my view is

eg
customer PoR: (audit A)
customer balance total      500k coin
customer reserve address  500k coin
value ($) at audit : $8.25bill

customer assets: $8.25bill

company audit:(audit B)
company owned balance sheet: $2bill
company owned assets: $2bill
total liabilities $1.0bill
company status (+/-) = +$1bill

fully audited balances (a+b): $10.25bill
fully audited reserves (a+b): $10.25bill

where the +$1bill status is the company owned assets -  company liabilities
where customer assets are not part of the company status

thus proving no co-mingling and also no shuffling between customer to company occurred
and the company reserves audited where both are seen as totaling the same as all coins under control of company totalling the t

however
to many people have been saying to co-mingle the customer reserves with companies assets and liabilities where in the example above in their view it would be if there was a $4bill liabilities

company status (+/-) = +$6.25bill
which is bad because thats pretending the company could use customer reserves to pay off company liabilities

we all know the SBF on bail news. so not much to talk about there

however the linked article and SEC try to say dont trust proof of reserves because those audits dont include the hosting corporations asset and liabilities. where by PoR is just about customers reserves and wallets to back the customer balances

WELL here is the thing
corporations should not be co-mingling customer assets with corporate assets and so there should be a separation of asserts and a separate audit just for customers assets

yes having a separate corporate audit of corporates financial status also helps weigh how viable a corporation is to be sustainable and continue having their service open, or how close to debt they are to risk bankruptcy which then foolishly locks up customer assets for years and then ends up co-mingling the assets with corporate liabilities to then share out..


a good regulation is customer funds should be separate from a corporations share holders/creditors

thus funds get treated differently and customers can get what they deposited out, away from the drama of a corporate bankruptcy

albeit. with all that said a PoR may prove there are coin reserves that cover balances. however a PoR does not reveal motivations and CEO mindset about plans for the future of being greedy or malicious with regards to customers value
(a PoR does not reveal if a CEO wants to retire to a exotic island with users value)

bitcoin was designed as a sole custody option of a deflationary currency
however features of the last 5 years are about co-signed part-signed options of group authority of value

bitcoin was designed as a peer-to-peer  deflationary digital cash currency
however features of the last 5 years are about off-ramping users to other networks for the "cash" style payments. and have bitcoin as the elitism reserves of corporate hubs


bitcoin needs to get back to how it was architectured in 2009-16 and then open up transact-ability for all  to reduce costs and expand utility

CBDC invented the 2 layer system and bitcoin devs decided to emulate CBDC 2 layer system and become the corporate sandbox test for CBDC

we need to do better then CBDC not become like them

ignoring the topic creators rants about racial politics
ignoring the topic creators rants about government agents

..
bitcoin development does however have a close-nit centralised group
its called core for MANY reasons
they declared it the only reference and new rule proposal source
where by other brands have to shadow follow core

the core group declared themselves the sole arbiters of bitcoin protocol changes. where anyone opposing their roadmap is to be defined as enemies of bitcoin even when the debate is the small group central point of failure

even some EX core devs have admitted core are a central point of failure
including the top(maintainer) for the last 5 years Wladimir van der Laan

they have pushed in "features" to by-pass the byzantine generals solution called consensus and this to has been admitted by such devs that merged in the changes
done using "backward compatible, "mandated" changes without needing majority nodes to upgrade pre activation to support the slid in new features/rules. which is a security risk
activating a new rule without mass node readiness to understand/validate new ruled data is a security risk as it weakens data integrity


this core group are a hierarchy, they have censored moderation where anyone opposing them or even having a critique are removed or banned. which is not the path of their so called "open peer review"

yes there are some low hanging fruit contributors who do spell checks/translations/reviews and acknowledgements just to get their name credit on releases. but these small time contributors are not the main coders of new features

the main coders of new features are also the ones with merge capability so in short they merge in their own plans, while removing and ignoring outsiders idea's

though github is not the place to debate the "team" dynamics/centralisation.. it appears neither is the development boards of this forum nor the development IRC nor the mailing list. becasue they do not like open peer review they simply want their roadmap followed at all costs

or to put it simply


but to expand
those with merge and commit privilege are not just some randomly chosen people. they are known to be following a certain roadmap of corporate sponsored design

bitcoins natural design was "sole custody" yet the main features of bitcoin in the last 5 years are co-custody, group custody features which supposedly meant to offer greater tx count per block(more availability to transact on chain), but never prospers as a solution to allow more sole custody opportunity on the bitcoin network

now ill say it again many devs within core have admitted about the central point of failure of core and have tried to split up the core control. but as of yet, its been a long 5 years with little to no results that have helped bitcoin be what it was suppose to be

alot of work still needs to be done

sorry to inform you,,,

CBDC are using idea's from the hyperledger project.

the hyperledger project is using bitcoin as a sandbox to evolve CBDC("layer 2 solutions")

yep bitcoin innovation for onchain scaling to be a utility for the masses has been choked and helld back, because the bitcoin innovation is calling subnetwork (hyperledger buzzword 'layer 2") as solutions..
where we are stuck with a broken flawed LN network being the service offering for so called scaling. yet after 5 years we have not expanded tx count of bitcoin utility and the adoption rate of LN is super small because its a crap network and not the solution we need

yes as a currency bitcoin is deflationary and beats any fiat/CBDC as a currency unit
but then bitcoin network has been held back for the last 5 years to not innovate bitcoin. with sill sub-par networks that have broken promises and reputation of bitcoin as a viable currency

i love bitcoin, but we have been choked and strangled for the last 5 years

the problem is

LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin
even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system

yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN
(take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals)

so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it.
 it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted

LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain
you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling")
bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks..

there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not
they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN
(el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin))
i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN"
then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador"
so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!)


as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!!
the main devs of LN are paid.
you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning)

did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg and its subsidiaries blocksteamis funding
the dev groups are funded

..
in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution..
 a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing

LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are

short story: long(ill use funny names for entertainment)

imagine bankman owned a bank. but mismanaged customers funds and pocketed them

imagine CaZh was in bank as a customer, looking to invest as corporate partner. but noticed the bad management and wanted out.
CaZh got out knowing there was nothing left of bank

CaZh  whistleblew and everyone tried to get their cash out too
however bankman couldnt fund the bank-run

so bank blew up and erupted in a bankruptcy
..

now k-vino(he loves wine)  had his own cash in bank. but k-vino was also under contract that k-vino had to promote bank and bankman positively to get hands on k-vino cash

so k-vino wants to blame CaZh for why bank closed its doors.. ignoring the reason CaZh whistled

normally a solvent /clear bank would have funds to meet customer needs even in a bank run. so even with a whistle. if bank was good there would be no drama

the reason for all this is that bank was empty. and k-vino is in denial

..
the story is the easy part. the only complicated part i see is the names you have to work out who it refers to

A&B
i only question it. because for wang and ellison to be charged, put into a courtroom first and plead guilty that quick. some evidence would have needed to be found that quick to put charges on them and get them to the US before sam
now who would do such a thing.. (rhetorical)

so my theory. (whiskey driven this evening) is that SBFdone a deal to blame wang and caroline for fund movements.
(much like his press tour suggested they were to blame when sbf was free and being interviewed)
so that he could have a month before its his turn to feel the handcuffs.. so SBF could have outted them last month before he got cuffed
though obviously now caught and guilty wang and ellison are definitely doing deals to lesson the penalty

C he paid $300m for the bahama homes and bought them outright and is owner of them. so he could have used them as collateral as good as his parents homes would (if parents homes were worth that much)

D depends
bahama should not have ordered funds taken out of a bankruptcy so the presumption is the actions of SBF and wang to move funds out hours after bankruptcy where it allowed 48 hours of bahama customers to withdraw from ftx.com..
where SBF could have said the funds it let bahama authorities seize were SBF's "personal" accounts. thus not part of the bankruptcy and not part of the fraud. thus normal asset seizure of a charged person in jail

current desalination is not cheap and trying to evaporate a pool of water is not quick.. deeper the pool slower the evaporation
EG reservoirs evaporation rate is (even shocking to me) 70-80% evaporation a year - i did not think that much was wasted

which is only 0.21% a day

where as a 1cm thick puddle can be 100% a day
but this land space needed to 100% evaporate a day would take up all land in a thermo-dome system

however if instead of a puddle/pool/reservoir using solar/sun as heat for cheap but slow thermo-dome evaporation
they had mirrors to multiply heat. and also instead of pools, they use sprays to already have sea water as mist thus even more efficiently evaporate it

i always though it was crazy to have a pool/puddle dome where it should be a mist dome

as for reverse osmosis which relies on pressured water.
i thought it was crazy to pump water horizontally then need further pumps for pressure

just put the RO filters UNDER the ocean vertically, to use gravity. where the shear weight of the ocean trying to escape down the hole provides the pressure

a dying company in debt cant have its investors buy out their own company else they is not in dying/in debt
so for those that are in debt they need to seek an outside buyer

its the process of mergers, acquisitions.. then liquidations of the dying brand with all the bad debt

creditors could club together but then what you find is them as sole owner of company with no other company as parents are stuck

however bringing over the a new buyer who buys out the share holders. thus they are out...

new buyer brings the assets into the parents company including the customers of that asset balance. the segretgates off the debt and makes the customer happy to be separated from the debt of the old brand
however yes the debt owners of old brand are not happy if that old brand then goes into bankruptsy as the assets are gone.

in short

lets take that $500m asset analogy and call it company(D)
lets say it does $1bill trade volume a week($52bill volume a year)
at a 0.1% trade fee $52m a year cashflow

company(D) owner decides its company(D) is at a 3x cashflow valuation so offers 100m shares on offer of full value $156m
round A investors pay in $156m (or % of that amount at that ratio)

the company(D) does other business and ends up gaining $1b in debt from some bad business.. lets say tax evasion or sanctions or something..  is the debt total reason where debtors are (A)uthorities

the share holders are not happy. they want out but not at a 0 return

so someone(x) else buys them out. pays in $156m to make shareholders happy and out..
and new buyer(x) now acquires the company(D).

it merges in the (D)customers and the (D)customers assets of $500m to become customers(X)
however the company(D) still has liabilities(A) it owes from other things that total $1b

well a moral company would pay out a further $1b.. or..
now that company(x) has the customers it does not need the dying brand(D). so can just bankrupt it

..
other shady but legal practices are:
imagine X also had its own debt of $500m from its own stuff (its own tax evasion of A2)

X does a paper loan to (d) of fake $500m
and X (acting as D) 'buys' X debt(a2)  (its just contract speak no real money changes hands)


so now D is $1.5b in debt becasue its got all the debt(A)(A2).
and now X can just bankrupt the lot in a nice neat package called DAA2

and the fun part. because(x) it loaned D $500m(on paper) it can claim that x is a creditor of Ddeny to X and the D total debt is $2b call it XAA2D debt

..
but this is all mentioned in a 5minute written forum post where the process to do this is more convoluted and more timely to meet all the legal loopholes of avoiding clawbacks.
but yes its legal IF DONE RIGHT

im guessing part of the extradition process was not only transfer of SBF to the US, but also of who holds his assets seized by the bahama authorities, being passed to US authorities..

which could have been used as collateral for bail

wrapped bitcoin is
btc->ethereum->erc-20->wbtc    3 peg distance from bitcoin

some sidechains coins subnetworks tokens and custodian balance are 1 peg steps from bitcoin
btc->liquid(lbtc)
btc->LN(msats)
btc->cex(btc balance)

though the 1 step pegs are still not 100% guaranteed convertible. its just less risk the less peg steps required
and all pegged coins/balanances are treated as IOU's until settled back to the bitcoin network as a confirmed bitcoin value

my personal risk awareness trust rating(my opinion based on flaws of each):
33%: btc->liquid(lbtc)
22%: btc->LN(msats)
11%: btc->cex(btc balance)
4%: btc->ethereum->erc-20->wbtc


the 1 step pegs are more trusted in a co-operative contract. but then there are many ways to not cooperate on the agreements of conversion and such you have to still be risk aware and take the risk dependant on how much value and convenience you want to risk in the side/subnetworks/custodian

i only rate sidechain coins as more trusted purely on things like them having some kind of multi-party federation peg thus less collusion by 1 attacher and having a blockchain of sorts to also mitigate certain attacks..
but i personally avoid any network thats not the bitcoin network

if i was to be want to invest in other currencies.. i too would take same principles of the main net vs their sidechains and subnets and be the same % for their risk vs mainnet holdings


usually best to keep hoard/main stash of coin in the mainnet of native true currency and only use daily spend amounts in the altnets

but again be risk aware, dont be duped into these altnets utopian promises of strength and security.

use them temporarily for a short time period.much the same as custodians.
dont treat these custodians/sidechains/subnetworks of 1 peg steps as solutions to bitcoin woes which should be deemed as bitcoin 2.0
think of them as service tokens for temporary service use

anyway lets summarise the two narratives of disagreement of me and doomads thoughts around consensus and fullnodes

ill call my narrative fullnode and consensus. and
ill call doomads narrative coresenseless and foolnodes
just to make it easier for people to distinguish the differences
because some people have reading issues, so we have to make it easier on the kids to read

doomads narrative
CORE decide the rules of bitcoin. where coresenseless is that everyone sheep follows core rules and dont get to vote if core should activate or not because no one should tell a dev what to do.
where any other node that wants to propose bitcoin changes outside of core roadmap should be treated as enemy of bitcoin and told for f**k off to an altcoin and not get involved with cores bitcoin(#REKT) or blind obedient sheep follow core to remain on the bitcoin network

a foolnode "can" validate everything, but not essential due to backward compatibility meaning they dont have to
a foolnode "can" archive everything, but not essential due to pruning which means they dont have to
but in doomads rhetoric as long as a node sheep follows the full or stripped data/validated or not of core rules. its a foolnode of coresenseless


my narrative
2009-2016 consensus was:
no one owned the right to enforce rules in as they pleased. it required consent of the masses to THEN activate.*
where for security of the network the masses need to upgrade nodes and be ready to suport a new ruleset before it activates, and not activate before full nodes are amassed to be ready

*without mandate or threat of rejection,  nor pre activation rejection events to fake a vote

however core had managed to bypass consensus in 2017 via a few tricks invented by lukle jr and shoulinfry(no not UASF). but this trojan backdoor bug should not be allowed to be used as a normal function for network rule change options to activate

a full node is where it validates everything and understands all the rules and archives full data, where as if you switch off certain features like archiving IDB seeding, where you dont stay upto date with the full ruleset you are not a full node. you are downrated to non-full status.
pruning/backward compatible/unupgraded nodes are not full node status

soooo

the question is

did caroline and wang plead guilty to lesser charges and willing to give evidence against SBF to lessen the penalty of those guilty plea's

or has SBF already setup caroline and wang where they were lead to take a guilty plea. which is due to SBF working with authorities to lesson SBF involvement in whatever narrative he was posing about caroline/wang

as for the bail
a bail bondsman can upfront the $250m and ask SBF for only 10% deposit. IF SBF can show liquidity/access to $250m of property that the bail bondsman can take.

the US family home is not worth $250m so that would not have achieved a bail bondsman 10% deal
he would have had to put up other assets (bahama homes) into a deal with bondsman

i doubt he would reveal a bitcoin wallet of~15k coins. as that could end up working against hi of holding customer assets(one of his charges)

funny part is UK and euro had electric prices that are cheaper than japan

.
oh wait you mean germany..
well now thats a diferent story, if you want to say germany 'is europe' is more of a statement of gramma nazi-ism, and thats on you for not taking the intricate diverse countries independently and then looking at them in the scope of such and then averaging out their costs overall..

if you want to play game s of "europe is most expensive 'coz germany" ill leave you to play that game

as for you using an article again as proof. you again lack to read the small print or look for the source beynd the news article

oh by the way. SBF was never worth 10's of billions of dollars
it was all 'paper' valuations not real coin/assets he owned outright nor fiat he had outright of his own ownership in his pocket

but you continue beleiving in the articles

that said
recently ... for about one day, i beleived some article that SBF was trading bitcoin on mtgox in 20113-14 while interning for jane street.. but i realised my mistake

if you want to spend months beleiving SBF actually personally earned 10's of billions.. well thats on you

---

now lets just rub it in further and translate the link you provided which YOU think is SBF profiting from korea's kimchi


if you are just trying to poke at electric rates as if your the rate king..
japan and germany both have the same rate high electric. where hawaii has even higher

but there is no good exchange in germany compared to japan
also other euro exchanges are not rated at germany rural price discovery, but euro average which is since 2013 been priced into the us rate..scale of sheep following the ups and downs at a forex adjusted amount

EG if you look at the us market of bitcoin and then the eu market for bitcoin they shadow trace each price movement up is up down is down. sheep follow

however japanese bitcoin market had a different community of bitcoins thus a different price discovery sentiment thus japan was nor tracing us.. which meant there was an opportunity.

as said previously..
a pattern even if proven is only as good as the time it takes for too many people to realise the pattern and then trades against the pattern for profit to break the pattern

i know this topic is about the feeling of first using bitcoin. but there is also the feeling of first attaining X or 0.0X bitcoin being an achievement too

im of the era of 1BTC was a coffee. so i didnt get excited until i got a hoard of coin

but looking it as an investment. i see it now as:

there are about 2,148,040,619 households(homes) in the world
rounding it to 2.1b

meaning 0.01btc represents one house in the world

so some can see that owning 0.01btc is like the feeling of getting the keys to a house you own out-right(on the scarcity rate)

having fiat and wanting bitcoin usually means needing a fiat gateway to get bitcoin. hence the CEX convenience. but it should be taught by everyone introducing friends and family to crypto. only use CEX as a entry-exit gateway.. not a custody/bank
(coin in-coin out same day.. not hoard on exchange)


WTF are you on about

there was a price movement on november 11th. so thats what your price chart shows.. (ill come back to describing what that event was)

there was a balance drop soon after that..
in december, (today) by your chart shows 1.9m not your 2.35
your own chart shows that there was no balance of 2.35



now here is the thing. the bankruptcy of ftx/media hysteria of FTX was not in october.. it was november 11th

the peak of the green and orange lines was the november 6th-11th period of cz backing out of FTX(6th) and then whistleblowing and then on the 11th ftx filing bankruptcy

the price drop on november 11th WAS the FTX EVENT

october had 2.08, early november went to 2.12(call it nov 6th)
and then boom FTX drama. and the drop

price and coin, even in your chart has not gone above october levels

the evidence from wang would also be interesting

the current ceo (ray) has seen that the co-mingled funds needed SBF and wang to be involved in moving the funds becasue he said they were involved in moving funds to bahamas authorities on the last day of operating (the supposed we been hacked)

so eang as co-signer will have alot of proof that SBF was involved in alot of coin movements

with many of greyscales fund offerings at 50% downrated to asset(pfft "discount")

i can see him selling off some private hoards they have to get maybe say $135m

use that $135m to buy back some shares of some altcoin trust funds
(50% rate discount buyback=unlocks $270m)
next coin
(50% rate discount buyback=unlocks $540m)
next coin
(50% rate discount buyback=unlocks $1.08b)

then use that on the GBTC to buy back the proposed 5th of shares at 50% to unlock $2.16b of bitcoin

all for the low low price of $135m initial cost