmap wanted to offer a tollbooth gateway to a subnetwork bridge as "the solution".. YOU KNOW THIS DONT PLAY DUMB

the jury were out of the room YESTERDAY. but spectators were still able to sit in court.
many who attended spoke about what he said and how evasive he was about many questions.

however today SBF is being question with the jurors present.

look at for instance walmart. as a different scenario of businesses getting away with things
they make profits, o they can afford it.. but. their employees already on minimum wage are not paid for the time they spend at the workplace nor able to negotiate proper full time roles.
by walmart only offering part time roles of say 16 hours(4 days of 4 hours for instance) but if you add up the 15min start 15 min end unpaid is actually 18 hours of time not at home.. those employees labour of 18 hours paid only 16 hours. then are further subsidised by government social security to hand out 'foodstamps' and 'housing vouchers' to ensure people can survive.. simply because walmart wont give them a 40 hour shift of actual only 40 hours of labour. because it then means walmart has to pay out 'contributions' for pensions

bitcoinXT was treated not as a bitcoin option. but as something that should be REKT and treated as an enemy. it gave core the ultimate power of single dev team ownership of protocol decision control

segwits nov2016-june2017 never gained more then 45% because the community did not see personal benefit of actual tx discount(making legacy cheaper) nor a real up-count of transactions per block.. core thought community would just upgrade nodes to the newest and comply within 9 months due to the REKT's of any other brand out of the choice.  .. but people just didnt upgrade to newest core to flag compliance
(it only required mining nodes to show compliance.. they declined)

the segwit2x was a bait and switch. it was done by the same side of the NYA who just wanted segwit activated. the x2 base was never coded but a empty promise for "later".
(it required economic(exchanges/merchants/services) to threaten to ignore pools who dont comply. forcing pools into compliance to stay engaged with services)

the reason none of the bips of many ways to allow more transactions per block from 2015-2017 were methods that did not meet blockstreams(core) roadmap. and so with all the REKT's and mandatory drama. core solidified its authoritarianism to rule out any deviants to their plan.

if you look at DCG (nya) portfolio. of blockstream, bloq you soon see all the options that were available and not smashed instantly in REKT drama all had the same people.. gavin and garzig(bloq) were funded by the same team of blockstream NYA

so all the options were bait and switch options to get the end result they wanted.. segwit with not base block adjustment

anything that did involve code that would dynamic change, adjust or multiply the base blocksize. were REKT and treated as non bitcoin/enemies of bitcoin by sponsored trolls

if i had a scenario like this..
i would investigate the hardware. find out which chip stores the hash. and then rip the data from the chip directly.
buy 100000 other chips or an emulator to then not have the countdown worry
or
edit the other chip that has the wallet code that has the delete function. and remove that chip code and replace it for code that has no delete function

obviously risky trying to access firmware data outside of its designed 'booted up' method of data access. but its a possible better way around just booting the wallet up on a PC to only have X attempts

heres the thing. (mentioning other issues)with liquidity bottlenecks and many users rebalancing causing other users to rebalance to cancel out their result of someones reblance ends up causing more payments and "router" fees. then we have a ignorance of fixes to this and instead have work arounds like custodianising funds in hubs (services and cex) then we have other work arounds to solve channel balance threats due to bugs with autopilot features so they start getting people to buy/rent LN balance units(msats) where central services run the node and users just have a lite wallet they dont need to have active all day and never sleep..
so now the promises of a decentralised own your own value network is 95% centralised with majority of users reliant on central services charging them 'rent' and subscription charges as the replacement of just a nominal fee.. all while the subnetwork itself is still less secure then the bitcoin network

its time they come up with something else. learn from the mistakes and start from scratch, stop prodding the problem down the road requiring bitcoin to change just to keep a flawed network open.. if a subnetwork cant fix itself using its own code.. its just not good enough

i do laugh when they 'greenlight' new services.. it just shows that if devs need to offer a service instead of a network code feature.. they have reached their coding limit of fixing the problems

bad habits are hard to control if you dont understand the habit or why its bad.
first thing is to learn about it. then you are more willing to avoid it.

many people that fail keep saying "oh this wont hurt me if i just have it now and again"

if you dont understand the problem you wont see it as a problem thus less willing to stop doing it

..
lets take diet.
many people think dropping sugar and having sweetener is a beneficial change.. and on some level it is..
but..
removing all sugars and only going to sweetener actually removes a needed energy source.

many people dont realise that drinking 2 litres f fluid all day thats artificially sweetened is not good for you
your tastebuds sense the sweetness so your hormones send a signal to expect glucose(sugars) so you produce insulin. yet the fluid has no glucose. so your body then slowly learns to not produce insulin when tasting sweetness

the actual habit is not to stop having sugar. but instead have less.
dont drink 2 litres of sugar free flavoured drinks like diet pepsi which fools body into expecting glucose. and instead drink water.
but still have some amount of sugar. just the dietary amount. not excess

..
but first it requires people learning what is a bad habit to even know what to do, to even understand the benefit. to even attempt to change and be willing to put the effort into doing the change. knowledge is power