now to summarise why this topic even started by loyce



bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin

database balance on a CEX is not real bitcoin
sidechain tokens/ subnetwork IOU's are not bitcoin

if it uses a different unit
EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as unconfirmed/pending on the bitcoin network peer nodes. its not bitcoin

LN is a separate network that can work with other coins.
it is not a network that only functions for and only with bitcoin

nothing new here. its normal business practice across many sectors

once you are overextended where you have had pay rises in work. and reached the top payrise limit rate of your role.. you become replaceable. they find ways to sever you out of the role and employ someone new at the new base pay

many cases here in the UK
starting pay min wage, with 4 grades of pay increase if being trained up to certain level..
however the inflation rate uptick of those 4 grades is less than the uptick of minimum wage

EG
say it was $£7.50min with a $£0.50 per hour pay rise per training level. meaning fully trained for a basic role becomes $£9.50

each year offers a 2% uptick
so over 5 years a $£9.50 employee by his contract starting 2017
is now on $£10.48
yet a fresh recruit is on $£10 min wage and with just level 1 training level becomes better paid than the guy with 5 year experience and 4 levels of training
then when the fresh recruit is fully trained they are on $£12, while the guy with 5 years experience and same level training. is still on $£10.48

and trying to get a $£2 pay rise to outpace the fresh recruits is met by harsh rejection of "accept what your given or leave"

because in a businesses mind. a fresh recruit is younger fitter and more efficient so the dead wood needs to go

i have spoke with many people in retail, food service and office work that have had those experiences

if doomad thinks bitcoin didnt have a true consensus.. then he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin
but it is funny how i had to spend years dumbing things down to the most "explain like your 5yo" before he can understand the objections.... but thats on him. not me


he loves the fact that the consensus mechanism of 2009-2016 has been broken and bypassed. where he now wants to pretend it never existed.
that bitcoin never had a consensus (solution to byzantine generals problem)
but thats just his and his buddies that follow his narratives SHAMEFUL, manipulative, malicious, shenanigans and ignorant mind at play

i cannot believe how malicious doomad (and his chums) rhetoric is by saying that bitcoin doesnt and never had a true consensus. .. i understand why he says it. because his favoured subnetwork doesnt have a consensus system to protect their network value.  so he is selling a narrative that systems dont have nor need consensus and pretend bitcoin never had or needed one.. SHAMEFUL sales pitch

very shameful!!

the thing is

YOU idiots want to say that nodes with:
stripped blocks(non witness) that dont offer IBD seeding to peers.
and/or
pruned chains that dont offer IBD to peers.
nodes that dont verify every rule

you malicious deceitful fools are still deeming those nodes as being full nodes, pretending that they fully secure the network fully and are following consensus fully
BUT THEY ARE NOT

you lot do not care about making users risk aware or understand the variances and their impacts


..
consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state

yet you IDIOTS what to have this stupid diluted insecure mashup of variant nodes of one brand, where people are still reliant on one brand even if they are not fully securing the network.

all so you lot can weaken bitcoins system by subversion so you lot can promote your crappy subnetwork as a 'solution' to limitations and flaws added by the devs that should not be putting these limits in but instead should be expanding and evolving bitcoin

take the new RBF. nodes that have full rbf disabled. when seeing a tx. keep the first seen. and thus are left falsely thinking the tx they see pending in the GUI is the one that will confirm. yet other nodes that use RBF will reject first seen and keep the higher fee spending utxo. thus nodes will have different mempools and different trust of whats pending to be confirmed. and thus ruining the risk based tolerance of acceptance of zero confirmation.

yep you lot wanted to break this zero-confirm tolerance because it impedes users that want to accept zero confirm. thus now they cant risk tolerate low value, are being told to use your stupid broke subnetwork as the replacement/solution to the zero confirm acceptance system

---

consensus is not about changing the rule and then if you dont like it, its too late go fork off to an altcoin

consensus is majority without manipulation(by pre-rejection-pre orphan miscounting). then would only activate a new feature if there is agreement by the masses(get a dictionary and learn consensus)


now go play with your silly subnetwork and stop abusing bitcoin with your charades that are malicious and only end goal is to ruin and stifle bitcoin to make your other silly non blockchain.non consensus network seem more attractive

you malicious manipulative vile people

when it comes to say food/water scarcity..
 
what you see is fishermen are given fish quotas.
and much like farmers water quota's or industries carbon quota's..
..they end up having their own "credit" transfer system of trading unused quota's

these quota's  and due to population growth decrease in supply of excess unused quota. creates a deflationary credit system

which could be measured and traded on a crypto system

for me the only regulation i want to see is regulation that supports consumer protection.

using the current rules and remit of SEC/CFTC and FATF just do not work in crypto.(bad regs)

in short KYB(B for business) is needed more than KYC

a new regulator is needed(crypto trained and crypto understanding). and its remit should be consumer protection. categorising what a business does, how a business treats its custodianised coins to then categorise whether SEC or CFTC need to get involved should the business play dirty

by then being regulated, the new hybrid regulator can help the native banking industry to offer insurance products to further protect consumers of a business

all done without the crappy "KYC everything" model of native regulators, that dont care about insurances to protect customers or auditing a business every quarter/monthly

i do find it funny how every citizen has to be audited for tax.
citizens banks give them a monthly statement
but am exchange business does not need to report on its corporate accounts as much as citizens do..
when it comes to custodianising customers funds exchanges can jsut refuse to show accounts. like coinbase refuses to show "legal entities" public addresses of coins it has in custody

whilst the californian water authority cries with one side of the face, it is also seeking financing with the other side of the face

its next goal is to trigger a new industry
desalination of sea water to clear water

you already posted an article of similar topic

its not about limited resource. its actually about bad management of limited resource by over allocating quota's of a resource

in short if a person had a 1 gallon bottle of water for his family. he as a water authority and having 5 members of family to hydrate would say each member of family gets 1 litre each and if you dont drink it all now you wont get 1litre tomorrow you will only get half a litre

so each family member then chugged down their 1litre by ensuring they took their quote

but.. math, science, logic
there are only 4.5 litres to a gallon

one member of family does not get their quota

but each day instead of learning that there is only 4.5litre available.
instead of fairly sharing 0.9 litres each
they all act greedy and make sure they do work and expend their fluids to be able to grab tomorrows full 1litre quota. to ensure they are not the last guy thats left with half a litre

and thats why drought regions STUPIDLY grow high water intensity vegetation. and things like nuts and berries even when such things should not be grown in those regions.

becasue if they just grew wheat. they would saturate the land (over hydrate) it at the quote level. so they chose plants that require high hydration to ensure they take their full quota and not lose it

sometimes during the off-season they would sell their excess quota. thus they still take the water but pass it on.

all the time not realising its as a a regional thing a scarce resource that should be shared or saved. not used

86% of water=agriculture (6% is residential(including pools and lawns))
https://youtu.be/f0gN1x6sVTc?t=40

the america west is a net exporter of food. meaning even in a desert they make too much

what he is saying is wall street is the market.
in casino terms wall street is the house

the house always wins

this is because the house does not gamble. it simply takes a chip from every deal, every hand.

its all about saying wallstreet profit from fee's, the more action/trades that happen the more wall street earn in fees

you see this with other exchanges too
if
exchange A has a 0.2% fee. its volume might be $1b = $2m fees
exchange B has a 0.1% fee. it entices volume of $2.6b = $2.6m fees

by doing things that entices users to play/invest/trade/gamble more. nets the exchange more income

locking topic until the malicious troll forgets where he is and what he was trying to say (as always) and returns to his hobbit home of his favoured subnetwork


READ YOUR OWN WORDS

" Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules"

how can you say something is following the current segwit rules if it doesnt support segwit!!

also
how can you say something is following the current taproot rules if it doesnt support taproot!!

if it doesnt support it they are not validating things they dont understand. they are just BLINDLY using an opcode trick to accept without verifying the transaction..
thus they are not following the consensus rules becasue they are not verifying all the rules because they dont have all the rules to verify everything. they are no longer full validation nodes

YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS
DEVS ADMIT THIS
so its time YOU ADMIT IT TOO
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility
(treat as checked without actually checking)

this applies to taproot too
nodes that do not support taproot do not know the code/rules needed to verify taproot so are (by use of opcode trick) told to accept it unchecked)

PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!!

again a segwit compliant node strips/filters out (witness)data and gives the unsupported node a block that has less data than a segwit node has

the unupgraded node then doesnt verify segwit transactions and just blindly gets told to keep data unchecked.
those unupgraded nodes are down rated as less then full node. and not treated as good source nodes for IBD

---

true consensus is about agreement by the masses to then activate a feature becasue the masses agree they are ready to accept the new rule

however the mandatory activations, the backward compatibility stripping/filtering of data and the op-code tricks means those not upgrading are not voting at all. they are simply downgraded out of being full nodes and the features are activated without their need to agree/consent

true consensus for emphasis one more time because of your ignorance it needs repeating
was that rule changes did not happen new features did not happen unless the mass of nodes were ready to fully verify new rules new data. as thats the whole point of a secure network

your desires of a network of nodes that are not fully verifying and not needing to fully verify and not keep full archive data while in your stupid eye want too pretend they are still "full nodes" is your incompetence of understanding network security, code, protocols, rules and consensus requirement

how go do some research and stop being a corporate defence troll, at the expense of weakening the network

people are boycotting CEX
(though not really much in grand scheme of things with under 0.01% a day*)

i looked at a few of the "bitcoin richlist" addresses of exchanges
looking at coin holdings since january

the top 3 categories
january 2022
[100,000 - 1,000,000)   793,314 BTC
[10,000 - 100,000)   2,262,241 BTC  
[1,000 - 10,000)   4,630,567 BTC  

december 2nd
[100,000 - 1,000,000)   672,354 BTC
[10,000 - 100,000)   2,072,651 BTC
[1,000 - 10,000)   5,177,623 BTC

december 18th
[100,000 - 1,000,000]   684,123 BTC
[10,000 - 100,000)   2,291,459 BTC
[1,000 - 10,000)   4,601,707 BTC

december 20th
[100,000 - 1,000,000)   670,307 BTC
[10,000 - 100,000)   2,303,302 BTC
[1,000 - 10,000)   4,593,773 BTC



TOTALTS
Jan:  7922628
dec 2nd: 7686122  (average 770 a day removed(jan-dec day avg))
dec 18th: 7577289 (average 6800 a day removed(dec day avg))
dec 20th: 7567382 (35 hours since 18th data grab)

9907 coins in 35 hours (average 6793 a day removed(dec day avg))

since november instead of a net migration output of under 800 coins a day. its now over 6700coins a day leaving exchange hoards

so some people are listening.

albeit
of 7.5m coins in top addresses its only *0.087% of coins moving out
compared to the lower 0.00972% in spring/summer

(disclaimer: using bitcoin richlists is not accurate method, but better than some. it shows a trend of more coins leaving large holder custodians than earlier this year)

in regards to the co mingled funds

having user agreements that spot traders funds wont be loaned out.. and are separate from other users. is just contract breach of civil law by just being co-mingled. (guilty)
(imagine just a case of putting all funds into one wallet. but not use for loans. it would just be a guilt of civil law, not criminal)

but if those spot trader funds amounted to say 500k coins. where he moved or used those for loans. then that is financial fraud, which is criminal (guilty)
(by using spot trader funds for loans/leveraging. he is criminally guilty)


yes, agreed, yes
armstrong is currently the secret hoarder of greyscales trust fund. but has stupid quotes in SEC filings that it cannot disclose the PUBLIC addresses of the hoards to the public, the trust, the company or to legal entities such as the SEC

ofcourse the parents know the loopholes
the best tax avoiders are the ones that excel in financial law
(UK treasury minister (in summer) had a wife that avoided tax.. yep the top UK tax man's own wife avoided paying billions in tax)

the issue is this:
even earlier this year when SBF was doing the liquidator industry of buying dilapidated companies to raid their assets. he had no follow through to finalise the process of disposing the bad assets.

then the last few years with his things like co-mingling of funds, lack of having compliance processes (while trying to lobby regulators about compliance rules). both show he has the knowledge but not the will power or attention span to actually implement

he may appear smart by saying certain buzzwords his parents taught him. like being able to explain leveraging in a 15 second elevator sales pitch. but it doesnt mean he actually knows how to hedge bets/investments, and use leveraging properly as proven

this is where you get things wrong
well i know deep down you used to know this stuff.. and now your just either incompetent, ignorant or just trolling

2. does not follow the current consensus rules.
what they get from a segwit compliant node (dev buzzwords not mine) stripped/segregated/ downstream version of the blockchain that has no witness data. thus they cannot validate or verify those transactions
they also are not deemed worthy of being part of the unconfirmed tx relay peer system and not part of the seeding of the initial block download for those wanting to get the blockchain. due to lack of having full data

3&4 no longer require what you describe
funny part is for years i have been telling you that the 3&4 you describe now (which is consensus) but then you refuted that was consensus by saying that its not consensus and that devs can throw in code as they like without needing the vote.
much like you just done a couple posts above

you know that 2017 and this year segwit and taproot and full-rbf activated without the need of real vote of a mass upgrade requirement pre-activation.. . due to their mechanisms they put in to slide in activations without needing majority node readiness

you love the feature of not caring about node readiness
you love the fact that nodes are not seeding the blockchain to new peers(you love the stripped data mechanism and pruning)
you love the mandatory activation of rejecting opposition in 2017. and you love the validation bypass mechanism of 'treat blindly as acceptable' (without validation if certain opcode is used in tx) for older nodes

stop playing dumb to cause an argument that you have kept losing every time.

the blockdata and code proves my points.. but you cannot prove your point

so just accept finally for the 5th your you have no code or blockdata to support your cries. and instead stop arguing to pretend your the victim with lots of friend that agree with you.

you are just a social queen with no data to back up your game apart from  quotes that cant be backed up by data

now grow up once and for all

parents were not 'just visiting'.
they actually quit their jobs as professors mid-semester and took early retirement and moved to the bohamas AFTER SBF got into trouble
even thought before the november trouble the parents had diary schedules of university activities set for 2023
(they said they long ago planned the retirement but that got debunked by the diary schedule showing they originally planned to work into 2023 before he got caught)

also when arrested usually the clothes you go in with is what you end up wearing to court(if its smart enough clothing). but if it is too casual you end up wearing a jail jump suit. so the obvious idea is get arrested in a suit so you can appear in court wearing a suit and avoid the orange jump suit visual bias of guilty view

he had been advised what to wear because its common knowledge that your not allowed a tie in jail (choke hazard) so thats the lack of tie at arrest. where if needed family can put a tie on him in the courthouse more easily than trying to arrange a dress-rehersal change of clothes hours before court should he have been in a jump suit from the jail.

so they had it well planned that he would have a suit at the jail to wear before transport and then a tie should he need it at the court house
(as many people do this to ensure they dont look guilty by turning up in a jumpsuit to court)



if everyone was good and never harmed anyone. there would be no need for rules

EG its impossible for someone to grow biological wings and fly into space. so thats why there are no icarus style rules.
rules exist becasue people do harm others.
but rules should be updated or meet the standards of their times to solve the problems that exist of the time(some rules are outdated) and some rules need to be invented. where the rules benefit the masses of normal people from being harmed. rather than made to profit the rich and foolish

things i do see.
obviously its more like bank account savings interest. where by the longer you save the more coin you accumulate. rather than spending it and letting someone else accumulate.

but just getting extra coin is inflationary.
because there is no supply end limit. nor a decrease of supply per period.
infact 10% of X means more coins in year 2 are made than year one, more in year 3 than year 2 and so on

ok lets delve into this
you could have two options
letting max increase of coin be 0.0262% a day(10% a year)
that way you dont need to hoard for a year to hit threshold of getting a 10% increase
or the utxo has to accumulate an age of 365days to win the 10%
meaning not everyone will get interest due to the need to spend to live factor

mechanisms such as looking at age of utxo to calculate days since uxto creation where at the spend it results in the 'change'(new utxo you keep) include the increased amount. which is something that can easily be validated by a network

expanding on your idea
someone that spends money 2 times a day and gets equal returned back.
obviously wont have qualifying utxo of +1day age between spends so earns no 0.0262% interest
where as as someone that waits 3 days before spending gets 3x 0.0262%

which could present as a system of slowing down peoples spontaneous spending (buying something just coz they seen it/want it that day) and instead make people plan spending habits more

cry some more doomad, its what your best at

you have no clue. but continue to cry.

devs can code what they like. but when it comes to a network that involves consensus devs should not have the ability to just trojan in new features without the mass of nodes being ready to validate such new rules upfront. to THEN activate the new rule/feature so that the nodes know how to treat it.

(after 5 years of correcting your cries. lets emphasise once again)
what should happen is nodes upgrade to include proposed validation code. and then it activates


try to learn a few things because you have wasted 5 years on crying about your authoritarian system where you want core devs to be the deciding power house above user nodes where user nodes have no choice

consensus is about opt-in(vote) to activate
where lack of majority = no activation
where there is no miscount of inclusion, no pre activation mandated fork, no rejecting opposition to fake majority.

YOU think it means activate and have those that dont opt in just be sheep following without verifying the new rules. or already thrown off the network by showing objection

you have no clue what the true blockchain and consensus inventions purpose is.

you love a subnetwork that has no blockchain or consensus and you love that it doesnt. you dont want accountability of the masses, by the masses
you want 1 on 1 battle of the fittest

now go cry somewhere that people wish to kiss your ass and hug you. becasue that s all you seem to positively respond to
so go talk to your subnetwork community of a dozen big mouths.

you are the irritant of the forum and you think your are liked because you see (only) 12 people that kiss your ass so think they represent the "community"

i dont care about being liked. id rather discuss the important things of how things actually work or should work.. not play your games offering empty promises and unsold dreams of networks that exist but have more structural flaws then a cracked wall on a weak foundation of some outdated and under used church (i use a church analogy becasue you sound like a religious preacher for your community)

greyscale CEO speaks on video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3hI0p-_x2c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdj5RWmQjnQ

well

"cannot disclose PUBLIC keys"
i call that a paradox of words

hey greyscale. coin base have the keys..
hey greyscale. not-your-keys-not-your-coin

by the way

of the $10b of assets. they have $5b of shares(50% discount)
if they fail to get acceptance to offer a ETF by spring, they can only afford to buy back 20% of shares
so they only have $1b of cashflow to buy out share holders that would want to leave if greyscale cant get a ETF

does not sound good

no wonder the CEO is on a speedy press tour writing letters and appearing on CNBC and yahoo finance on same day

usually if there is a no risk, (normal boring day activity) it does not need this rush to media activity

sorry greyscale but if you are offering an exit, allow 100% to exit not just 20%
YOUR SUPPOSE TO HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO COVER EVERY SHARE

---

now im sober. and able to run some numbers

so GBTC:
$10.5b asset locked (20%=$2.1b)
692,370,100 shares (20%=138,474,020)

ok so 1 share
share cost $8.13 (should Greyscale buy back)
collateral it unlocks $15.16

so if grey scale buys back 138,474,020 shares at a total cost of $1,125,793,782.60 they can then unlock
$2.1b of assets (20% of collateral)

ok quick math

2003: house market rate £150k
2003 mortgage interest rate 5%

end result on 20 year mortgage =  $237k paid just to have a house

market rate this year. £266k
now include the £500 a year buildings insurance required as part of mortgage agreement
+£10k
then the £500 electric/gas maintenance
+£10k
then there is the general maintenance and living costs. land taxes, gains, state(coincil) taxes
UK council tax alone is £1.2k/y = £24k

=£281,000 vs market rate of £266,000
.. and yep no longer a profit.

however if i invested in bitcoin in 2012(10 years) using just £150 (one and 1half hundred.. not thousands)
£4 a coin becomes £13600
37.5 coins become £510,000

bitcoin: £150->£510,000
vs
housing: £281,000-> £266,000

summary

real estate "value gain" of x multiplier is not real. because most forget the actual ongoing costs after the initial house valuation.. like interest, insurance, maintenance and tax

funny part is

in summary.
doomad started off pretending about common agreed value is good and iou's are bad. where value created in a small individual/partner setting wont work

but fell into his own trap that his favoured system(non consensus non blockchain network) he loves so much is the IOU private system of value between 2 parties system he initially called out as a bad idea, which can badly settle with no guarantee of the conversion swap to equal what is deserved.

because without the common involvement of the masses to ensure value security.. that value between the 2 parties is not secure, trusted nor able to settle with a guarantee of proper swaps.
(there are many ways to create unfunded units, steal, de-value, de-peg his favoured network units/value on his favoured network)

but hey. it will take him years to realise his faulty network he loves has the flaws he initially called out on in this topic. but instead of learning, he just wants to whinge and cry that someone is pointing out the flaws of his favoured network of private partnership agreements of IOU unsettled value that the wider network does not see or associate or agree or account or verify

---

now thats been said. back to the topic creators idea
an individual creating a "baker coin" has no value. it becomes a hardship to try to get acceptance. and the baker needs acceptance for it to gain value and utility beyond his own friends group

i know some think "no government. work for your own survival or die" (survival of fittest). but thats not civilisation. its tribalism. or just 1 on 1 fight to the death anarchy

there are times where we do need outside support and help from others.
tribal leaders educating the youth, warriors defending the tribe, medicine women healing the weak
(modern(fast forward 500 years): teachers, police, nurses)

or even just a unbiased or voted in representative to mediate disagreements of common good and find ways to solve problems for the majority. tribal leader, wiseman
(modern(fast forward 500 years): ministers, senators)

ofcourse many many examples of government failures to meet the needs of the common man have show resentment of government and government have oversteped their remit many times to gain more power whilst limiting individuals options.

but putting aside the failures.
if we could "reset" the regime and have a common value of fair monetary system. how would you design it

EG imagine cryptocurrency existed in the 1600's and transacting with different tribes where there was an agreed value of a coin based on some real coin creation mechanism of real value. how would you go about it. what mechanism of value creation and coin creation would you invent.

..
so heres another idea
every time a tribe/clan/community vote on a new law the tribe/community need to follow. that new law comes with new coins to cover the cost of maintaining the law. EG a law to create employment of the first ever police officers of a country. pays those police a salary. where by those police are only there to patrol the public streets to be within 30 seconds of a call out of help incase of robbery or murder or rape

where people then offer goods and services to support the cops. by accepting their coins for food and shelter. which then expands into other laws for coin creation. such as education or fire service. where the coin then goes into circulation and becomes common

again. im not wanting to discuss the speed or ability of a coin becoming common or even having a ICO being made or being proposed.
im just asking for fun idea's of a purpose of WHY newly generated coins to be minted/mined into existance could be made fairly.. where it creates value.. rather than just "printing" for sake of printing