aww look at the cute couple. match made in heaven.. seems doomad has a new wife.. and im not shocked, they are too much alike
im not surprised at all that medusa is copying phrases of doomad..

---

anyways, the coins mentioned in this topic are not satoshi's stash. they are some other OG from the early adopter phase of bitcoin.
nothing really big news.. its not like its a major dump of 1m coins so wont affect the market.

mindrust, bitcoin does not need high fee's and stifle transaction counts to force fee's even higher..
bitcoin becomes more useful by letting more transactions per block where those extra transactions pay less than now, but where the extra transactions can then collectively total an amount that gives pools a free bonus

EG
instead of
$50 x 4000tx = $200k
there can be with a few code changes to give pools a $200k total bonus(they dont yet even need this amount of bonus)
$11.30 x 17,700tx = $200k
as you can see fee's can become cheaper and more transactions.. .. whilst still being the $200k idiots THINK pools deserve and need
(again for emphases pools do NOT NEED $200k in total fees now or anytime soon)
and these changes come even before scaling the blocksize. and just concern making the blocksize as is more efficient and actually utilised, counted, and validated to meet actual bitcoin purpose properly where every byte literally counts

you wanting to propose strategies of stifling transaction counts upgrades, limiting transactions and make them annoying slow and expensive does not help bitcoin. it only helps do what you now admit to "People who can afford to pay them high fees are paying it. People who can't, they don't have much of a choice... They use something else naturally"
you want bitcoin to be more expensive to transact to recruit people over to other networks by making them think "they dont have much of  choice"

but here is the thing, bitcoiners could have the choice, by scaling bitcoin.. by sorting bitcoins code out and make it useful for the masses and less centrally governed, less pcentral points of failure where by it actually works better then now, and be more open and better like it used to be

the only choice is not to naturally try another network

this topic and hundreds of topics like it are proof that people do want bitcoin to scale up and offer more transactions.. infact there are more bitcoin scaling topics than there are LTC/LN recruitment topics.. which shows people would rather scale bitcoin than abandon it for whatever network you prefer to promote

---

as for medusa, well thats just a doomad alt account, acting too much like doomads cultish self to be a coincidence, its even more plagiarised repeated rhetoric of doomads words to just be an acolyte of his cult.. too much idiocy to even be taken seriously in any way
medusa offers nothing different to any conversation that doomads cult has not already said.

mindrust.. this topic is about BITCOIN and how to scale it in such ways including but not limited to the blocksize
its not a altcoin promotion topic
the solution to scale bitcoin is not to abandon it

YOU want people to abandon bitcoin.. so how about YOU abandon bitcoin because you seem to love other networks so much
take YOUR altcoin recruitment games over to the altcoin forum categories

i am not even talking about BCH you idiot.. and stop thinking the answer to everything is "accept cores central governing politics or f**k off to another network"

how about you as a other network adorer move yourself to another network if you love them so much, then us actual bitcoiners can get back to discussing methods of scaling bitcoin.. without your silly other network promotion plans

you have no clue what you speak of and you only want to speak of doomads mantra of moving people to other networks while keeping core devs as a god like central government,, you want bitcoins fees to stay high stay bloated with meme junk and telling people to not transact on bitcoin because the issues affecting bitcoiners becomes promoting tools for your other network you love.

i still find it funny that the actual idiots that promote other networks should be the ones that should move themselves to other networks.. and stop trying to get bitcoiners to be the ones that should leave

actual bitcoiners like me want to sort out the central points of failure that have arisen in the last under a decade era, and get things sorted to actually scale BITCOIN

you sound too much like doomad, infact i think you are doomads alt account because its too similar/verbatim to not be doomad

what you dont get is that core can code things, BUT bitcoins consensus WAS hard consensus(and should be hardened again) where it required the network of USERS to be ready to understand a new features rules and format BEFORE the feature would activate. thus requiring the consent of the masses to activate a feature(consensus)
thus like years ago(pre may 2017) core had to propose things and get users onside to want to upgrade and be ready to THEN activate

however things have changed(after sumer 2017) due to the softening of the way things work where by core can now implement stuff without users mass consent (consensus)
because users nodes now dont need to understand new stuff and just let it be accepted into blocks and not reject blocks that have data that nodes do not understand..
things have become softened where it no longer requires a mass of full network nodes to fully validate all bytes of a block...

this trick has allowed core to do things like ad exploits which have caused headaches, congestion and fee peaks and bloat.
and now that all other brands that could have different other proposals outside of cores roadmap, have been REKT before they even got popular on the bitcoin network so no one bothers because they know they will get slammed by an army of cultish idiots screaming at them that they should create an altcoin instead of propose things on the bitcoin network, and how the bitcoin core moderation policy of all discussion platforms and other development has been a closed door to anyone not kissing the core monarchy ring and obeying the core path

learn what consensus did for the network before core softened it.. it will shock you(if you re not doomad) but im starting to think you are too similar in the narratives being verbatim to not be his alt account

Dr Beer, i see you are finally looking at the stuff the BIS is doing about CBDC
you are finally catching up, good on you.. finally

you coulda learned this last year

in other news BIS is allowing international central banks to have reserves of cryptoassets (category 2b(things like bitcoin)) as of january 2025, but only between 2%-5% of total holdings/reserves/collateral

in other news BIS is allowing international central banks to have reserves of cryptoassets (category 1a(things like bonds/derivatives/loans(debt notes)) as of january 2025,

in other news BIS is allowing international central banks to have reserves of cryptoassets (category 1b(things like commodities(wheat, gold, oil) as of january 2025,

bitcoin does not require high fee's
its infact high fee's that pushes people away from using bitcoin and using other networks instead, thus abandoning btcoin..  that makes there be less bitcoin utility and less users securing the network because they dont use the bitcoin network often enough to want or need to sync their node... they end up using insecure lite-wallets on other networks and let hubs/central services maintain the off network value, so it doesnt help with decentralisation of bitcoin

if people want to cry about
paying $50 for a hard drive to store 2 decades of transactions is costly
but ok with
$50 for a single transaction on the bitcoin network.. or paying $50*2 to lock in and unlock on the bitcoin network every few months/year to then play debt/credit IOU unsettled balance games on another network,

they have their math backwards

bitcoin is a currency network.. and should stick to that
however, more broadly.. the blockchain technology can be used for multiple types of data that dont need to be currency based

just think about any IT service that require multiple access points but has one central server holding the data.. then imagine that data server is distributed on multiple continents so that no single IT manager/power outage or facility disruption can take down the data/edit the data.

things like international identity records for border control. instead of relying on one government ID records department, imagine an international ID network that all continents have access to so that the TSA at airports can share information on passports

things like births deaths and marriage certificates can be proven without relying on one country needing to speak to an embassy of another country

heck imagine a game avatar that you can take from one game and apply it to another game. taking your gamer stats with you because multiple games access the gamer network of ID/stats

even in private blockchains of a company. just not having one server but a server per car dealership, bank branch, amazon fulfilment allows data integrity of stocks/assets/product audits where one employee cant mess with the data and power outage at one location doesnt disrupt the network

blockchains purpose is  distributed ledgers of proof of data
by this i mean the most critical parts are not the raw data of a transaction, paragraph, record.. but the locked in merkle tree of leafs of hashes that identify and prove linkage to the raw data, and then the linkage of the chains of blocks time stamp that data based on which came first

so not al blockchains need to also supply all raw data of every record. they can have distributed nodes of just the blocks and the merkle leaf identifiers of data (without publicising the data itself)
thus just proving the individual locations that do have their own raw dataset can prove their data was registered at certain dates without having to tell everyone of the raw data itself, and only need to prove it to those directly involved in the raw data need

there are ways to disable the opened opcodes that allow unchecked junk to pass into blocks

there are ways to open up the 1mb base:3mb segregation to be a unified 4mb space for real tx data
which those two things alone will allow more transactions to utilise the 4mb space that devs dont have issues with the network filling per block
and even the tx formats where signatures/sigscripts are at end of a tx can still function (so no fear fud that it breaks "segwit" "taproot" transaction functions)

there are ways to make transactions even more leaner than the current 1kb average tx (4k tx in 4mb space=1kb per tx)

and there are ways(if cultish groups stop their REKT campaigns of other brands operating on the network offering proposals) can offer other brands with proposals of these things and also options of blocksize increases without needing to wait and be patient for core dev political human trust/decisions

look at you all 'if your not happy with bitcoin use another network'
funny how those promoting that no one should suggest bitcoin onchain scaling solutions, are the same people that admit they prefer to use other networks and promote other networks


you really need to drop the doomad rhetoric and instead research bitcoin
the purpose of hardened rules and consensus was that new features did not activate unless the masses consented by having network readiness for a change..
that got softened in recent years where now core can change things even before network readiness to understand new core features
LEARN BITCOIN not cult adoration narratives, and you will see what bitcoin was all about before the core religious crap stepped in

yes core have got a foothold and now able to do more crap without network readiness but learn bitcoin and learn why we should not let it stranglehold bitcoin further.. learn that a core government is a central point of failure that needs to be sorted out

and dont bother replying if you are just going to sound like something you read from the cult group..

learn the real purpose of bitcoin and its consensus mechanism that ensured network readiness to fully validate rules. learn why it was invented and learn what need to change to get back to a secure lean and stronger network thats not governed by core politics and its twit army of cultish idiots

bitcoin is code and code can do things without the need of dev politics and sheep following acolytes
there should not be a central point of failure commanding and governing it. where it requires a hierarchy of human political decisions in a centralised group such as core

the point of my question is..
we should get back to numerous full node reference client brands on the network(that dont get REKT just for not being in cores roadmap path), where there is no single(centralised) moderated monarchy of proposal politics, whereby proposals are not controlled/REKT if they are not cores master plan. and then people can decide which is best and the best option activates based on consensus(consent of the masses)..

things you need to research:
solution to the byzantine general issue
consensus
the fact that bitcoin can operate without a central core government, and should operate without a central core government

and no.. the only option is not "follow core or f**k off to another network", though idiots will try to say thats the only option(they prefer to ever see)

edit about below
funny to see them same guys promote other networks in a topic about bitcoin scaling/blocksize needs for bitcoin utility

lightning is just a shoddy sandbox experiment that doesnt meet promises and has many flaws and bugs
other subnetworks will be made later(from scratch) learning from LN mistakes. offering niche services
BUT
bitcoin network is the bitcoin network, bitcoin stays on the bitcoin network.. thinking everyone should lock up their btc and then abandon bitcoin utility pretending these subnetworks "improve bitcoin" is like saying lock up your gold.. use bank promissory notes/credit cards to avoid using debit cards/assets.. under the guise of 'to improve the debit card system'..(but doesnt improve it)
 
.. in actual fact is LN's function is to lock your real assets up and then use debt/credit(unsettled iou's as debt/credit depending on which side of the channel value you sit on) on another system and abandon using a real assets movements, to play with iou units on another system and settle up when your balance is zero and need to hand over(close channel to utxo confirm transfer of) real assets to then lock up a new set of assets to then play with iou balance debt/credit again, until you settle up again

yes there will be niches for these debt/credit facilities of swapping unsettled debt.. and borrowing partners/routers credit balance.. but lets not just push for bitcoin to become a worse offering compared to fiat..

(stuff in red is exactly what doomad had been suggesting in his cult narrative of core adoration policy of them making decisions "someone" "them")
sounds like it was DOOMAD that suggested we should wait for someone (core) to collectively make the decisions because he does not believe in consensus(consent of the masses)

funny how he said many times for years that users dont get to tell core what to code and users just follow cores decisions, (his narrative: backward compatible (opt in (upgrade to latest core) after the activation by core) buzzwords) or users can make another network if they dont like cores decisions as the only choice to oppose core politics...(his narrative: follow core or f**k off)
yet now he says users get to choose collectively(consensus).. (i know him well enough that i think he is implying core is the 'collective',"them" as decision makers)
however if there is a true network node collective choice by the greater masses of bitcoin users..
choice based on which codebase/full node brand? which code base/brand will he not want to be REKT before people even get a choice?

seems he forgets his own narrative of which side he sits on..

---

it is funny though how he says bitcoin cant be coded to do things (like manage its own hashrate difficulty using measurements/formulaes) and how bitcoin requires human politics aka a coding government of decision makers that are not the bitcoin users, but a central group(core) of lead maintainers

but the funny thing is bitcoin is code. bitcoin does and can use code to create formulae that look at measurements(reference again "hashrate difficulty") without ongoing need of core human politics.. but doomad doesnt believe in trusting code, he wants us to trust core devs and be obediant to core devs, not code that can do things autonomously

as for bitcoin innovations for bitcoiners benefit
bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network,, FACT
so silly idea's that innovating bitcoin involves tricks to get people to abandon using the bitcoin network as being innovative, are laughable
subnetworks that dont use blockchains are old tech, old idea's not new (the cypherpunks were playing with those old idea's even before bitcoins invention)

bitcoin network needs to scale. and by this i do not mean the idiot echo chamber narrative of bitcoin being a dystopian one world currency needing to cover ~300k tx a second for the entire worlds currency usage of all currencies in one

the reality is much more scalable..
things like code(which bitcoin is) that:

* formulates ways to punish only the bloating spam creators. to cause them to not be using as much space per block, to then allow more genuine transactions to confirm sooner by being added into the space that spammers/bloaters took up

*creates transactions that are leaner than the current average of 1kb (4k tx/4mb block=1kb per tx average). transactions that can be less than a quarter of current averages can multiply the amount per block allowed

*re-utilising the 4mb space as true 4mb for the main tx data, without the metadata junk of the 1mb base:3mb cludgy miscount segregation
this also can increase the transaction count

*and then the blocksize increase, does not need to leap to obsurd amounts narrated by idiots. but instead progressively grow, this can be done without dev politics need of involvement deciding how much and when, but instead using code to read blockdata and at certain milestones all nodes react and change the amounts allowed...  (much like hashrate difficulty does not need dev political input per fortnight, the nodes work it out themselves via blockdata)

---

the current lineup of subnetworks fail many tests of security, autonomy, meeting their objectives,
there will be future subnetworks yet to be made from scratch that will fill niche needs of temporary services.. but without the presumption that everyone should abandon using bitcoin and be locked into those niche subnetworks for long periods

bitcoin mining devices do not see nor care whats inside a block.. an asic just hashes a hash..
a block can be empty or hold thousands of transactions, and neither end affects the mining chore/work/function

so transaction scaling is not going to cause environmental disaster

as for the separate issue of speaking about only the mining function done by asics
well compared to hashes per second of CPU, asics have already made advances in innovated methods to achieve more hashes for less power per hash

as for speaking about renewable sources of energy. this is not a issue of bitcoins cause, but an issue of a countries own power companies that need to change their own business models per power company/power plant. infact its electric vehicles making energy demands at random times of day in bursts of 70kwh in 20minutes that will cause more power impacts, compared to bitcoins predictable power utilisation

bitcoin miners have a predictable rate of usage
EG 24/7 3.5kwh at x asics per location.. which can be calculated and predicted for the 2 year lifespan of those asics
and so asic farms can have payment contracts drawn to buy power in allotments to cover that 2 year period

ev cars however use 70kw+ per full battery but charge at random times of day/week in short sharp surges. unpredictably

last thing to note. there are less asics on the planet than there are EV cars. so it will be the car industry that will impact power demand, power surge and brown out risk possibilities, so they need to get involved more in the innovation of power supply companies

if you think the only option is blind follow core or create an altcoin
then you are definitely on the centralised bitcoin cult side, you want the tyranny control of core human politics AKA a government

you have failed understanding the point of bitcoin
you have failed understanding consensus purpose
you have failed understanding the point of decentralisation
you have failed many things

but thanks for admitting you are one of those idiots..
go ahead and remain ignorant. seems its too late for you.

all thats left for you now, is to replace yourself at the keyboard, for a bot that just recites/repeats doomads cult messages
...

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners thats different of core politics or create another network and leave bitcoin".. thats is just stupidity of a controlling group of idiots narrative

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners or LEAP to nonsense amounts of absurdity numbers no rational person takes serious"
..
i have listed multiple things that can achieve a growth of transaction counts without needing to(their other narrative to avoid any benefit) LEAP to nonsense numbers
i do laugh that doomad and his cult think that code cannot control change via formulae or measurement... um here s highlight. formulaes and measurements to effect change is exactly what code does
to think bitcoin can only operate via core devs politics decisions is the biggest failure doomad and his cult keeps reciting
take the 'network hashrate difficulty' for instance. it does not need core dev politics involvement every fortnight

---

responding to below

no bitcoin consensus should be where those using the bitcoin network dont just have blindly slave follow core politics or leave
but instead not have a central core government..
you wanting a core government jsut makes bitcoin a failed FIAT currency.
bitocin was created to not be government controlled by a class of hierarchy people in authority..

bitcoin was invented where different node brands on the bitcoin network should and could propose upgrades for the bitcoin network without needing to kiss the core monarchy ring. where by without core REKT campaigns the best code to benefit bitcoiners then (again emphasising without the REKT campaigns from core cultists) gets to activate an upgrade that benefits bitcoiners on the bitcoin network

..
i do gotta laugh when those idiots think the only option is
"follow core devs as governments who want to only add features to bitcoin that benefit leaving bitcoin for other networks(sub or alt)"
scaling bitcoin is not about leaving bitcoin for other networks, but is funny to see the idiots try to push that agenda

the meme/json junk thrust onto the bitcoin network are not even close to being genuine NFT. so lets not even call them that, but they are most definitely scam crap

as for nft in general. even the ones on the other networks are not true utility NFT. there will come in the future (a few generational changes of tokenisation) where by future tokens will offer more secure tokenisations.. but the current line up of NFT just dont meet all the expectations and value security/scarcity they promised to have

so in general, the current things terming themselves nft are mostly scams, or atleast over priced, over promised units, that dont truly provide the features/benefits/security/uniqueness they suppose to

people trusted gold as its physical presence could not be forged individually compared to other common traditional currencies
EG paper records can be edited, 'notching sticks' can be made by anyone, but gold had unique properties

blockchain solved the digital problems of fraud, forgery. where by a public ledger can keep the integrity of unit audits where individuals cant edit/replicate/double spend
(just be sure to not confuse a custodians separate CEX database balance, as being proof of reserves)

conclusion
doomads cult admits core authority where users have no say or choice over code.. because "backward compatibility" doesnt make choice it just allows things to pass without checking if core uses its softened rules to change things.  where user nodes bypass rejecting things it does not have rules for

the non-mining nodes he speaks of are not user nodes with "backward compatibility" he speaks of the core nodes that are altered by core and their sponsors (NYA economic nodes) to elevate their control.. to allow/reject what THEY do-dont want.. everyone else is just a follower of core code change after the fact of core politics

doomad will use his cult recruits to REKT anyone releasing proposals/code that has not gone through the core moderation policy of technical discussion to even get a proposal to elevate beyond discussion

the cost of running is negligible

if the idiot brigade telling you stories that the cost of a $50 hard drive is too high, listen to them when they then say they prefer no one transacting unless they pay $50 for one transaction.. and listen hard and good at their hypocrisy and tyranny of not wanting people to use bitcoin unless they pay stupid high fee for one transaction but call that one transaction high fee 'acceptable cost', but stupidly say the same amount is too high to protect decades of transactions
if you agree that $50 is ok for 1tx but $50 is not ok for 20 years of millions of tx.. then you need to sort your math out and not just blindly recite silly things

increase based on measurements.. but that of block fill over time.. not dev politics of deciding costs
core DEVS should not pretend to be economists , pretending they care about the price/cost when all history and examples of their economic decisions show  they prefer to miscount things, discount the wrong things, premiumise te wrong things, and do it all to promote another network people should use.

core devs need to get out of governing the network and get out of sponsoring other network migrations.. and instead concentrate on bitcoin features that benefit bitcoiners not their fiat backed sponsors that want to become the middlemen controller of crypto

what you both may not realise is in tradfi. people dont just deposit their pre-tax income into a stock/asset at whatever the price is at deposit time
instead they deposit their income into a portfolio.. that is managed by a portfolio manager, and that manager chooses the asset and time to invest in
whereby the manager does #buy-low-sell-high practices

so in tradfi DCA is not just buy an asset at whatever price it is at deposit time

however in crypto we dont beleive in using portfolio managers so we need to become our own portfolio managers, which means actually getting smarter and choosing to invest at slightly better options/times compared to just random buys at deposit receipt

---

the only reason social media are presenting DCA in crypto as "always be buying even on the high" is because those wanting to sell high to grab FIAT profit. always want there to be naive buyers still buying at the high