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"

if a ceiling can grow. its a canopy not a ceiling

the US cannot pay off its debt

it has $31trillion debt. but only has a treasury income of about $1trillion in a year

what they do is "interest only" which they can set aside as long as they dont meet the debt ceiling that obligates them to start paying down the debt or put US into bankruptcy

however the ceiling is not a fixed height roof. its just a internal measurement that gets restructured every 1-2 years

it was supposedly meant to be linked to not outpace XX% of GDP but even that rule has been thrown out the window

oh doomad yet again.. you are fooling yourself with your attempts to ignore the obvious

you think these flaws "only affect one user" yet you are foolish to ignore that no one makes an app and gets it put on google play/apple store for just one user.

funny part is..
when thor turbo started its(other flaw) fractional reserve game. many downloaded it and were given msats with no funding utxo. and YOU and your chums called that fractional reserve event of inventing new msats out of nothings as "a feature"

when many users are using mobile apps, where they are stuck using a hub allotting them(giving inbound) value they end up having to use the app the services offers them, where whats not seen on the GUI can affect those users end result they think they are promised. but never get delivered

..
your desires to break the rules of a network structure, and then just say "its the users fault" is your lame scapegoat every time
there needs to be network rules(you dont want there to be network rules) that mitigate the damage
you want a certain app to be able to change rules as they please without anyone able to abstain or veto the devs code. and instead users become just a puppet to a devs code where they also change the network rules to not have a method to prevent a malicious act occurring

again you need to really challenge yourself and realise what consent and abstaining means.
what consensus means..
where by performing an act(ivation) on others, should not occur unless clear consent is given.
your lack of wanting a majority vote or pretending there is not one in the first place is a failure on your part.

oh and if you again pretend bitcoin doesnt have a true consensus then you already debunked yourself in the previous post of other topics when you admit to knowing about the previous versions where you clearly stated you hated the idea of a 6% veto or any veto of a minority.. and then went on to say how you adore that devs can slide in changes without any vote at all due to the non-consent abstaining bypasses put inplace

please go learn what abstaining and non-consent is
learn byzantine generals problem and how consensus actually works
then go learn about what the devs came up with and admitting to performing to bypass consent of the masses
consensus: consent by census(survey of the population )

comments in code. is not the code.
read the code

the division and multiplication is a whole different area of math compared to removing significant figures off the end

its funny how you avoided understand the code and just quoted a comment..

some pseudo code for you
remove(right,3)
is different than
/1000

you can do alot more harm with changing /1000 compared to a "round"

oeleo you also said

"Satoshi had no issue with further subdivision"
and
"No one complained then that suddenly there were a million times more bitcoin, and the cap of 21 million had suddenly become 21 trillion because of 6 more places after the decimal point."

where you were trying to make it sound like more subunits were created in the past and bitcoin had more shareable bitcoin due to a change in the past and no one cared.. yes you made it sound as if its not a problem to break the rules now to add more units...



i clarified that satoshi was not talking about the hard rule of subunits(sats)... he was just talking about the GUI display of representation outside of the rule.. where it does not even change the rules or subunits.
but just a lazy basket display

stop trying to use references about graphic display translations to think it infers acceptance to break hard code rules

lets make it simple

A<>B<>C<>D<>E<>F<>G
A wants to pay G 200sat (200,000msat)
onion payment(b:200,005(c:200,004(d:200,003(e:200,002(f:200,001(g:200,000))))))
here people see in the GUI their msat balance destined for their output appears as +200,000
meaning they presume they will get 300sat by computing the input plus payment

               before                                  after                   conversion
       fund            output                 fund         output          rate              broadcast
a-b  a250,000->a250,000           a250,000->a50,000      1000            a250->a50                
       b100,000->b100,000          b100,000->b300,000     1000            b100->b300

b-c  b250,000->b250,000          b250,000->b50,000       1000             b250->b50                
       c100,000->c100,000          c100,000->c300,000      1000             c100->c300

c-d  c250,000->c250,000         c250,000->c50,000         10,000          c250->c5                
       d100,000->d100,000        d100,000->d300,000      10.000          d100->d30
                                                                                                        tx fee:315

d-e  d250,000->d250,000        d250,000->d50,000        1000             d250->d50                
       e100,000->e100,000        e100,000->e300,000      1000             e100->e300

e-f  e250,000->e250,000        e250,000->e50,000         1000             e250->e50                
      f100,000->f100,000         f100,000->f300,000         1000             f100->f300

f-g  f250,000->f250,000        f250,000->f50,000            200              f250->f250              
      g100,000->g100,000      g100,000->g300,000         10,000         g100->g30
                                                                                                         tx fee:70

as you can see at the "onion payment" of GUI display of IOU balance.. everyone feels they are getting fair 200,000msat channel allocation changes in a routed payment.. meaning 200sat payment belief

but end result at broadcast. due to changing the msat conversion rate
is a couple people are not getting paid the end total belief of their input 100sat + payment 200sat
some are getting just 30sat instead of 300sat

which can be even more finely refined to ensure the missing amount doesnt end up as fee. but instead more income for one side than the other

if it was a trim 3significant figures .. the end broadcast results would be different
..

wrong

its not though
READ SOME CODE about the peg

its not a "trim; 5,000,000 msat to 5,000sat"
its a 5,000,000 / 1000 to CONVERT to msat to sat
its a 5,000,000 * 1000 to CONVERT to sat to msat
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/lnwire/msat.go
mathematically there is a big difference. between trimming end units vs multiplication/division
 especially when it comes to the lack of a network protocol.where by people can change the /1000 easily


even the blockstream elements version of lightning highlight this is changable
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning-charge#post-invoice

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

te subunits always existed as they are today.. just the NAME was not given for that unit

please please pelase go look at the transactions and coin rewards of 2009 in actual byte form data. (true data form) and realise that a coin reward was never 50.00
it was always 5,000,000,000 units. it was just the GUI front end graphic display for human eye interpreted as 50.00.. but that was not the actual hard code rule

as for the subdivision. he was not talking about changing beyond the 8 decimals EG
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:  5,000,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 by breaking the blockchain data rule

he was talking abot changing the GUI visual human display of
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:        5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00000000

do not be so duplicitous like your chums who are trying to break every rule of bitcoin
such as the likes of privacyG and you lot, that also want to break the blockchain accounting system of every coins route back to their origin creation of coinbase reward aka "remove the taint coz privacy"


i know deep down you an your chums do understand the importance of blockchains and things like:
the byzantine generals solution (abstinence/lack of mass consent does not equal consent)
the taint is accounting and proof of valid value creation
and limit of shareable units

so dont play dumb to think that bitcoin could and should break rules just to meet your chums malicious desires for harming bitcoin just to promote another crap sub network that has flaws and bugs and not truly compatible to bitcoin principles

dont keep trying to propose to break bitcoin to make your subnetwork look more appealing

it doesnt require uncle sam printing trillions of dollars

bitcoins price is set by the current orders of a small amount of coin
EG if people only had a max of say $400 to buy.. then orders would be of 0.025 = 1btc:$16k

also if you look at the most efficient mining hardware and then add on the cheapest electric or the most expensive electric on the planet to effectively mine sustainably.
you come to a window of like
$10k-$75k in 2021
$15k-$95k in 2022

these become the planetary limits of value vs premium
where the markets of speculation then play within those limits

in short no on on planet would soberly want to buy bitcoin in 2021 for more then $75k becasue they would have other methods to acquire bitcoin cheaper(mining)
which is why the market fizzled out of wiling buyers at $70k last year

we are not in a value:premium zone where $100k is an acceptable premium nor $200k, nor $500k right now.. have patience it will get there of offer opportunities in the future

thinnest slice of bread is 0.5cm thick. and for all time there were X slices that represent a loaf of bread

trying to think of it as 4 loaves of bread with more thinner slices ignores the hard rules about the slices

by breaking the slices down further. breaks many rules where some conventional loaves appears as not fulll loaves anymore. or where it then confuses peoples concepts of how much bread they can share because now they have more slices to share.

bitcoin has value which slowly rises naturally and in a slow smooth amount.

the speculative market above value is volatile and no one can agree.. yep its speculative by its very definition.

some want pump and dumps due to greed of trying to harvest idiots that buy high so that greedy people can sell high for quick greedy profits.. others want speculation to stay at a minimum to stabilise the price, and just let value periodically rise over time.

well
we are no longer in the era of the 100x speculation bubbles
we are no longer in the era of the 20x speculation bubbles
2020-2021 had a 17x pump and now we just happens to be on the after effect of a 5x correction
which is still higher than 2020's amounts

tell me any other asset or investment which if you bought in at $4k in 2020. you could turn into $70k within just one year.. where people are then still unhappy about such an assets performance

a ponzi scheme where its easy to enter, with a promise of investing in an asset. but once inside that promise of getting the asset, doesnt flourish. the promise of being able to exit doesnt flourish and all you can do is con someone else into buying in for you to get out.
where due to fee's and discounts you lose if you try to exit

soo. its no longer 2017 but 2022 and the ETF has not manifested. and if not manifested by spring 2023 greyscale will only allow 20% of share holders to escape..(the 20% buy back scheme)

.. and guess who those 20% will be.. yep not the normal traders, but the favoured big institutional investors

here is the thing.
greyscale supposedly has reserves backing every share. and because the shares are 5-% discounted to reserves meaning there should be 2x coin value per share. meaning they should have 200% reserves to buy everyone out.

yet they only can afford to let 20% escape

read between the lines