ETF is explaining:
if an image was say 6mb and was compressed to get it down to 3mb to then put into a bitcoin block
its already using compression

meaning you then trying to compress something wont result in a 50% drop because its already in compressed format.. thus no gain

inshort
you cant compress a compression and keep compressing it
that 3mb will still be 3mb

EG
the 3mb was 6mb before being in a block. meaning it stops you from then compressing it after its in a block, becasue its already compressed

just to note..
alemedia is no longer/not managed now by 'scam bankrupt fraud'
its now managed by independent accountants/lawyera with licence under regulation of bankruptcy law

thus dont think of it as scammy alemeda trying to scam more
think of it as regulated lawyer/accountants reclawing assets using bankruptcy law

keep this in mind as you read what i say next. and any other future alemeda drama


yes normal customers abide by the service agreement of the company. meaning no recourse of redemption becasue they agreed to buy shares that have terms applied

however.
in regards to bankruptcy
if a now bankrupt company deposited illicit/stolen/abused funds into company X. by law that amount needs to be clawed back from company X at the deposited value/price

this then breaches/supersedes any company X service agreement because bankruptcy law reigns superior to business policy
so alemeda liquidators are trying to claw back initial investment from grayscale. not trying to sell shares to open market on OTC
(obviously if the assets were worth more now compared to initial deposit they would happily sell shares on OTC and now use the "claw back" tool of bankruptcy law)




coinbase and grayscale are not real customers of each other.. they are corporate sisters. thus have different systems and treatment compared to how coinbase treats real customers
EG no point in coinbase charging grayscale 2% if that 2% goes back to DCG
would you charge yourself 2% to yourelf.... nope


cant sue if its "not their fault" grayscale are saying the hold up is due to law/sec. thus not grayscales fault
(although yes grayscale promised an etf)
also grayscale offered the OTX swap of share ownership thus giving users an escape.. although that escape involved passing on the headache to a noob investor



yes users signed a user agreement with terms
normal users cant fight it.. heck even grayscales terms say users cant sue them and instead have to use a mediator to arbitrate disputes.

but when it comes to bankruptcy law and the tools available to legally claw back assets. that instance is outside of the business service agreement policy


bankruptcy law supersedes business service agreement policy
its not that grayscale needs to put in clauses .. its that bankruptcy law of clawbacks is outside and above grayscales service agreement

---

now with all that said
the bankruptcy tool of "clawback" is a law that has more power then grayscale business policy

meaning alemeda has a claim to clawback the funds it gave grayscale

however
grayscale "could" use a defense that:
the deposit/investment into grayscale pre-dates the criminal acts of alemeda that resulted/consequential to cause the bankruptcy

in short the investment has no relation/result/cause related to the bankruptcy so are not part of any claw back scope of use of such tool

pooya has yet to understand one basic concept

its not a simple "anyone can write a bip"

he thinks all proposal drafts, idea's and requests are in some repo

he forgets to read the guidelines(dev rules)
where people who want to make a proposal first have to go through a hurdle of other platform moderation phases of scrutiny by the core devs before they will suggest you should then send them a BIP draft to the github to add to the list. where again even in tht final stage it may never show up as a bip in the list due to another level of moderation

pooya thinks all idea's are in bips list and then removed .. nope that not how the core devs have walled off the bips
its not a add first, ask for forgiveness after
its a plead for acceptance first, plead second, plead third. then maybe added. then maybe removed

the reason there is such a lack of github comment/code/bip about a ordinal spam fix in bitcoin github. is because its all been moderated out at the other levels far before even getting a chance for it to be added

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

its not dependant on hard data to prove the rule

do you get that??
by not having data that aligns/fixes to rules means the rules are not fixed to data

..
you really need to do some research on the stuff the cypherpunks were doing before bitcoin and why they kept hitting a developmental wall where by their digital money/digital property concepts didnt work .. until blockchains came about

you need to understand about proofs. yep, proofs stored in data to prove transfer and prove ownership

caseys project does not transfer proofs in blockchain data. no references transfer in hard data

if you dont have hard data proof of possession. you have no possession
#NotYourProofNotYourProperty

it also depends on the question.. replacing what?

if its about replacing bitcoin as a currency with high store of value or market price measure..
for this to occur its not about having an altcoin that speculates with no underlying value store. a altcoin has to actually have a value store mechanism

bitcoins value mechanism is simple. it has an actual cost in creating new bitcoin.
2010 value was 3cents because cpu mining with only a few dozen people hash competing meant the 50coin reward for 10minutes cpu was cheap

where as now to mine, costs about $16.5k of asic cost per btc

yes the market price speculates ABOVE this value store(non-zero bottom) but to even achieve a sustainable high market price requires a value store that wont crash to zero due to speculation

after all if no one can acquire bitcoin for less then $16k via mining then thats strong support to not sell below $16k becasue everyone elses(less efficient) prices are above $16k so alot of people are happy to buy above $16k

(theres a reason why bitcoin with its high hashrate is also in a higher market window compared to other PoW coins with less hashrate with lower market windows )


so an altcoin needs a practical base value(cost) to limit such speculative drops, to sustain value and thus prices

this means yes a new altcoin that would rival bitcoin would need a real underlying cost/value structure which has real world cost that are above bitcoins. for it to replace bitcoins value/price position as the main/top  crypto

in short .. it wont be a PoS coin that replaces bitcoins value position

that said, here is one caveat
bitcoin hashing cost would need to break and drop significantly where bitcoins value drops and thus market drops.. where no one wants to hold onto bitcoin and instead the majority are willing to sell at a loss. for bitcoins store of value to crash down to super cheap levels where by a altcoin takes first place

..
so as this topic mentions "new tech"

imagine a 10 billion dollar quantum machine. was to produce a altcoin that mines just 100,000 coins a year and the lifecycle of the machine is 3 years before it is burned out and a new quantum machine is then mining

$10b for 3 years is a 300kcoin value meaning each coin would be $33k in just hardware cost, add in electric costs would make each coin worth more then that

thus "quantum coin" would then speculate on markets above that total cost amount
(caveat:should the coin have utility/purpose people want to use by owning said coin)

and yes.. the "what if's" ..
what if there were 5 quantum machines of same cost hash competing for the same 100k coin a year. then yes if all costs measure the same then the base value becomes 5x becasue each quantum machine would only get 20k coins each average for their $1b/3 year lifecycle each

dont get me wrong people that dont want to be full nodes can run their apps, software and wallets all they like
but when people who want to be full nodes are told core is a full node.
but then other idiots then tell people they can switch off x,y,z and then fool said victims into thinking they are then still a full node. is shameful advice

again if the idiots promoting these fool tactics actually just explained
"if you dont want to be a full node anylonger and want to switch some features off, you can do it within core, but understand you are no longer a full node by doing so"
or
"not upgrading downrates you to no longer be a full node"

then there would be no problems

..
its the maliciousness of making people think they are protecting the network by lulling people into no longer protecting the network, thus weakening the network protection via deceit

yes "according to a special explorer"
this is chain analysis of taint
not proof of ownership in tx via references in tx


its not about actual data in a child or grandchild tx that protects the ownership in the latest owners purchase

caseys protocol can change which output taint to follow.. after the fact (swap output0 for output 1)

do you get that!!

because as you admit the ownership transfer is not referenced in the blockchain of actual data
caseys system uses (to use the buzzwords of that group) only a proof of publication via bitcoin, not proof of payment via bitcoin


so again its not a bitcoin NFT system because there is no timestamp system of blockchain to protect the transfer and make a reference locked per transfer of ownership, that cant be changed after the fact


due to no reference per transfer mentioned in said transfer tx. there is no proof of ownership
do you understand PROOFS??

casey can change who owns it in caseys 'special' explorer after the fact
because caseys protocol is not even about using block data for transfer proofs.. just meme library creation followed by idiots receiving a amount of sats but on another market paying more for said sats then the sat amount

he can change his protocol without breaking anything bitcoin related. but where he simply changes his chain analysis (explorer) to follow a different path after the fact..
meaning there is no immutable /locked/strong proof of ownership

do you get it yet

and no its not like counterparty
because counterparty actually uses (opreturn)outputs to put extra data references into transfer tx's thus its actually reading blockdata to link ownerships


where by casey does not. casey just assumes connections by (deciding off the blockchain) to follow a certain path he chooses and can change. a path thats not referenced in blockdata or opreturns to prove the path/lock the path

tx A
has input 1 bc1pCasey              0.10000000
has output 0 bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.00000001
has output 1 bc1prandomuser   0.00199999
has output 2 bc1pCasey            0.09650000 (fee: 150000 = under 0.04satper byte)
(contains meme bloat in witness)
meme has no reference to any output in tx data

tx  B
has input (tx A output 0) bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.00000001 (but utxo has no reference to witness of prev tx)
has input bc1pnuttyuvastash   0.2000000
has output 0 bc1pdoomadbud   0.00000001
has output 1 bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.19999800

guess what happens in tx C
tx C has no txid of the meme nor does bitcoin rules or blockdata reference any linkage to tht output 0 of txB being the owner of witness bloat of tx A

nor does bitcoin rules or blockdata reference any linkage to that output 0 of txA being the owner of witness bloat of tx A

get it yet

inshort if you tried selling a dead weight meme you pretend to own from casey(TXA)
to your buddy doomad. for more then 1 sat
he and you both become fools because none of you actually moved any reference to the meme
so doomad paid too much for just a sat

yea you profited from selling 1 sat for more then its worth but you did not move any ownership of a meme
the meme is still in caseys ownership and he can change his taint analysis to be output1 as his prefered owner.. without having to change blockchain data

meaning you are seen as never owning the meme.

as for those discussing hashrates and mining
asics do not read transaction data and it does not matter if a block has 1 tx or 3000tx an asic still does the same work based on hashing a 256bit reference id

hashrate does not imply user adoption

also mining costs are not just a math of network hashrate/users asic has = share of btc reward

its also the btc price that affects profitability
when there is a halving the markets also reflect that change in market rate each cycle where the market price increases

---

also mempool of unconfirms usually/previously under to a 300mb limit so 500mb of unconfirms is outside the norm and very high amount compared to the norm

---

as for artemis saying im proposing anything
sorry but i cant. moderation god-mode egotists aka core devs have banned me out of all platforms that allow expressing ideas outside of the core roadmap plan they prefer

there are other people who have tried to propose stuff but they got their stuff removed too and not acknowledged

core roadmap does not want to byte limit opcodes to prevent future spam because they are going along with the narrative of:

"rejecting 'proof of publication' (their new buzzword for spam)
is Censorship"
even though "publications" are not lean payment data
and previous years bitcoin had consensus (consent aka permission requested) for tx formats to follow a certain format/length to reduce bloat and ensure only payment data got majority accepted into blocks

the core devs wanting to destroy bitcoin as a payment network and want to pretend bitcoin is and always was a publication network. are the exploiters of bitcoin
(peter todd is one of them who created the buzzword)

new version of core allows people to pay less than 1sat per byte
(sats/kb is more used now thus without the spam, fee's would be A HECK OF ALOT CHEAPER)

the ordinal meme crap is using it to pay under 1sat per byte. while the promoted propaganda is for everyone else to pay more then 1sat/byte

so while the smart/insider people pay less and bloat up blocks. the normal users who dont have the inside scoop end up paying more.. which make "average" fee look normal... but real result is those normal users just wanting to make normal payment are paying more while annoying spammers pay less

EG simple math demo:
if 3.7mb is paying 0.5sat/byte (1 tx of spam meme)
and 0.3 is paying 20sats/byte (500 normal payments of premium fee)

the block appears the average is under 2sat per byte

1850000 1 spam total
6000000 500 payments total
7850000 combined
/4000000 bytes
=1.9625 sats per byte

the silliest advice i seen by core devs is that instead of trying to stop this dead weight meme bloat stuff.. they suggest if you dont want to receive it. downgrade to an old node of pre v0.12 which strips out the "witness" thus what you personally store is then not including the memes

however doing so makes you no longer a full node  because
a. you are not archiving full blockdata
b. your not validating latest ruleset
c. unable to offer initial blockdownload to other peers even if you are archiving all 7x0,000 blocks of stripped out witness/meme data

chivo (el salvador) no longer supports LN (chivo and strike went their separate ways)

instead there is a middle man custodial service that acts
as a gateway from fiat <> chivo
as a gateway from btc <> chivo
as a gateway from fiat <> btc

and as a separate service
as a gateway from btc <> msat

chivo does not use lightning directly anymore. it uses a custodial service
(alphapoint) / river financial

..again lightning was in chivo sept 2021-december(strike partnership)
but due to bottlenecks and liquidity issues. el salv dropped it and went with alphapoint as a custodial service.

new version of core allows sats per KB
meaning the average fee can be under 1sat per byte now.. thus means average fee should be cheaper since a couple months ago .. which ordinal bloat is using(paying under 1sat/byte)

however users doing normal payments(not updated) are still paying in whole X sat/byte allotments
thus normal payments are paying more.. while new bloats are paying far less

there are some bloat memes paying nothing at all

..
yep a couple months ago the new core version changed its fee mechanism to be less sats per byte by allowing measures of sats per kb

if you look at the fee chart the fees went down.. then this ordinal meme crap happened and fees went up

so comparing now to 4 months ago it looks like nothing much has changed..
when in reality fees's went down by alot then up due to this saga of promoting that users should pay more

nothing special at all

that wallet is a standard hot wallet that just moves ~100 average coins every 3 minutes (5 times per 15 minutes at times)
which is just moving alot of customers custodian value from a cold wallet. to the hot wallet and then out to customers

doing 100btc that often soon adds up per hour, day, month, year

OR
other possibility
another business buys out grayscale as the "sponsors" of the shares. and takes over the management

..
some people believe that grayscale should not have pre-sold shares of a product they have not been able to offer for many years. (much the same as pre-selling pre-mined coins of an ICO)

where by the SEC might actually make a decisions to demand that grayscale offer 100% redemption or lose its other financial licencing permits

EG if tesla were doing pre-orders for cars. but the department of transport were refusing to validate the safety status of tesla cars, thus not allowing tesla to produce/sell cars..
eventually the department of transport could say "these cars will never be good enough for the road so tesla need to offer refunds and recall any prototypes currently on the road"

no they cant. because dishonest nodes with data that tries to do things outside the rules, would get their blocks rejected
as thats the point of consensus

..

a 51% attack cant do rule breaking
all it can do is three main things
A. re-organising the current blocks
    this is done by a powerful pool re-trying to build a previous/older block, but with a different transaction listing to the original block. then catch up and overtaking the block height of the honest nodes, so that it becomes the main chain nodes follow and the new blocks become the active blocks and the old blocks get orphaned(abandoned)

B. perpetually appear more often then competing block producers
    this is where they can by being the main block producer just do things like:
    make blocks with no transactions to significantly increase confirm wait times
    only accept high tx fee's to push users to need to pay more
    only accept bloated transactions
    
C. change the rules IF a malicious dev team released code for a new ruleset
    and a dishonest pool only released blocks that allowed the new ruleset. depending on how the dev team orchestrated the new code release and implemented it. could activate the code

pools still need to produce blocks that fit the rules to have their blocks accepted by nodes, but they can still cause malicious things within the rules, or where the main nodes (businesses/services) have certain rules that allow strange things to change

51% is just a buzzword for having more hashpower then its competitors combined meaning the attacker will be the main block producer

according to the financial times alemeda bought 22m shares of GBTC
so not hot air(they have skin in the game)

part of the FTX/alemeda bankruptcy is to claw back all invested value held elsewhere to liquidate it for repayments to ftx/alemeda customers

so if grayscale are not allowing redemptions. they are preventing the clawbacks of 22m of shares, currently valued today at $12.90/share *22m= $283.8m value

..

heres what i think
grayscale is not actually managing the custody of the locked btc in trust... coinbase does
so grayscale has no large overheads/labourcosts of "managing trust"
grayscale is not offering its promised ETF right now thus there is no overhead/labour cost of running an ETF
thus grayscale should not be implying that it should take its 2% management fee if its not offering the services that the fee's imply to cover

as for the redemption part
grayscale took in value at premium(initial share by from grayscale years ago).. but now tell people to fight with each other on another platform between themselves to trade out at discount(loss) via OTC

where by grayscale are the winners but their customers are the losers. whether the customers hold(and pay fee) or sell at loss(discount) to another novice customer who thinks they are getting in on a good deal
almost like one step away from a ponzi

dishonest nodes
would send out blocks containing bad things that do not fit the rules
things like:
transactions that are trying to spend funds already spent
moving funds without signature proofs of ownership of funds
adding random non payment data like monkey pictures
trying to give a bigger block reward than what the rules allow
[insert anything bad that does not fit bitcoins utility purpose/ethos/rules]

honest nodes
agree(consent) to the same rules and dont allow rules to change unless they majority consent by being ready with a new ruleset ready to check honestly. before the new rule activates(gets used on the network)

that said. bitcoin has changed over the years. some rules have been softened and bad things have been allowed in and changes have been made without the honest node consent

short answer from a bitcoin maximalist

yes there always is a possibility of something people prefer more then bitcoin
which is why devs should concentrate on bitcoin and not their sub-culture of promoting sub networks made just for their sponsors to profit from

a new system can recognise that people wanting to move money without middlemen dont need to be personally paying to 100 recipients in one payment. because real world utility. users only have normally 2 outputs.. 1 to go to the retailer/merchant/service they are trading with. and the other is the remainder of the balance returning to the sender

thus new networks would stick to lean tx size formats to allow more transactions per verification/confirmation period(block)

if fee's go crazy that outprice utility for the masses of "unbanked" third world users
a new blockchain would offer cheaper fees on the blockchain
EG
the current dev politics/sponsored game is to say people should use subnetworks for cheap fee, requiring middlemen routing to service the payments

in short use paypal instead of wire transfer, where they want to raise the price of wire transfer to push people to use paypal
whereby the wire transfer prices push out third world countries from having bank accounts


emphasis:
which is why devs should concentrate on bitcoin and not their sub-culture of promoting sub networks made just for their sponsors to profit from

doomad

users can choose to be full nodes, fool nodes or lite nodes or lite wallets

but you trying to tell people that when they choose to not upgrade
when you say pruning is X that in YOUR narrative they are still full nodes.. WHICH IS WRONG

they are downrated to fool node status and for emphasis again is downrating users to fool nodes status
because and whereby they are not doing full validation or full archiving

GET IT

there are changes that occur to the blockchain and allowing crap in, even before core even have a node release

so stop all the harping about "users have a choice to download"

but when it comes to users who want to be FULL nodes, is what my point was about
the set of users that actually want to be full nodes.

when new ruleset is implemented NOW.. what was fullnodes yesterday. does not require the full nodes to upgrade PRE ACTIVATION to trigger an activation anymore.
(security risk)

 but does cause the full nodes of even yesterday to be downrated to fool node status because NOW they are then no longer fully validating a new ruleset if implemented today(now)
...
so i am trying to get you to pick a narrative out of the three narratives you flip between and then stick to it.

becasue you are flip flopping with how you see that consensus works.

again
you previously have said things like
extreme A
there is no true consensus and never has been

b
then you said that nothing gets activated unless consensus is reached
(saying consensus exists is still hard and there was no softening)

c
then you say there was consensus but it has softened

so pick one
pick a narrative and stick to it. stop being a troll who changes narrative just to sound like an idiot, the cry when being called one

..
as for your empty cries about 6% veto and causing hardforks. you are a complete idiot
on many parts of that narrative.

but by trying to say  what you said about how YOU feel about majority consensus pre activation shows which narrative you are favouring today.. the one where you dont want consensus

firstly
soft consensus does not produce forks as that was the point of that trojan backdoor
it just downrates unready nodes to fool node status

hard consensus does not always cause forks
there are  3 main results
1. majority at any scale not reached. thus nothing activates and devs need to try a new idea
2. majority is reached and feature activates with majority readiness thus no fork
3. forced activation in minority causes a fork due to faking readiness but not having the nodes to secure network wide alignment of which blocks contain good or bad old or new rules


oh
last thing
YOU love new rules invading the network without invitation/consent
so that must make you the nazi

YOU love that their is now an army of dead weight monkeys in the network which people cant reject/evict/stop future invasions

YOU want people to just comply and accept an invading ruleset without checking if its good or bad