thats not a clone.. altcoin are not clones

altcoins are genetically modified organisms (if we use biology definition) an offspring/fork
altcoin like BCH BSV are mutant, they are different

everyone that has a bitcoin full node has a clone of bitcoin. they are identical to every other bitcoiners copy. perfectly matched and inter-communicable with each other, in sync. there is no single unique copy in a centralised location. every copy of bitcoin on all full nodes is a clone of each other

if you want to make a mutant version thats not the same. then you change the code and fork it to an altcoin

whenever you see small businesses file bankruptcy.. most of the time its for them to write off debt and start the same service/product under a different brand the following month.. thus no societal harm to employees/customers

however when you see national chains go bankrupt. the big thing people need to look into is the pension fund deficit.. yes employees dont lose their jobs but find out the CEO has been syphoning off their pension deposits too

here in the UK a national chain called wilko's resently went into administration but the biggest story is that for its 2000 employees it has a massive £58m-£76m pension deficit.. yep £29,000-£38,000 pension loss per average employee.. which is alot of money

what we around the world experienced in 2008 with the real estate fiasco. we will start to see with the pensions deficit in the next decade

i know most americans will say they dont care because they have protected private 401k's but even they are at risk..
i just checked a US national chain that went into administration (bed bath& beyond) and even they have linked in some pension warnings
https://www.theretirementgroup.com/featured-article/5448093/attention-bed-bath-beyond-employees-vanguard-report-reveals-significant-decline-in-401k-balances-over-two-years?hsLang=en
heres the comedy

inflation does not make peoples account balance diminish.. $141k would still be $141k but how many loaves of bread or sports cars you can buy with it would be less .. but when they say money has escaped the accounts leaving individuals with less funds on average.. that means companies have been taking money out/losin money.. but not from inflation

not exactly.. bitcoin does actually follow some underlying economics..
ill quote myself instead of repeating myself

unless the most expensive cost of mining 1btc becomes more then $5m then the price wont even have the chance to speculate on the market that high

now to put it into perspective

imagine todays resistance is $150k.
imagine mining hashrate(cost) doubled by 2024. to $300k
imagine mining reward halves  in 2024. to $600k/btc
then imagine between 2025-2028 mining hashrate(cost) quadrupled. to $2.4m
imagine mining reward halves in 2028. to $4.8m/btc

then mining cost doubled in 2029 to $9.6m

then the market could speculate ANYWHERE between $1.4m-$9.6m/btc

but as said it all depends on if mining costs do take a 64x cost rise from todays cost to even open up the speculat range of possibility

imagine it this way

imagine the most expensive location to mine bitcoin on the planet being japan and hawaii where by in 2021 the mining cost max of the planet was $75k

imagine the most efficient location to mine bitcoin on the planet being asia and slovic areas where by in 2021 the mining cost min of the planet was $15k

now imagine speculation psychology...

if no one on the planet can mine for less than $15k then no one wants to sell for less and everyone wouldturn to buying at that low.. this creates a support wall to stop it going down below $15k


if everyone on the planet can mine for less than $75k then no one wants to buy for more than $75k everyone would turn to mining and selling at that high.. this creates a resistance wall to stop it going up

well now in 2023 the support of the planet is about $22k and the resistance is at $150k

and the market ALWAYS speculates between the periods support/resistance of the economy

..
the resistance and support does rise at a slower pace and the market speculates randomly within the moving limits

as long as the mining cost/competition continues we will not see  a zero bottom again

orphans are the child(next block) of a invalid parent.. where when the parent gets rejected the child is orphaned(rejected to society) too

mara did successfully (not try) to mine(create a difficult hash) a block.. but its data inside the block didnt fit the rules so was rejected after it was broadcast to the network.. and there was no network drama because it disappeared as quickly as it was seen..

its not the first time this has happened and has not caused any network issues.. its a non news event that is just a point of interest for other pools to take note of to learn what not to do to ensure they too dont have their blocks rejected.. to the rest of us it was a "nothing happened" non event with no problems caused to the network

many many countries done this years ago. ban it and the permit it via licencing under their jurisdiction

the whole ploy of "recognised as currency" is to put it into the financial jurisdiction of financial regulations, as oppose to its previous status as private tradable property

US done it with the Bit Licence. when the whole "mainstream" ploy of recognising bitcoin as a currency*

china is doing the same by gaining financial jurisdiction.. but instead of the US overnight ban then permit.. china have had a couple year gap to prepare some regulations

so while most people want to celebrate bitcoin mainstreaming in china the big thing they are missing is bitcoin is no longer treated as private property(tax free) and now treated as currency(taxable/financial rule limited)

*then once getting teeth into the game, converted it to a commodity for extra jurisdictional control of the gateways

an obvious attempt to try efficiency optimising by just throwing transactions into a a block without checking on ordering of transactions

but over all its just another rejected block. nothing significant in the scheme of things. they happen and no one bats an eyelid because people only care about blocks that do get confirmed

firstly all users need to retrieve their UTXO from somewhere to then form tx's to spend value. but if full archival nodes are only transmitting data to paid partners(lite wallet server owners) then those paid partners will pass on their 'costs' to end users.. EG lite wallets and full nodes charge customers to retrieve their UTXO's (much like banks charge to receive bank statements/ATM balance checks)


seems some core devs are under the impression (probably via their sponsors) that bitcoin inevitably will become a pay-for-blockchain

funny part is the reasons for the bloat of nonsense data the dev quotation has concerns about, that will in his words lead to a drop off nodes and a commercialisation of full nodes.. is due to code he has personally advocated for and desired to be added which then got abused

other funny part is he pretends to define nodes as not requiring features that actually do differentiate them from standard software wallets. as another pre-amble of pretending the network doesnt need to decentralise the blockchain.. thus will lead to commercialisation of the blockchain if less 'nodes' are actually full nodes..  

maybe instead of him worrying about the litigations and commercialisation of blockdata.. he should do his job and make new code to stop the unchecked(auto isvalid) data. EG if witness data is not some form of signature/proof of key system, thats actually listed as a rule. reject tx

also having a NODE that has ability to switch off features like archiving(via pruning) downgrades the utility to just that of being software like litee wallets are, if people dont want to be full nodes they can just use lite wallets.. instead of making what once was a full nodes become a mass mess of limp nodes pretending they are classified as full nodes but not actually offering the full node utility or purpose of what is "full node".. again something he as a core dev can change by ensuring full nodes do full node tasks... instead of these silly PR games of switching off utility but trying to still promote that they are 'full nodes'(a PR campaign his clan of ass kissing friends have been pressing for years)

first of all

banks send CHEQUES OUT TO THE POSTAL ADDRESS ON THE ACCOUNT FILE.. aka the "rightful owner"
if the bank did not know of the new address when they sent the cheque then their "rightful owner" would be at the old address(one on file)

secondly if she didnt manage to change address quick enough she also probably didnt inform USPS
if USPS didnt know about the new address then the rightful owner would be the old address

as for you saying about if the buyer done a chargeback scam then lomax still owns old house.. WRONG
if buyer done a chargeback scam. then the land/property registry still lists the buyer as the home owner.. and it would be for lomax to find out(which she doesnt know) that the buyer scammed her and got a refund. and THEN she would have to take the buyer to court and then get the land registry/deeds transfered back to her or get the buyer to give back funds

a refund does not automatically reverse registry/deeds ownership. the two things are separate things.

..
funny part is in the house i live in now. i still get mail addressed to old residents from over a decade ago, i have sent back many mail back to the company with it noted that the people its addressed to no longer live at this address.. yet i still get their mail. so yes people do forget to change addresses more then you think, and yes companies fail to update their correspondence records quickly/properly

the big agri decades ago turned multiple FAMILIES manual labour farms into one single harvester driven plot of land. where by XXX people working turns to just 1-2.. this WAS the 'efficiency cost saving' that helped decades ago to produce cheap food, but made hundreds of thousands of locals displaced and jobless, losing their land and culture.....(but thats a whole different debate for another time)..  but it is now the international market price speculation of inflation that has caused retail price rises.. so now FAMILY owned farms could come back and toil land again and grow crops and make produce for locals cheaper

he is not DCA'ing on a regular basis.. he is sporadic inventing. randomly buying at different times of the year with no pattern

he is speaking of the blockrate in thousands..
halvings happen at the:
210,000th block
420,000th block
630,000th block
840,000th block

as for his other mentions of the price.. the actual impact of the halving does not result in a ATH until a year after the halving

EG first market price 2010, first ATH 2011
first halving 2012, next ATH 2013
next halving 2016, next ATH 2017
next halving 2020, next ATH 2021
next halving 2024, expected next ATH 2025

the major factor is this
instead of local farmer making his own produce with just his costs to get it to the local store included.. many farms have been taken over by big-agri where they have foremen, supervisors, managers, admin at their international hubs. they also price the goods not at the local price but they include costs of transport internationally and create an average price for international cost. and then make locals pay the international cost.

we see it here in the UK with fuel costs. the UK self produces its own gas and electric. but it has to pay the international market rate
yep UK gas and electric didnt see large demand increase. nor actual cost from source increase. but due to international economics of inflation and ukraine fears the market decided to double/triple all prices meaning many suppliers made huge profits

although in previous decades mass production of multi-nation companies offered discount compared to bespoke small production locally..(efficiency=cost saving) but now that has flipped where the international market pricing has been inflated not due to production costs but due to economic fears, of number speculation due to inflation and policy.

to reduce costs things need to get back to local markets and have competition to make the large multinational companies have to lower their prices or have their produce not bought.. basically de-monopolise the market

i do get your points. but using context of available rules, policy and just common sense.. GOVERNMENT are not pro-active in monitoring. politicians dont sit at computers watching their constituents/voters..
yes PRIVATE BUSINESSES monitor their customers and report on their customers when certain suspicions are raised. but its only then that you will get investigated by "government".. this is the governments 'if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear' because their policy is if your not doing anything suspicious you wont become a file that sits on their desk, and they only care abut the files that land on their desk that have met some standard of suspicion to even arrive on their desk

even in china the government is not watching everyone. they too set policy for private business to react to their customers and then if certain thresholds are met report that to the government. i laugh at people that scream that china is more of a surveillance state than say UK/US

heres a fun fact for you about your normal real life social privacy. if you are falsely claiming social security/disability/unemployment funds whilst able to work.. you are more likely to get spotted and reported by a disgruntled neighbour, than by government staking out your house randomly.
yep if you are driving a nice car and a large screen TV is seen through your window and you are walking around your front yard doing gardening, without signs of medical aids. but tell your neighbour you dont work because you claim disability. it would be your neighbour you should fear more than the government

privacy fear is not about the government.. but about people and businesses you interact with

if you look at how many employees the UK HMRC and US IRS employ you would learn quick, due to maths they do not have the time to live monitor everyone 24/7

the US IRS have under 100k employees meaning 1 employee per 2500 working age citizens. meaning (excluding weekends and vacation time) they are if every employee was doing the same job would be processing 10 citizens a day per employee or one citizen per year in 50 minutes per employee

yet these under 100k are not doing the same job. there is actually under 3k 'criminal investigators' meaning beyond the majority automatic rubber stamping claims. they are only looking in detail to well under 1% of citizens (the reported citizens)

a majority of the 100k staff are just call centre staff and admin/management. the amount of investigators and time to actually watch citizens is super small

so all im saying is if you do not want to become one of those special suspicious files that land on the desk of a government investigator. learn the policies they use to weed out certain people. such as the FACT that mixers and AEC WILL get you flagged by private businesses receiving such funds.
thus find a different tool utility not listed as 'mixer' 'aec' to avoid getting reported

first of all the banks told here there was a violation which triggers a 60day process

also the article says

now instead of just reading article on face value alone. you need to add the context. and that means reading bank terms and conditions of what they do when accounts are frozen where she cant make any deposits or wire transfers due to a freeze.. .. standard practice is that a cheque is printed and sent to the registered address on the account within 60 days (which article admits the daughter waited before querying)

then logic appears.. now why would a cheque not go to a new address.. logic suggests she did not update the new address so cheque would go to old address..

then it says when daughter after the 60th day was told the funds were sent (but not received) the family sent documentation .. again logic suggests they sent proof of new address along with details of the old transactions.. and NOW the bank is probably cancelling the old cheque. investigating to ensure it was not cashed by the home buyer of old address.. and if all clear.. they would THEN (near future) print a new cheque to go to the new address

when accounts are frozen. you do not see an available balance. because THE ACCOUNT IS FROZEN. you are not allowed to use an ATM or wire transfers.
the account is in administration..
the letter and subsequent communication suggests the funds would be sent out..
where the only error suggests funds were if you follow logic of the hints about entire scenario. that the cheque possible went to old address

even margeret is saying her fear is that "they sent it somewhere and someone is going 'whoo hoo christmas came early"

there is a chance. that the home buyer done what is called a chargeback scam. where they would claim the funds sent to the seller were false and they want a refund.. however this is unlikely due to how escrows work and other things. and also how the bank informed the family they were going to send funds out in 60days and funds were sent in those 60 days.. just not to margerets new address..
so i think its more likely a wrong address postal error than a buyers remorse chargeback refund

however this story might get juicier if the house sale was done privately without escrow agents and the buyer did chargeback scam her.. however the article makes no mention of the terms of the sale so i assumed it was done properly/regularly via escrow

alot of people keep making the mistake that they need upfront funds of large scale amounts to jump straight into a business that is making instant profits from day one

the secret is no one should be making "profits"(taxable) in the first year on a small business.. instead any income should be split between paying a fair salary and re-investing the rest for growth of the business until its self sustainable at a later date

start small. lets use selling refilled ink cartridges as an example..
if you can buy ink cartridges for $1 and sell them for $3. then just buy 10 cartridges.. even kids with pocket money can afford to start out like this
make $30 and then buy 30 (taking no salary)
sell 30 and make $90 and buy 90(taking no salary)
sell 90 and make $270 and buy 270(taking no salary)

then try to find a second product to diversify your product line and open up more selling opportunities
EG
sell 90 product A and make $270 and buy 135 product A 135 product B (taking no salary)
sell 135 product A and make $405 and buy 405 product A (taking no salary)
sell 135 product B and make $405 and buy 405 product B (taking no salary)
repeat growth phase until you have enough cycling of buy and sells to decide how many you products want to buy vs take a salary

once you can afford an income for salary(basic living standard) then go further. diversifying your product line and expanding your reach to consumers

once you have a range of products worthy of showing off on a store shelf only then lease a store. (but these days easier and cheaper to stick with websites)
retail stores are only useful if your product would sell better if seen/touched in person or there is a demand for collection to avoid delivery cost/delays

two idiots that think ordinals are a real economy that can sustain..
although miningpools will earn fees from excessive premiums caused by junk. we should not use junk for force out actual real utility.

i do find it funny how two basement dwelling miners earning only a few dollars a day think they have enough economic experience to think ruining a multimillion per hour payment system purely so they can earn a couple extra cents per day..

if they want to junk up the blockspace then they should be the ones paying the premium.. not other people

the answer is not to junk up the blockspace to make it cost multiple dollars per transaction. as that just makes people abandon the network for daily use. the answer is to allow more real use on the blockchain by real transactors so the more transactions there are the more combined income a pool can make

EG dont open a gym to serve one rich client for $1000 an hour per week. instead have a gym with 1000 clients that pay an average of $1 an hour each week, which combines to the same $1000 income

..
as for this topics title and subject

a monetary supply that always produces 50coins per block forever starts hyper inflated.. it does reduce the amount of inflation.. but inflation still occurs..
think about it
block one 50.. block two 50 means 100% inflation in 10 minutes average.. however by block 1000 there is 50,000 in circulation with only 50 (0.1%) increase per 10 min average

in reality based on yearly economics of say a healthy 1% per year inflation.. it would, based on a 2.625m coin per year(50 coin per block with 52500 blocks a year)take 100 years to get down to 1% inflation.. so unlike P.Todds theory... it would be inflationary for 100 years before it becomes un noticeable economically

rules are not made just for elites.. its just words on paper. words do not care what age or income someone has.. its just that elites bother to educate themselves to learn the rules to find the loopholes.. you can too just by doing the research
for instance many people should know that loans are a tax free receipt of funds. so make your pseudonymous self give your certified self a personal loan. thus the income your certified self gets is tax free(write yourself a contract as proof of loan). other things like create a trust/corporate entity.. do as the elites do. its not rocket science. it just takes learning how they do it


first of all learn the difference between tax avoidance vs tax evasion.. it will change the results of who does or does not knock at your door

there is no default ongoing relationship.. again you assume you are being watched all the time.. reality is your not. however if someone makes a report against you.. then the monitoring relationship begins..
its the same with child social services. government dont watch kids all day.. but as soon as a report is made. then hell starts

also when it comes to money. for centuries money has been the control of banks/governments so laws have always been about banks/governments able to view/report/audit money.. money for centuries has never been private. auditors, taxmen, kings and government have always had rules that govern its use and seizures and control of circulation..

bitcoin is a new paradigm.. which from 2009-2013 escaped the draconian model of money as it was deemed private property.. however in 2014 it was declared by law as currency so joined the same jurisdiction of money rules.. i personally would prefer bitcoin to be privately tradable property rather than currency.. but those "mainstreamers" want it to be currency. so now you need to know the currency rules that predate bitcoin



silly thing is.. people like blackhat not only advertise using mixers but he also shows guides of how mixers work, where it reveals the amounts the coins are split into and gives examples.. thus making it very easy for any analyst to then use his guides to then see other examples of others using it to then find the pattern.

most mixers are too obvious. and thats what oeleo and blackhat cry about.. they dont like that mixers are not just obvious. but also suspicious behavior listed and that their lax attempts of mixing get spotted so obviously. they cry that the law should not forbid suspicious activity rather then realise they should not use something so obviously lame/lazy. if something is so easily spotted as suspicious.. then your not doing your job right of being private

its like walking down a street but not wanting to be seen. but doing so by obviously and acutely jumping behind bushes and cars.. which makes people notice you more as being weird, out of place.. you know.. stupid tactics.. there are other ways to not get noticed. especially not promote that you want to hide

a. when you want to keep the remainder even in a re-used address the remainder value of a transaction goes to a "change address"
(even if you re-use the same address for the change)

the term you are looking for is re-used change address

b. when wanting to spend those remainders. collating each of those amounts is not a single input. its collating multiple inputs from multiple spend receipts called utxo's
(even if you re-use the same address for the change)

so you are still listing many utxo's even from the same address.. so it still adds data to a tx meaning more bytes meaning more sats

inputs of a transaction at data-byte level are not "addresses" but things called utxo's

the only way to save on fee's is to.. when fee's are extremely low collate all of the utxo of your address as inputs and then spend them back to your address as a single output to combine them into a single utxo of a combined amount. so that later when fee's per byte rise and you want to buy something you only have to list one UTXO of the combined amount.
but this does as just said mean making another tx to combine the utxo's meaning a fee is involved to merge the value into one utxo, so should be done when fee's are low