mining works by using your electric to power a device that does complex math to give a block a strong secure ID

the thing is the cost of mining differs depending on location. not everyone will/can profit at the same time

if you cant get cheap electric and a cheap device to mine. it wont be profitable
even if the market price moves up by 3x-15x to make it affordable to mine. the competition also moves up..

so those that can afford now at 1x.. will 2x 3x their devices and electric costs to beat the competition when the price moves up by 3x
however this upscaling of hash competition is a 6month-12 month thing

thus if you are a hobby miner in an area with high electric you only have small temporary opportunities to profit when prices move faster than the scaling up of competition

that said. there are times where lots of altcoins are speculating high at different times so people jump between altcoins to take different opportunities at different times

your best bet is to live in a low electric cost area to get best and most opportunities
if you live in an expensive electric region opportunities are reduced/die out, even if you were altcoin jumping daily

EG
mining in iceland costs $0.12 in electric per hour per device (3kwh at $0.04)
mining in hawaii costs $1.44 in electric per hour per device (3kwh at $0.48)
(reminder there are ~2m devices mining bitcoin thus its why bitcoins market is worth many thousands instead of cents/dollars)

if you are in a low electric cost region and have a cheap device that gives good hashpower you can join a pool and take a decimal amount of coin reward that equates to your share of your involvement

op_return is another 'dead weight store' but not a proof of transfer

because
bc1qcreator 0.001 ->  opreturn hash
                                 bc1qreceiverA 0.0005
                                 bc1qreceiverB 0.0005

bc1pcreator 0.001 ->  bc1preceiverA 0.0005
                                 bc1preceiverB 0.0005
                                 witness dead weight meme

block data does not designate which the opreturn/meme goes to.. is it A or B?
....
however bitcoin does have another way to store a  'file hash' and spend it in a provable way. that links it to a destined receiver in blockchain data

thus not needing to use opreturn nor witness weight to store whole files. and instead have a tx with average tx size that can prove a 'file hash' and prove its transfer/ownership

i too agree with the term "influenced"

another example of influence

the bitcoin market is the strongest so influences the weaker markets of altcoins

but bitcoin whales mainly trade on bitcoin "futures" markets where they bet the price wont go above X or below Y  (some even bet that it wont move outside both XY)

those whales then use another stash of funds to then play the bitcoin spot market.
this is where instead of seeing a free market of price discovery on bitcoin you see (on a monthly view) that the weekly price gets less volatile and apears as a flat line

december 2022 had a near month long resistance to go above 17k. this resistance was lifted when futures whales won their futures bet at new year. and allowed a bit of free market discovery which days later they started weekly bets and influenced again
which is why on a wide view of monthly/6monthly you see a 'step stone' view instead of a mountain landscape
    |\_~~\
~~|      ^\~~
instead of
  /\     /\
 /  \/\/   \
/            \/

yep. its called arbitraging
where people dont just day trade left and right between btc<>usd
but instead play the wider markets
usd>btc>eth>usd>btc
usd<btc<eth<usd<btc

what you notice is
each market/community(coin) should have its own 'price discovery' of its own community/utility/desires/speculations/benefits

however if the community is weak/low/uninterested. their own market 'price discovery' efforts do not move much. meaning it allows other coins arbitraging effort to affect the altcoin market more than the altcoins own price discovery efforts can defend against other coins arbitrage

bitcoin is strong so yes bitcoin over powers weak altcoins. when bitcoiners arbitrage between the markets

.. here is the thing.
ethereum has locked up most funds into "stake" meaning their community is passive rewarding itself new coins. but not then able to trade those coins on the market.. thus has become less price discovery independent due to their weak market. their stake is locked until they release code to allow stake unlocking (so people can actually spend their passive rewards)

this means ethreums price speculation is controlled by bitcoin. and is being artificially held up by bitcoiners

but wait until those who staked can unstake. then there will be a wave of people selling coins on eth and breaking the shadow tracing arbitrage of bitcoin .

here is another thing
when ethereum switched to pos. the underlying cost of creating new coin dropped by 95% meaning there should have been a correction of price discover by a 20x drop/correction

however due to the lack of 'unstaking' the arbitraging of markets. that correction has been delayed

but as soon as unstaking is allowed and people can then sell their eth where lots of eth suddenly hits the market. expect the 20x correction

the eth-btc ratio will change from 14:1 to 280:1
meaning instead of ~$1.6k eth it will be ~$80

eths underlying price discovery of cost of coin reward is about $40 a coin.. down from 800 a coin
so right now eth is artificially marketed at a 40x of value
which pre pos it was price discovering at only/ever a speculation of ~1.5x-6x
thus yes eth is going to correct

miners(asics) dont touch or see transactions. they just hash a hash repeatedly
its the mining POOL managers that collate(decide) which transactions get into a block template. and in real world law "ignorance is not a defence"

mining pool managers would not let illicit porn into their block template because in real world law it makes them liable of "distributing illicit material"

mining pool managers can get away with adding transactions from sanctioned russians because transactions contain no identity thus there is no way to know.. this is not ignorance. this is absence of available information...
.. however mining pools are able to identify illicit porn images thus accepting such but deciding not to look. is IGNORING certain activity they can do.

so far honest pools are refusing to ad illicit porn. .. you know.. morals..
.. but it only takes one malicious mining pool manager to want to screw with the network to do it. and cause everyone to be distributing illicit content


transactions go into mempools of majority of nodes.
and mining pool managers filter which transactions they decide to put into a block

its hard to filter illicit material at the relay(unconfirmed) phase. but it is very possible and easy to filer what transactions/material gets put into blocks permenently

mining pools are the "staging node" you speak of in regards to stopping illicit porn getting into blocks

pools dont add transactions to blocks in milliseconds. there is already is a 10min average delay between mempool entry vs block entry

an average meme/image is 100k-4mb meaning viewing 1-40 images per 10 minutes is not a delay

normal transactions without these crap memes can be auto added using algo's.. where its the crap memes that can be delayed by several blocks if a honest mining pool wants to keep the blockchain clean of illicit material

again mining pools have the capability to audit transactions. and ignoring such capability is ignorance. and not a defence in court.

bitcoin has rules and accountability. thats what makes/made bitcoin better then the digital cash idea's pre 2009(pre bitcoin)

it is pools job to ensure what goes into blocks meets the rules. that includes laws and moral content

positives?

ordinals v1.0  (the sat rarity)
is not a aspect that has any traits that are proven by blockchain data
its just user display of translation and given meaning by human decision. after the fact
decision and meaning that can be changed and not protected/fixed by blockchain data

ordinals v2.0  (the witness junk spam memes)
are just locked data store has no proof of transfer to specific new owner


v1.0
when a pool creates a block and has a coin reward of a mile stoned blockheight. EG a "halvening height" block
reading blockchain data. you cannot tell which of the 6.25coins is most important
is it the first or last
you cant tell becasue if a blockreward is 6.3btc (reward+0.05btc tx fee total)
is the first spend the reward or the fee..
does the fee come first or last in the reward

are people transfer newcoin or just the regeneration of old coins that were fees

heres another thing
imagining it takes 625seconds to mine a block for a 6.25btc reward
is the most important say the first second/first sat. or the last second that actually solved the blockhash meaning the last sat

are sat important of a blockreward top down or bottom up
again
if the total reward is 6.3
can you tell if it is 0.05+6.25 or 6.25+0.05

again if someone then spends the coin

bc1qminingpool (6.3) -> bc1qpoolworker1 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker2 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker3 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker4 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker5 (1.26)
what in blockchain data PROVES that the most important rare satoshi is in which output
who deserves the rare satoshi.. top down or bottom up
the BLOCKCHAIN DATA cannot tell you this. thus its not a true system of proof

its assumption based on lack of blockchain proof and just software decision. where software can change decision without needing blockchain data security to uphold a rule stays or changes to adjust to the new rule

....
v2.0
memes in the witness are not tethered to any output. thus again. which output deserves ownership. the blockchain cant prove it. its again just an assumption made in software where the software can again choose a different path/destined recipient as owner

...

as for those shouting "fee incentive to push fee up"
whom does it benefit

the spot market is the mechanism of pushing up to benefit the miners. they simply refuse to sell at a loss to put pressure on the market to rise.. it does not need bitcoin peer-2-peer fee's to rise PER USER to compensate miners
if anything MORE tx per block should be the mechanism if people want to assume that the peer 2 peer network fee is the thing..

more people all paying $0.10 is better then less people paying $10.00

---

when blocks of 1.5mb can have 3000tx
but blocks of 4mb have less than 1000tx

i do not see the economic benefit of such system

guys you dont need to even use op_return to make a viable NFT system of timestamped hash proofs

plus op_return outputs do not enclose that op_return output to a keypair to allow it to prove which NEW owner owns it when it gets transferred

op_returns and witness area junk are both just timestamped storage locks of data. not proof of transfer systems

bitcoin is a financial network of p2p payments of bitcoin

its not a network that should allow in payments of other assets..
EG
should we also let the witness area be used to input a transaction within a transaction
EG carbon copy litecoin transactions into witness area of bitcoin transactions
EG use witness area to store serial number lists of recently smelted gold bars
EG use witness area to store memes

should we create a whole new currency within bitcoin..

nope. because thats not bitcoin
nope. bitcoin was created for a purpose.

heck ordinals does not even have a proof of transfer system. they just have a chain analysis watcher system of a chose path they can change.. thus it does not even work as a value transfer system
..
weakening bitcoins consensus to allow devs(small group of self-admitted central point of failure) to throw in new code without network consensus has caused junk to be inserted.
its not censorship to reject junk. or atleast allow existing junk to sit. but prevent it in the next block.. thats not censorship, its protection/sustainability

if those that want to cry "censorship" realised bitcoin is actually made of rules that do allow certain tx to be rejected and certain blocks to be rejected. and it always has HAD that ability.. then they will soon learn that bitcoin has never been a "censorship resistance" network it has always been a consent network where nodes SHOULD follow strict rules to protect the network from abuse

so what if it stops HUMANS(devs) from sliding things in without consent.. thats what bitcoin suppose to do. prevent abuses by small groups/individuals

closing the trojan gate that allows devs to throw in these exploits, does not mean it permanently stops code evolution after. it just means to activate new stuff in the future would again require majority of network readiness to support new rules to then give consent to activate new rules. .. the way it should be

FTFY

and this marketing campaign of the OP.. failed in its first post.. seems the OP did not do a good marketing campaign.. such a bad advert for marketing

and advice to loyce about marketing
people on this forum do not need the fluffy cloud utopian best case scenario sales pitch of crypto systems
..because..
to be reading this forum. means they have already heard about bitcoin and been interested enough to search things out and found this forum.
..so..
they are looking for the nitty gritty risk awareness information. not the fluffy cloud recruitment speeches

he says he dislikes memes being on independant file systems

yet..
he wants memes on hundreds of thousands of nodes

yet in both cases casey has not figured out a true blockchain proof of transfer

his ordinals crap relies on website explorers to make a path be being told to follow output 0. but has nothing in those output 0's that prove the ordinal

so again. its back to basics
he wants a meme put on a blockchain where hundreds of thousands of people have a copy but cant do anything with and no system to prove any real transfer.

as for saying doing transfers off-chain. that again would not have proof of transfer either.

thus he has things backwards.

the file can be stored off chain in multiple locations to only those that want to store/display it. and instead only the proof of transfer could be done onchain. with nothing more then an average tx length

doing a FORK(risk of chain split(definition of fork 2009-2016)) just to impose a fee mechanism that makes it more expensive is a stupid idea

however
patching the exploit of opcode data length back to a rational amount does not require a FORK
because under 100bytes is a under 4mb rule so it does not break old node compatibility
in short: it can be done using the same soft consensus bypass trick used alot since 2017

yep there is a difference between forks and consensus bypass trick

and guess what
it does not mean it then prevents future changes.. it just fixes the existing one

future changes can happen using a proper consensus activation routine
nodes upgrade first for readiness, then they flag for readiness ..and if majority is ready, then it activates

if you were not ready to sell at $24k last month.. dont sell at $21k now

never sell at a loss

any time the price corrects back down to good value. is time to buy..

buy the dip. sell the tip
buy the hump sell the hype
buy low sell high
if you see people shouting the price is too low. its should be ringing in your ears "its cheap/great deal/special offer"

SVB customer base and value is not as big as the true institutional banks. so its cheap to use the FDIC instead of a "bail out"

the contagion impact of SVB on the bigger banks is very minimal indeed

the contagion impact of SVB on crypto. has occured. and is marginal. most of the exchanges that used silvergate and SVB moved funds out of those accounts ages ago. so minimised the risk
it was these bank runs to minimise crypto business risks that were the trigger of those banks collapsing..
(the rats jumped ship before it sank)

when it comes to "fee" rate incentive to stop spam

it requires transactions to abide by a fee rate or if they appear in a block that block gets rejected..

also if you forget about cores user interface/front-end-GUI/display. cludgy math of "fee" and look at block data of real bytes vs sats paid..  these spammy memes pay less sats per bytes then genuine payment users

as for the "coz op_return allows" arguments about rationalising why some want non payment data(meme spam) in the witness area to continue(facepalm)

here is the thing. the op_return stuff is not witness data it sits inside the barrier of the imposed 1mb base tx data.. thus even if there was 1 tx of thousands of op_return spam. it would only take up 1mb of data not 4mb
there were other rules that the max tx had to be 20% of base 1mb meaning only 0.2mb per tx was allowed

see the difference

i dont know why people are debating different methods of including non payment data (memes) via different methods. bitcoin was not made for it. so should have code .. yep code.. to prevent it

as for those arguing "well the exploit let it in lets see what happens" thats as bad as saying "well an exploit let in a blockreward change to 2000coins a block, lets see what happens"

if the whole softening of consensus has caused exploits to be let in before nodes are ready to verify the new feature that was suppose to be activated.. where by people need to download/ upgrade node software anyway.
a quick patch could be included to then fix the bug and then everyone downloads it and seals the trojan hole that allowed the exploit (limit taproot sigops lengths to under 100bytes or the 1 signature length they promised)(the main purpose of taproot)

as for those that want a bitcoin NFT where a file hash is showing a proof of transfer (thus no need of bitcoin being a meme library but just a timestamp proof of transfer of file hash NFT system. there is a simple way to do that using features over a decade old, which does not cause any mass bloat compared to average tx size

no offence
but i do understand the vbyte measure/segwit. i just choose to use the normal real world data measures of real world bytes and real world sat costs.. not cores silly GUI based cludgy math of miscounting crap and multiplying other crap

tx fee    199,640
tx bytes 113,796
=fee per byte=1.75~ sat/byte


imagine it this way
you go to a fruit and veg market.. you pick up 6 apples  of mixed variety
you go to the counter and pay $1.20

rational minds say hmm thats $0.20 per apple.. logic. common sense
6 apples in your hand.. $1.20 leaves your pocket

but nah. you are fooled into listening to this...
whilst paying you are TOLD verbally that 1 apple is $0.50.. another is $0.60 another is $0.01 and the other 3 are $0.03 each
all because the grocer is doing a special offer it decided to do at the counter

then you look at your receipt of hard data. and it just says 6 apples, total $1.20
yep the receit make no mention of the "promotion" of certain apples

reality is.. evidence is.. 6 real world apples for real world cost $1.20 is $0.20 each

not some cludgy math manipulation seen in the GUI to pretend to offer discount for one and different rates of premium for the others

..
try to take a chance on yourself. clear your mind of the promotional stuff.. and just read hard data of blockchain data.. and you will see real bitcoin blockchain data does not even understand what a vbyte is

its just a GUI measure inside core software.. not something measured in blockchain data

and no im not talking about blockchain.com the service
im talking about blockchain data.. the blockchain(the bitcoin network data)

---

and yes many wallet services and software always has to play catch up AFTER new features appear.. because yep instead of consensus.. where wallets, software and nodes upgrade first and then rules activate(good network security).. core have changed the paradigm to change rules first them make the whole community of bitcoin have to catch up and follow core. and insert the cludgy crap that core have implemented without the mass readiness of the network.. as this topic of crappy memes has proven.

here is one little funny
blockchain.com signed the NYA to say it wants and adores segwit in may 2017 but didnt implement segwit into its blockchain.com/wallet service until 2018 because core didnt release wallet functionality for segwit until 2018
meaning many software/wallet services didnt implement utility of segwit until after that

the community has become too reliant and too enamoured(adored) by core and use their silly buzzwords and GUI expressions. that people have stopped thinking about things in actual real world view of blockchain hard data of "bitcoin network"(again i mean blockchain data not the service of similar name)

ordinals paying low fee per byte in comparison to genuine transactions is NOT an anomaly

screw it
lets take the latest block at time of this post
(that way you cant say im being picky by only choosing an anomalous block

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/780416
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/f332487eb94750162db7777be985371cdd26951dd3943da19f7d6667123333ba
1.753 sats per byte
for an ordinal meme

block size 2,131,705bytes
0.14792359fee
= 6.939 sat per byte

so while other transactions per paying 6.9sat per byte
the ordinal bloat paid 1.753sat per byte

and yes i am talking about actual bytes for actual sats.. no clumsy/cludgy math

the ordinal memes are paying less than the average

when you worry about "tightening the rules"

a few things to remember is just because people used op_return to spam data at XXbytes per output in the past.
does not mean its reason to allow a different opcode(activated in 2021... that allows XXXXXXXbytes) to continue

the old limit was a 10kb limit not a 4mb limit of an opcode

what you need to realise is taproot was promised as a 1 signature length
thats what its main purpose was. allowing complex scripts that reduced to a signature length

so they need to fix it to meet its promise

what you describe as tightening the rules. is actually returning the limits to reasonable/ rational utility pre taproot.

it still would allow taproot. but with the byte limits of their promised features

due to the noise of doomad and blackhatcoiners social drama temper tantrum..
lets go over the basics of this topic actual discussion

NFT are tokens that have a feature to transfer ownership(otherwise they are just dead weight)*

these ordinal crap do not do ownership transfer on bitcoin
thus the occurrence on bitcoin is not NFT related, due to not having proof of ownership transfer feature in the blockchain data

they are just inserted dead weight and using bitcoin as a meme library of dead weight

there are ways of ownership transfer.. but casey cant figure it out so his project is not for nft value ownership transfer.. and bitcoin was never intended to be a meme library


*dictionary: token
-a voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services, typically one given as a gift or forming part of a promotional offer.
-a metal or plastic disc used to operate a machine or in exchange for particular goods or services.

tokens are not meant to just lay dead and serve no purpose after creation, they are suppose to be passed around

financial data usually needs to be kept on file for upto 6 years(countries vary) due to tax related stuff and other AML / bank secrecy act policies
UK - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-your-responsibilities#record-keeping-requirements

US - https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/bsa_quickrefguide.pdf
and yes expect exchanges to sell your data. much like expect your bank to sell your data
(banks DEFINITELY sell your data to other commercial businesses if you sign up to accounts that give "cash back offers on purchases" (because thats how they get the cash to give back))

however. be more aware if strangers on de-fi ask for KYC as they are more likely to use your information on dark markets

selling data to other legitimate businesses is less risk then handing id to stranger who can use it on dark markets

@d5000

messing with the fee's in regards to ordinal crap does not work because mining pools accept the meme crap with less than normal fee's and even wit no fee at all.. so no point thinking it can be fixed with fee's


to make ordinal memes no longer available to be on the network is easy as using the trojan backdoor trick in the opposite direction
upto 80bytes is within the upto weight rule.. and wont cause a hard FORK or soft FORK

it would however harden consensus to not allow random bloat to be put onto the blockchain, without first needing to use consensus to decide if new code deserves to be part of bitcoin protocol
(consensus = consent+census = uniting consent of majority survey)


thus improving security where by again we can get back to some semblance of consensus that requires nodes to upgrade first BEFORE changes are activated

as for a way to turn the dead weight memes into a form of NFT that has proof of transfer
thats an easy trick but if those idiots that love the meme crap cant work it out.. GOOD