try and read it again
i put both £$ in to articulate that the currency is not important. the scenario can apply if you are US or UK.. the actual £$# amount is not important nor needs to be exact as its just a rounded number for people to easily calculated..
the concept and context of the message was not the monetary numbers. it was the example of if # is the contract rate, but the other person thinks he is getting # * 1.083 due to vacations.. but then realises due to time spent within the business and not leisurely at home he is actually getting # * 0.82 it shows how even on the minimum people should get, they are not even getting that for their time.

the minimum wage is not a great thing when the legal amounts even by government standard are below poverty line amounts. the 'living wage' is a more higher rate that basic/unskilled work should begin at. but also people should be paid for the time taken out of their life to make a business money

when i see people THINK they are in a job offering great rewards, where they dont realise those "rewards" are the basic legal requirements. its not really rewarding, its suckers pay.. and when those same people then dont even get paid the full amount of suckers pay for their time at that basic poverty rate. its a double faceslap to them.

i do find it amusing how even people scammed out of a fair pay of even poverty amount still think its a bonus, reward that should dont be questioned. when people are doing hard work for poverty amounts and not even getting fair pay for their time. its not the business doing the employee a favour where the employee should be happy. its the business swindling its employees for the businesses benefit

no tips
and no .. tips should not substitute minimum wage. tips are suppose to be a gratuity ontop of wages.. i understand some countries have a different minimum wage for cafe waitresses, but again if a business cannot support its longevity by even paying the minimum/living wage. it should not be operating

its not about the # amount specifically..
its not about comparisons to 3rd world countries

lets clarify things. the person i spoke with was british working in britain thinking he was getting better than minimum wage due to him discounting vacation time from his income amount math of his labour..

the point is about the contract of if a business wants you to use 9.5 hours of your life per day where you are not free to do your own lifestyle enjoyment, due to having to meet expectations of a business, where they suggest to pay you the minimum of any countries legally limit.. but then even then. you are not actually getting paid that amount for your time

as for those comparing to other countries.. ok lets go extreme(not using specific £$ numbers)
imagine if the min wage was # an hour, in a food service. where they say the restaurant only opens between 2pm-9pm where they contract you for # * 7 a day for those 7 hours of opening time...... but they expect you to turn up at 1pm to prep the ingredients, wash down the tables and heat up the fryers before your work day(opening hours) begins.. and then at 9pm, not leave, but hang around and try to hurry up the slow eating customers and then turn down the fryers and leave by 10pm
you are giving them 9 hours of time but paid for 7hours

i have seen many in the food industry turn up early, leave late, unpaid.. just to keep the business operational.

i do not mind it if the employee is salaried to a fair income of above minimum wage to put in extra time/effort to help the business.. but when i hear how poor people are not even getting minimum wage for their time. thats a double insult to them..


if a business cannot operate by paying even the most basic legal requirement. that business should not operate. and people should not slave themselves just to keep a business in operation

i was having a discussion with someone who was talking about the pro's and cons of his minimum wage job

he told me he works for 40hours a week at ~£$10 an hour for 52 weeks. =£$20800 pretax
he then says how in some countries they do not do paid time off. and how he gets 4weeks off fully paid. and he gets into detail that if he takes his £$20.8k and divides it by 48 and then 40, he is actually earning £$10.83 an hour

and this is where i then ask him
what hours does he leave home to go to work and then get home
he tells me the store opens at 9am and closes at 6pm but he has to be there at 8:45 to brief the days needs and exits at 6:15pm once all customers have left and doors are shut officially and securely

so this is not 8 hours obviously, but instead 9 hours 30 minutes
he says the hour extra is an unpaid breaks of 1x30min and 2x 15 minutes

i say to him in those unpaid breaks does he have enough FREE time to exit the business and do some personal chores unrestricted. he says no, he has to be in the vicinity of the workplace because he will get penalised if late back from lunch and the 15min breaks are not enough time to go anywhere personally without guaranteed penalty

so i get into detail with him.
for those 48 weeks of working of 5 days of 9.5hours for $20.8k pretax = 2280 hours / £$20.8k =£$9.12 an hour

i then inform him that this amount should be for his time. where i then enquire about his other costs just to be able to work.
so he tells me he spends about £$2 in fuel per day. and the £$6 on laundry and lunch(buys instore sandwich, drink,snack deal)
so out of the £$80 a day income for 9.5 hours he is only actually paid £$72 for his time

and now he works it out. he only gets £$8.20 per hour of his time of being in the vicinity of his workplace and not at home leisurely

.. we then started to debate the details, EG saving £$4 buy prepping meals at home for £$1 instead of £$4 and doing home batched clothes washing once a week instead of £$2 a day laundry

but even with all this, the number was far far below the $10 on contract and £$10.83 he thought he was getting if he deducted vacation time from his labour time

it just goes to show how little things like a restrictive activity unpaid lunch and extra start and end unpaid time before the business opens can take money way from your real life time

imagining being told your life was only worth £$10 an hour where they will compensate you for taking time out of your life to do things for them, under their policy.. but then not even getting £$10 an hour for your actual time spent out of your life

so folks. the gist is.. if a business requires you to be away from home and performing activities that benefit them from 8:45-6:15 make sure they pay you for all of that time ESPECIALLY if its minimum wage

the main risk is if the FEE's become to impractical for normal people to operate on the network, which then forces people into using centralised custodians of offchain systems, is where problems start

although i have ALOT more coins on my keys then you, does not make me more decentralised then you for having more coins in my control of my value/wealth.. the amount per users is not important
the utility of the network  to allow peer to peer payments is important

if centralist idiots are telling people not to do their coffee/pizza purchases on bitcoin and promoting bitcoin fees should rise and suggesting people should rent out some other systems balance to make payments on other systems.. thus giving funds to custodians.. thats where the problems start

a certain person thinks bitcoin should become a system that only supports 2 custodians peer-to-peer reserve swapping, where all of their customers use another network.. and he calls that bitcoin decentralisation success

the not your keys is not the failure.. the fee wars and limiting transactions per block, is where things fail, because it promotes making people give up coin control to have convenience (your chicken fear comes after the egg problem that causes your fear)

it doesnt work.
when you start to realise that alot of "events" are not goods/services payments. but things like rebalancing ping pong games. it puts things into prospective

when you look at other subnetwork bridges that have more locked liquidity. it puts things into prospective

when you look at the fact that centralised services hold more of the liquidity than indepenedant channel/node users you start to see its not the "decentralised" promise either.

when you see how el salvador was scammed into thinking they were trialing bitcoin, but suckered into using LN and 3 months later el salvador dropped the LN trial to use another method. you start to see how it affected millions of people negatively and gave bitcoin a bad name and bad reputation even when el salvadorians were not even using the bitcoin network

for those that want niche payment services, they dont need to be suckered into LN or ethereumVM's, they can create their own, ones without the bugs, ones not reliant on centralisation of rule controllers, ones that dont cause bottlenecks, one that dont require handing funds over to a centralised custodian.. nor ones causing users to be victims to others rebalance shuffles which then unbalances your channel requiring you to then rebalance to then off balance the trigger man.. repeat..

yep code can do many things,(if you are not sponsored into limiting things to only meet some corporations desires)

LN has alot more flaws then this.
but when it comes to them on another network making demands to need a bitcoin network fork, just to make their network work. it shows their network has bigger problems they cant even resolve themselves on their own network
the issue at hand of this particular flaw it to force bitcoin miners to reject a new softfork transaction format if it uses a expiry that has passed. BUT thus needing a hard fork upgrade on the bitcoin network to ensure its enforced, bitcoin has become easy to let in soft nonsense, unchecked data.. but to strengthen the rules to reject transactions of a certain format requires a hard fork

some of them wanted work arounds like having centralised services to manage funds or watch for abuses. but these do not help the decentralisation promise..
the great thing about code is you can write your own rules on their own network, but if their code has a problem. putting a plaster on it or asking another network to provide them a feature, just shows their are problems at their root

they have became too lax about their scripts. where they have not thought about security, but instead malleability. having a mindset that everything should be soft and not hard has meant many people can find exploits. and even if they try to fork bitcoin to add in a output deadline. it wont fix the issues, there are many other scripting exploits people can use to perform the same attack, the latest one relates to how participants of p2tr do not know all the scripting conditions of all methods to spend. they just blindly sign a part not realising that part can be used against them

i am not going to explain all the flaws(giving scammers ammo) nor logical fixes due to simply not liking their network so they dont deserve help. but atleast now the flaws are starting to get noticed.. best suggestion .. start afresh and use a different payment system model.. make a subnetwork that actually meets its 6yo promises

there are millions of people that tried LN and experienced its flaws and instead moved over to other subnetworks. this is not just one guy leaving. but just a notable guy of millions leaving

i might actually respect core devs again if they made a subnetwork that is truly functional without having to mess with bitcoins rules just to fit. because messing with bitcoins rules has made bitcoin soft. and thats something we should not allow, just to populate someone elses network

id be more worried about microstrategy/blackrock/grayscale doing a mass sell off
each of their keys has thousands of coin per key..
the real satoshi had separate key per 50btc reward. meaning if someone brute forced a key, its only 50btc at market risk..
same goes for the supposed 4m lost, there are not hoarded on a single key..
 however its the top 5 "bitcoin richlist" people should be wary of, more so than the thousands of addresses of smaller amounts

in short, dont expect the 'lost coins' spread over thousands of addresses to cause a dump.. even if a significant address gets recently signed.
satoshis 18btc in the well known address (satoshi->hal interactions), wont cause market chaos

not your keys not your coins is not a % of network strength

the network strength has nothing to do with keys..
its the decentralised nature of the blockchain, where the ledger is not locked to a centralised server for a one copy ability to edit.
its the decentralised nature of the mining power that the blocks are not all created in one location/jurisdiction/controller

the not your keys not your coin is about personal wealth protection

the network does not fail if numbskulls think they own value in a custodian. its the numbskulls failing themselves by not protecting their value by not using the network

you cant claim the network has failed, due to users not even using the network.. its the users not using the network that failed themselves

core devs job is to maintain the bitcoin protocol. however they should not OWN IT. they should instead listen to the community.. and develop things that make bitcoin more useful for the general populous, not just their sponsored commissioners

you thinking i am the only one that wants core devs to do things is YOUR FAILURE.
you want no one to request features. you want core devs to be the authoritarian dictating totalitarians which no one should question or criticise.

the reality is core devs SHOULD be reviewed, criticised and should listen to the populous.

you also dont want other groups to offer other methods to upgrade the protocol or offer a different subnetwork that competes against your centralist design preferences

YOU are the one that does not do coding. you are just a sock puppet hoping a core dev will put their hand up inside you and tickle you as a reward for defending their actions.

it is funny how you pretend i am the totalitarian when its YOU that want bitcoin core devs to be totalitarian
grow up, and realise your favoured subnetwork is not the solution and core devs that are subnetwork motivated should try making a subnetwork that meets bitcoiners needs
if after 6 years of promoting a broken crap subnetwork, you have not been given some compensation or reward for your ass kissing, its time you realise you are a slave to a broken system

its time to start afresh and ass kiss your influencers to make something you can be proud of promoting without you having to lie

---

edit

responding to below
i have suggested that when core devs do things that dont benefit the general populous and only benefit centralists, that they should try something else.. if he thinks im a "controller", thats a failure of HIS understanding of who controls what
 

doomad thinking no one should have an opinion, by thinking im the only one left not afraid to speak my mind to be the "last man standing" is a failure on his part... then he wants to pretend there must be some set credentials needed to even dare have an opinion about core dev centralist roadmap.. is a failure on his part of understanding humans ability to have opinions

his belief, where anyone who wants something should f**k off to another network and do their own thing, and never question wanting better things for bitcoin itself, is a failure on his part of what decentralisation is all about.. bitcoins only option is NOT start a new network and leave core devs to just do as they centrally please

speaking my mind is not entitlement, its freedom. his desire to suppress it and beg me to remove my opinions is him acting like a totalitarian. if his memory only lasts a few months to keep forgetting how i point out your adorations of REKT campaigns, thats your own fault for forgetting how you dont like competing dev teams wanting to progress he protocol. you cant use memory loss as an excuse to pretend your innocent, .. this forum keeps records of posts

his thinking that to even have a opinion, to even scrutinise, or make comments about a dev team requires needing to own them.. is a failure on his part.
him thinking it requires me to own them to even dare ask them anything, is a failure on his part.
him thinking because i dont own them i have no right to make requests or suggestions or have opinions is a failure on his part

as for his adoration of saying corporations should be free to ask devs to make changes but users should not. is perfect evidence of his totalitarian centralist ideals

3 & 4 is not about just having wallets or addresses!!! (your again going back to your old group-speak chants that just being a node is being made illegal(facepalm))

its actually about the activity to then coin-hop funds down a path of multiple transaction taints which then make it appear funds moving along those addresses all belonging to the same wallet. thus doing a suspicious money shuffling (shell game) procedure that normal people dont do

EG if a VASP(exchange) had flagging tools that knows funds from address A are blacklisted.
and address A owner just moves funds to address B C D E before then depositing thinking a 4 taint hop to E address is sufficient taint distance to declare clean. however this would not to the VASP mean its sufficient distance to declare clean, just via taint hopping. because the very act of taint hopping becomes suspicious in of itself

the way they would vasp/services monitor or flag something as taint hopping is the way services did years ago. when people would spam every block moving a certain amount of funds to new addresses where in logical common sense real world utility, funds would not move to new addresses every 10 minutes several times

a tip for you:
if you can learn what their descriptors of suspicious activity really mean. you lot of privacy queens can then advise/design services that avoid these methods, thus not get spotted
so learn what these descriptors/methodologies actually mean, to learn how not to get highlighted


that part, just adds more weight that exchange services should be regulated to avoid being treated as suspicious/illegal
(EG localbitcoins.com users got slapped around alot years ago for running exchange services without a money transmitter MSB licence, same will be said for DE-FI swap services..)

---

and big tip for you. in combination with other regulations.. it does not make just being  bitcoin node/bitcoin wallet owner/btc holder illegal.. but it does mean being an LN router DE-FI service using your own involvement to facilitate a payment for someone else for a fee, becomes a factor you should be aware of.. if you participate in shuffling(shellgame) value for others for a fee.. then if your not a regulated service that registered for a money transmitter/MSB licence to be verified as a VASP then expect problems

not just "mixing" but AEC (anonymity enhanced cryptocurrencies)

here is the thing though. this quote has listed methodologies they class as indications of mixing.. so be smart. stop calling a service a mixer. look at the methods they list to suspect mixing and create a service that does none of the things regulated as mixing and instead has the result people want without being so stupidly named as then thing thats regulated..

be smart, figure it out

there are other coins totally different market wiggle pattern to bitcoin. but things like ethereum shadow bitcoin movements too often to be just a coincidence.

take for instance bitcoins halving cycles and bitcoins mining contracts that cause a noticable patter each cycle on the market..
ethereum does not have the same mining practices or halving cycles or other crap.. but ethereum ATH the same time as bitcoin. meaning its just a sheep not its own market

counting addresses/accounts is meaningless.. stats do not mean 1 address=1 user
yes ethreum has more community than say doge coin of algerand or solena or any other promoted crap coins heard about. but ethereums community is not as large as bitcoins.. by this i mean in regards of utility sentiment to create their own market speculation

celebrities were not buying.. they were GIVEN an nft and also a lump of money to promote NFT's..
lets use another example
do you think the influencers of FTX invested in FTX or got paid to promote and say they invest and trusted FTX
when you learn that influencers promote things they dont even buy into themselves, you will learn to not be phased by influencers


i agree.. better decentralised bitcoin based subnetwork bridges.. the current line-up just remind me of ICO scams and altcoin crap


because no one wants ETH on bitcoin.. because no one really likes eth to want to expand eths presence in the bitcoin realm

again all this promotion of ethereum EVM's are done by the ETHEREUM promoters trying to get bitcoiners to join THEM. bitcoiners want bitcoin things and are peed off with bitcoin devs wasting YEARS on nonsense broke promise networks instead of making bitcoin more user friendly

saying "bitcoin needs ethereum EVM" is a simple translation of bitcoiners need to leave bitcoin and put their wealth into ethereum
now who would benefit most from making bitcoiners leave bitcoin and use a totally different mainnet+subnet system

..

in short and to get to the point.
bitcoin does not need to move people into the ethereum community via a EVM
bitcoin devs can drop their silly progression of LN and start afresh making a better bitcoin subnetwork that does equal and more then EVM does
because code can do many things.. with the right people coding it

there are changes.. but here is the thing. they will never lose. .. there is this thing called insurance. if the property floods. they get a pay out and rebuild. it ends up cheaper than renovating every 10 years

yep many land owners buy cheap property on flood plains. rent it out where the tenants pay off the mortgage/insurance total. and when floods occur the land owner makes a claim and gets his money.

imagine buying a $100k house in 2010, but value it as worth $250k in 20 years, so you take out a $250k policy where premiums are $1430 per year for home owners insurance
your tenants are paying the mortgage+$120/month to cover your insurance cost.
the maths, insurance premiums(via tenants) paid in $1430 for 20 years=$29k~  but you get $250k when a flood happens
all without touching a penny in your own pocket

this is why people that live near the coast dont just sell home to move in-land. they love the idea of insurance payouts and rebuilds.
these days, even fema will chip in a little bit to cover costs of flood

it seems to me in the 7 day period(DCG said there was a 7 day period of discussion/answer seeking) after appeal deadline SEC and grayscale have been communicating about issues with the application, and it seems grayscale got some advice from SEC as to some of the hindrances

imagine if all the drama of rejections all along was grayscale filing using the wrong form.. if they get accepted via the new form. watch all the other companies rush to file on that same form using grayscale as the template model to fast approval. (for applicants that filed a few years ago)

you do realise that bitcoin has its own community. and own market sentiment.
however if ethereum had its own larger community with its own market sentiment then ethereum would not shadow trace bitcoins price(90%+) of the time. because ethereum users would be doing other things with ether and choosing a different path/sentiment of demand..(different ups and downs on the market)

when you see ethereum basically just shadow traces the bitcoin market at a 1:14-1:19 ratio. it shows there is not an abundance of ethereum users making their own independent market decisions


so i do find it strange when you say it requires moving people away from bitcoin to use an ethereum based thing, will make bitcoin more popular..

because ethereums community is not as big as you think.. ethereums community and niche is hyped up. even its market is propelled only due to bitcoin.. not the other way round

its ethereum that wants a better bridge to bitcoin. not bitcoin needing a better bridge to ethereum

there can be bitcoin subnetworks (not the current hyped ones) in the future that are feature rich and meet the promises and needs of niche utility of thing like web3. but trying to pretend we need to pass bitcoiners over to ethereum mainnet fund control is a laugh,

the problem stems from decades of land development on cheap land known to be at risk of nature

people build along the coastlines but dont initially build sea defenses because they want easy access to sandy beaches not a climb over ugly rock defense walls

people build on wetlands due to it being too regularly flooded to be farmable, so its sold to real estate, who dont level up the land to be above the water basin

look at the swamplands of new orleans.. its swampland. there is no logical reason why anyone should be surprised when that area floods.

other area's are known to be 'tornado alleys' if you have a house in that area dont be blown away if i told you your house can be destroyed by a tornado

california has a known fault line but people are still shocked and left shaking in fear and surprise when there is an earthquake

living in a area without a river for miles and people are shocked they suffer from droughts

there is an abundance of land to farm. there is no need to panic.

however city dwellers that have never even seen a field of wheat or a cow in person, only see other buildings. they are the worse people for panic. they worry that if one trade route(road/bridge) becomes unusable then they wont get food.

however the other game being played is the urban real estate developers, they do not want people exiting city centres to buy rural property. so they invent green cities and vertical farming to ease city dwellers mind that although they may live 30miles from the nearest field they want to tell their residents that food is only a neighbour/block away

many will argue there are not enough farmers/farms and countries become dependant on imports.. but that is another game
countries have international strategies where they need to import for political reason. so they subsidise local farmers not to grow crops but instead diversify the land to do other activities

if all farmable land was farmed there would be an abundance of food, causing food prices to crash, so the politicians want to make food be seen as a limited resource because low supply/high demand aids the political profits of world leaders international trade deals

digital age allowed the scope of advertising to reach more eyes in further distances at cheaper costs.
old marketing involved buying advert time on TV/newspaper/bilboard, where you would need to multiply that cost per station/media/area

these days you can just reach out to a fanbase of customers/demography and ask them to just click a like/share and let them send your advert viral for free

old marketing would only go viral if a certain tv advert had content that would cause conversations with friends where people would tell each other about what they seen on tv. however this was less likely to catch on.. however in the digital age many people know which friends enjoy certain things, so sharing a link to them of a common interest becomes a click of a button, no conversation needed

businesses no longer need to hire salesmen with salaries and pension plans and taxes. and then ontop offering commissions. these days anyone interested in a product can sign up to be a affiliate and promote the product for just a small commission

digital era brought the costs and time required for advertising down (even though some media companies still try to con businesses into spending millions on advertising through them)

if you are self employed where your "business" is a hobby(low income/not registered), then i see lots of people co-mingling their "business" with their normal life.
however if you have an actual business that is tax registered.. or/and has employees. then you should have separate accounts

if a company is set up to need a treasury. but that treasury is putting funds into his personal account. he is not a treasurer. he is a criminal yet to be caught..

no company that has enough business structure to have/need a treasury, would hire a treasurer that uses their personal account for business uses.
the company should have a company account registered to the business with the treasurer authorised to access the account. whereby if the treasurer retires, resigns or is sacked its a simple name change by the company of authorised persons to the account. instead of asking ex-treasurer(or their family) to close that ex-treasurers personal account and send funds to company