they cant legislate plastics out of the single-use industry as it would just leave stock piles of sludge at the refineries.

its the single use industry that was established to give purpose to sheer amount of sludge by-product of refineries..

in short you cant poop in a toilet and then ban fertilisers because otherwise your just left with a pile of poop at the sewerage plant that then feeds back to your toilet and overflows onto your nice bathroom tiles

unless you can find a new use of poop. the only options are to continue using poop as a fertiliser while reducing how much poop is flushed by finding new tech ways to deal with bowel movement

..
until a country can ramp up demand for long-use plastic to cover the sludge supply. the single-use industry would always be needed

.. they are however trying to find alternative tech to power vehicles to reduce the oil demand to then reduce the sludge that needs to be made into single use. but thats a 40 year goal.

whereby the hope is reducing oil ned by 90% extents oil reserves from 40 years to 400 years. where the sludge by--product meets the 10% demand of long life plastics.. (thats the hope)

yep i said it hydro carbons are not going to end. there would still be oils converted to fuels and plastics. the idea is to bring it down to like 10% and then offset that by having more then 90% renewable energy and carbon sequestration

HA i laugh

if they default the fear in the quote above is....... .. ..increased interest on future loans..pfft

its funny because governments and THEIR bank actually want the interest rates to rise to counter inflation caused by the commercial banks.
the penalty is not a penalty when its the economic plan of the future

even funnier part is the US own BoA they can set their own interest rates on the loan between BoA and treasury

when you print your own money you also get to control the repayment plan and also the interest rate of future loans

doing a credit check on yourself means nothing because are the creditor

politicians know this. they do personal loans to themselves not only to escape tax on the income they pass from their side hustle business to themselves but also because they are the creditor they never need to repay

taking money out your left pocket to put in your right pocket becomes meaningless fear because its just putting the same money into the same pair of trousers

you make so many topics about how central banks have stopped printing money..

they have not. they just reduced how much money they print

banks still create mortgages for people, so printing is still occurring.
just not to the extent of the QE level of 2020-2021

it seems the whale chart is trying to suggest he wants to short the market of his 132k coins and put a buy in to create 182k

which basic math suggests
sell at $16.5k =$2.178b
which would need a buy in at the rate of ~$12k/btc to yield 182k coin

its a bit late to be playing games to suggest influencers are going short.
everyone knows this is the era of going long.

if you have a visa credit card debt of $25,000
and you pay it off with a mastercard credit card which sets you up to in future have a debt of $31,000
did you effectively pay off the debt.. nope you paid A debt by creating another debt
you are still in debt so debt is not paid off. its just reclassified as... yep debt

what you will find out is that..
since the second world war( the first ATH of debt) most of that got repaid due to the debt incured being used to help out the likes of the UK where the UK then paid back to the US allowing the us to repay its loan.

however using US debt creation to pay for US domestic things. has not had the same ability to later repay the debt.

since 2000 there has not really been any debt reduction schemes to bring the debt down. instead its just toned down how much new debt to borrow at times when it doesnt need more debt. but still they created more debt at other times to pay off older debt thats coming close to its expiry date

if you are not well versed in the methods of legal tax avoidance, either find an accountant or dont take the risk

because if you dont follow the loopholes that allow tax avoidance legally, you are then doing tax evasion which come with stiff penalties far beyond what you can save(if you are discussing amounts under $1k)

oh leg-end. you might wanna try harder

these large companies do day trading where even at the per second rate one trade can rebalance another trade.

if you think a company has to wait 30 days before doing any negative trading to rebalance positive trading. you really need to start to look into the rules better.

what a company does which affects their capital gains is different than what an individual investor does that affects their income tax.

different rules apply

oeleo
i do read what you write and i have seen tactics many times, you are not new,..  you many times have subtle hints of mentioning thing in a way that has two meaning so that you can play ping pong games to irritate people and then recruit idiots to believe the other narrative you and your buddies try MANY times to push, while trying to play inocent about not pushing it by reciting other parts of the same paragraphs where you hint at the opposite. just so you can be wishy washy and hide from your narrative

you have many times been subtly pushing that satoshi and the community dont care about adding units because i know your buddies want to break bitcoin further to make it emulate LN. you have tried it before your crew of malcontents have also at times tried to change the meaning of what a full node is your crew have tried to say that pruning is safe to do and pretend it still protects the network and still distributes the ledger and all that crap, when pruning does not help distribute the ledger nor allow peers to seed from a pruned node for IBD, and other things.

your chums of malcontents do not understand consent and abstinence in regards to consensus. heck you lot are trying to redefine consensus to say that abstinence is consent, where you lot also think vetoing a feature is evil and not consenting is evil while thinking that ignoring non-consent and abstinence is something that should be allowed.. pretending both non consent and abstinence are equal to consent means performing an act on the community should still go forward even without majority readiness to even validate a new rule..

your crew love things that hinder bitcoin scaling and you hate people that want onchain scaling, pretending no one wants it bar one person is absolutely stupid narrative played.. you lot are soo narrow minded stuck in trying to break bitcoin just to populate your crummy sub network that you cant even see that bitcoiners want bitcoin to remain secure. you think everyone wants to break bitcoin and move to your crummy network so you continue these ping pong games of promoting that breaking bitcoin can happen without harm when it literally requires breaking bitcoin(harm) to do so.

you pretend sometimes your on the side of bitcoin by ending a paragraph to sound like your all for protecting bitcoin but you start paragraphs with you hinting that it can be broke easily without controversy.

oh and if you are going to now suggest that im wrong because [insert any excuse] to try distancing yourself from your chummy narrative of malcontents and say that you are not like them or you dont believe in their narrative.. atleast stop sounding like them first by avoiding copying their narrative, then maybe one day i wont keep mentioning you in the same regard as them


mnow i dare you to actually go and look at a raw transaction get the real binary data, and then see what that transaction value becomes if you changed a rule where the hard data subunit of a 50btc coin reward from 2009 was represented in your dream delusion of a LN emulating 11 decimal system

ill give you a hint 50 becomes 0.05
it also breaks the halving cycles ru;le where instead of finishing in 2142 it finishes in 2180 if it was imposed at the next halving to emulate LN digits
and he total coins mined so far (19m) will be diluted in representation to look like 190k bitcoin where the remaining new coin by 2180 will look like only 1.3m coins.
go try and look at data, code, rules, and do some math. and stop relying on comments you find as your source bases to break bitcoin. because no satoshi did not say he wanted to break bitcoins sub unit rule

the question

the answer

what they done was sell of a subset of coins
EG

by selling some of the, lets say the [7002 coins at $59187 price] alllotment (id choose those coins if i was tax burden shuffling). they reduced holding down to 6298 via selling that allotment, to declare a 'paper loss'

but now have an extra 810 coins at $16,845

as shown just using those few trades of the screen shots above

which brings down the average

brought those averages down from $47k to $45k

so they managed to use this 2022 tax year status to have a "paper loss" to not pay tax.
while also increase coins and also bring the average down of whole holdings

which is a good business strategy on all fronts

hydrocarbon refinaries only have until about 2069 until oil reserves deplete. so they want to reduces the burn rate from fuel industry to then expand the reverses years left by 100+years instead of 47. because they know even after 2069 people will still want and need plastic products (car dashboards, house window frames, house guttering, etc)

my view on plastics(in 2022) is this
oil becomes fuel. and leaves some nasty toxic sludge behind, if they just burred or burned that, its super dangerous for the environment

however converting that sludge (as they have always done) into useful products has saved that super toxic effect. but now we are at level two. what happens with that converted plastic

having it as single use then disposal is just delaying problems. yes its form is less toxic, but at same time while they pretend that it takes a millenia to break down. we are already seeing microplastics inside animals and ourselves in just about 100 years from first industrial scale use

this is because thin plastic products like grocery bags break down in decades not millenia

we should be prioritising that toxic sludge to becoming long term use plastic such as window frames and other utilities that keep it from disposal for 50 years and then can be ripped out of windows when housing is demolished and recycled into something else with a 50+ year lifecycle

development needs to be done to get cost effective non plastic wear for temporary things like grocery bags, soda bottles, packaging, while meeting the sludge supply and long lasting plastic demand to keep hydrocarbons from just going to waste.

i know some has been done for instance fast food used to have polystyrene trays, now they use card/paper
grocery stores offer paper bags or card board boxes or even cloth bags
some drinks companies are moving to strictly metal cans or glass bottles. but their progress is slow

i understand the fuel refinery need to get rid of toxic sludge quick and cheap which means due to lack of demand of long life plastic the sludge mainly ends up going to one-use product industry cheap cost or free
where by if the one use product industry didnt take the sludge then the fuel refineries end up stock piling and disposing of more toxic sludge

but we need to start finding more long term use demand of plastics to take that sludge and also recycled plastic while reducing how much sludge goes to one use products or even just burned/disposed of at refinery

---

im also looking into the new industry of desalinating water which leaves behind the brine by-product where researchers are currently trying to develop products/demand to use that brine rather then re-toxifying the oceans with it.
this unsurprisingly ends up showing the thermo fusion industry demand for heavy water which can be found in brine.. as well as lithium for EV car batteries

the decision becomes.. how much are you paying to move the vehicle
euro to pound for my math
€30k fuel car €46k ev car
£26.5 fuel car  £40.6k ev car (difference £14.1k)

i personally do not have a EV car. but i do have fun town touring on a EV bike
it costs me £0.10 to charge my EV bike to do 20miles (0.005 per mile)
any way. using numbers i know
fuel car is about £80 to do 300miles which is about £0.266 a mile
EV car is about £14 to do 300miles which is about to do £0.05 a mile

if doing 5500miles a year(15miles a day)
on a car for 4 years average(21,000miles)
fuel: £5600
ev: £1050

saving is on 4 year use £4550 or roughly 12 years and a couple months to break even with £14.1k
it only becomes economical if you are going to use that car to do 65,000 miles break even
or if the price changes again on fuel from the fuel base cost of my calculation of £1.45 a litre

blockchains are simply a batch of data(a block of data) where that block is linked to a previous block, thus chaining the blocks.. thus blockchain


blockchains are based on new blocks acceptance as viable my many rules and features needed, main one firstly is by including reference to a previous block. meaning the newest block could not have existed/been formed/mined before the previous block, due to needing the previous blocks reference to create the newest block thus blocks become a "proof of time"(the "timestamp" term used in bitcoin is not based on actual unix time of a day/hour format. but based on a physics and math fact of 'this block was made after that block' proof)

then comes the proof of work which not only adds complexity to the hash calculation of a block reference to ensure that effort was put into it, meaning attackers need effort too.. but also comes at a cost for that effort(electric/hardware)
the reason for the effort is that.
if it costs someone X to make 1 block then it costs X^N to make N blocks. making it more expensive to try going back and editing old blocks and then trying catching up again to outcompete a good healthy chain that just moves forward

---

to cover costs of this miners would calculate their costs. and refuse to sell their rewards for that time cost at a loss. but want to sell at a premium(profit) which case, enters the premium(public exchanges)

these become speculative as those with higher costs find it easier to acquire coin buy buying it when prices are low and mine it when prices are high.. but i am talking about the hobby miners that didnt buy hardware at wholesale/bulk cost, and not in regions where electric is cheap
these hobby miners jump in and out of the market-mining industries and acquire coin in both depending on market whim/speculation

these hobby miners are what oeleo describes, but these hobby miners are not the value discovery miners. they are the premium price discovery miners affecting market sentiment

---

the base value of bitcoin is not what oeleo pretends is based on a spread of different miners at different costs jumping in and out daily and causing some underpinned value to be as volatile as the market speculative premium

base value is beneath the market. its a more stable slow grother over lengthier periods of time.  its the non zero bottom of the most efficient cheapest miners on the planet. a number thats more stable than oeleo try to assume.

..
bitcoins base value is the most efficient miners that dont jump in and out. they are not looking at daily prices to make choices. they have contracted into hardware and electric deals for 2 years+ thus they just mine regardless of the speculative premium public market whims
they as the cheapest miners/acquirers of coin look at a periodic timescale of 6 months+ and then look at total coin collected in 6 months+ period to then see their coin per cost. aka cost per coin

these low cost acquirers of coin wont sell for less and because they are the cheapest acquirers of coin on the planet become the base level no one sells below, thus supporting a base value

as time moves on and things change. competition ramps up and other factors raise the cost of the base. which then reciprocates to affect the market numbers

this "value discovery" is a known thing as far back as the first trades of 2010
where users were calculating their PC usage time per coin and electric to come up with a value to refuse to sell below,.  and then develop a separate "price discovery" above it of what they can sell coin for to those that had higher costs or just didnt want to mine.

there are times when the premium market rises meaning other locations with higher cost can jump in and profit too by mining. but that does not negate away from the role of the most efficient miners who still mine regardless and set the base non zero bottom value

looking for reasons of speculative market is not what i do. i look at the base value stuff that supports things that stop a market plunging into darkness
and looking at the economics of stuff that create the top premium resistance that forms the tipping point of an ATH

all the random reasoning of sentiment and speculation in between of the speculative market .. just becomes social dramas of guessing games

but lets delve into the theory of the ATH speculative reasoning of your stimulus theory
did you check the reasons for the 2011 ATH
did you check the reasons for the 2013 ATH
did you check the reasons for the 2017 ATH
those were not caused by stimulus cheques

yes you could see an uptick in volume on a couple months(ish) of a couple stimulus dates

but that volume is in no where comparison to the 2017-18 volumes

by this i mean lets say all 250m adult americans did put some stimulus cheques into bitcoin
they are only putting in a fraction of the $1.2k

250m * lets say $500 =$125b per round
3 rounds in a year =$375b a year volume

exchanges do far more volume over all, than what i calculated as a $375b per year 'stimulus volume'
where even that $375b per year stimulus volume was an exaggeration of all adult americans investing 42% of their cheques

here is the funny
the price in march2020 did peak to $8k. but it also dropped days later(mid march) to under $6k
and yet that march period(pre-stimulus) was the highest volume of trading occurring in 2020-2021
which you cant explain as a stimulus cheque caused high volume event..

the first stimulus of april-may 2020 had no price impact
(yes it had mid-high volume compared to lets say the 2021 volume)

then the december-jan(high volume) stimulus
and march 2021 stimulus was the first peak of a ATH (stimulus 2&3)
but the july 2021-november 2021 was the peak of a ATH with no stimulus period inside those dates

where by first stimulus round didnt see much uptick in volume or price
yes second and third round coincided with the first price ramp up.
but doesnt explain the second ramp up in price from july onwards

which seem too flimsy of a correlation to try to theorise causation
however here is a better theory, which has a test of time proof of over 12 years

so here it is:
with each major price discovery event follows a year later by a ATH
price discover events     year later
2010-first exchange   :  ATH 2011
2012-halving event   :  ATH 2013
2016-halving event   :  ATH 2017
2020-halving event   :  ATH 2021

satire:
he is taking that 80lb of paper to a retailer to buy a 0.1lb of toilet roll

rich kids that squander their inheritance(waste it on foolish extravagance) will fail to leave any inheritance for their own kids

but those that start businesses and delegate work out to other workers, and that businesses sees production/purpose/profits can succeed.

again its not as simple as presumed

firstly when food prices increase. yes wages should increase where food is like a 6%-60% of income. then it feels like people are getting paid fairly if the wage increases go up inline with their regions normal % rise in food price.

however. by increasing the wage, your then increasing the cost of the food at the farm, at the distribution centre and then at the retailer to pay the increased wages. which then snowballs into ever increasing food prices

some retailers try to control this by saying to farmers unless you can make me milk for just £$0.35 a litre we will not use you as a supplier. which has ended up killing off the independant farmers and left things to the 'big-agri' industry to economise by efficiency and many methods of get the prices of produce down, which they then cant repeat the following year when wages increase because there are no more ways to efficiency gain to drop the produce cost. and so the retail price ends up going up.. which as said snowballs into more wages needed in year 3, and so on

politicians dont do tours surveying properties. and dont do credit and income check on all potential tenants..
 
they delegate that to real estate agencies. where it should be the real estate agent that should have the responsibility to do property surveys FAIRLY and put limitations on rent per m² based on under 30% of average salary of the region.
where the real estate agents do not put tenants in jeopardy by charging rent more than someone can afford or raise their rents as soon as they move in

the problem is real estate agents have no penalty for getting tenants into debt via bad survey valuations and of overcharging a tenant.

and so real estate agents value property higher than the regions affordability and then pretend that a tenant can afford 50% even though the policy is suppose to be under 30% affordability

governments should create laws that allow for a penalty. where a real estate agent puts a tenant over budget. the tenant then has a law/right they can use to get the real estate agent to pull the rent down to an acceptable level

my view of ross ulbright is that although(no proof) it appears that he was not personally handling the drugs, he was actually running a modern a drug house/den

much like gangsters in america use kids to handle the drugs but the gangboss financially benefits from the drug deals the kids do. so he isnt innocent

however scam-bankman-fraud is also not innocent and has not put any money down to get bail. and if he absconded his parents can just do an alex jones and file bankruptcy to avoid paying the fine.(bail debt)

financial crimes have financial loop holes which if you are well versed in finances you can get away with most of the time

when it comes to money printing (increasing "public debt") governments dont see it as a number that increases they see it as a % of value decreasing

lets call value the bread loaf value. where 1billion breadloaves is a value basket

in 1982 a bread basket was $1b
now its $1.8bill

this means if they had a 30 year debt to repay $1b
if they paid it off in 1982 it would have cost them 1billion bread loaves
if they pay it off in 2022 it costs them 555million bread loaves

thus they love inflation. if they can get 200% inflation in 30 years they can half how much real value needs to be paid back

no we do not
stop playing user display cludgy math games to pretend proposals to break bitcoin code rules and data structures is a nothing burger..
look at actual bitcoin raw transaction data, there are no fractions
and no a hard drive does not see #'vbyte'
hard drives count data in actual bytes.

again you arw talking about human cludgy math, of the human GUI display of how bad math wants to calculate a fee based on data it ignores "for discount" or pretends is 4x bigger than actual bytes for legacy

try to stick to what actually exists in the real blockchain physical data, not what you see on a GUI display or in comments of code (comments are not rules, especially when the comments are badly worded to misrepresent what is actually happening in real world math terms
oh and take your own advice from another topic
so try it once in a while instead of setting yup your social ping pong games to try to make people think its ok to break bitcoin rules because a comment told them so


you are again trying to set up a narrative that we actually do have sub units of sats on bitcoin to pretend that breaking the actual blockchain data format and value of bitcoin is a nothingburger because in your view the GUI, comments of code and your misrepresentations of what satoshi said is a more important  decider (in your view) than actual code and data and actual satoshi quotes references


i know you then try to redeem yourself by then saying
but you had already entered the subtle implicit idea into peoples heads.. that bitcoin does have fractions of sats by what you said at the start of the paragraph

stop playing ping pong games to try to sway readers into thinking that breaking bitcoin is not a problem

---

its funny how your buddy group of malicious intent to break bitcoin. pretend that when someone proposes a new fee mechanism you lot say "there is no fee mechanism, miningpools can pick and choose what is a relevant fee to them, ignoring the reason someone paid X instead of y"

but as soon as it fits your narrative, you then say that there is a fee policy that the network treats as a rule "Because transactions are actually measured in weight units"