yes bitcoin can lose its top position for many reasons in the future
a. devs change the rules of the 2,099,999,997,690,000(sats) shareable units to become 1000x more (yep they're thinking about doing this)
    (i) not only will it break the shareable unit limit. (under the guise that 100,000,000,000 shareable units is still 1btc)
    (ii) not only will it extend the halving timescale by another 40 years
    (iii) but it will make a 6.25 legacy value (62500000 units). appear as a different amount unless more cludgy code is added to separate/convert
b. mining reward/transaction income plateau where by other altcoins then take on the asics that are not profiting
    (i) not only dropping bitcoins difficulty on the exodus
    (ii) not only losing the underlying value(cost of coin maintenance)
c. offchain solutions exodus full node users in preference for non-maintaining bitcoin because they are busy using altnet lite wallets instead
   (i) not only centralising the lesser collective of full nodes to only merchants
   (ii) not only making users not care about securing the backbone of the network
   (iii) not only putting increased bandwidth pressure on the remaining fullnodes to service the remaining network full nodes    

no it does not
the bill removea.. the ability to impose orders that had not yet become regulation... because now she has to only do orders that fit within the law and regulation


this exception before allowed her to implement a rule before it was even put into regulation.. now she can only impose orders that are already in regulation.

meaning she has to make it a regulation before then ordering a MSB to abide by it,

yea even on my first read i too thought it was only about removing the time limit. and yep i read it again and realised it actually removes her ability to impose a rule before it is promulgated(put into regulation/law)

meaning she cant (if bill passes) just make an order simply because she proposes it might become law.. she has to order something that already is within regulation/law from now on

this is not about pro-government. this is about your exaggeration.

its funny how you say you dont know what it may mean, that its ambiguous and might mean something else. but then you try your hardest to say it means X.

sorry but she has no whimsy, she has to consult on all orders.
there is no new powers to freeze accounts. even you admit now they always had powers to request MSB's freeze accounts.

i told you months ago at the last twitter campaign exaggeration that if you are that interested in how it affects money service businesses you should try researching the regulations and laws imposed on them (which now yellen has to follow without whimsy)

wow i said one example. and o-e-l-e-o by-passed how he had been proven wrong in that example, to then cry that i did not explain more examples..

anyway.. moving on..
THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO FREEZE ACCOUNTS!!!

before

after

read it again. and this time read the parts in both the new 5 and 6 that require "in consultation with"

so the summary
a2 is changed where she now cant just 'may require' and instead 'may by order, regulation or permitted in law require' thus depowering her from whimsy

a3 by removing not just a 120day rule for whimsy rules not yet in regulation, but the entire rule 3 meaning not even whimsy is allowed and she can only make orders that are by regulation or otherwise permitted by law

b5 allowed her to order both domestic services servicing foreign institutions to be told to freeze accounts of such customers. now she can only tell domestic institutions but only after consulting other agencies

b6 if a out of jurisdiction transactions/entities is deemed a money laundering concern. she can ask (ONLY) the domestic institutions to stop serving out of jurisdiction transactions/entities

and all of 2 4 5 6 all involve her consulting with other agencies and the courts before doing anything

..
some people have read it as if it gives her power to ask other nations to freeze their services. wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power.  wrong
some people have read it as if it gives her more whimsy power to freeze for any reason.  wrong


yes points 5&6 now read as being.. instead of only looking at foreign BANKING institutions as a laundering concern, it is now looking at any out of jurisdiction types of transactions as a laundering concern, can (by consultations and authorisation if imposition does not cause undue cost, time, impedance on business) ask a domestic service to stop supporting such transactions

but there is no whimsy about it. and it has to be within regulation or by law. LAWFULLY prove, for instance that bitcoin as a whole is a money laundering concern, to then tell a domestic service to stop supporting bitcoin, otherwise she has to show that for instance certain ransomware addresses are illicit and to ask a domestic business to stop servicing addresses(customer deposits) that have ransomware taint.
but again for emphasis, only after(in both exampled instances) consulting other agencies to calculate the risk/reward impact of an orders imposition on a domestic money service business..
..
this is not just about bitcoin. this also can be about ransomware/blackmailers/scammers that use apple/google giftcards to get value to the scammer too.

the aim is to stop scammers being able to cash out through american money services

doomad. your still social dramatising.. you really are getting pety and boring. and your insults lack any substance. so here have a (yawn)
i know you dont understand the actual bills wording so you play around by saying 'its a draft' and 'no one can know', as your defence for you not knowing or wanting to know..
.. but i edited my last post to show you one short sharp example of the exaggeration by your team mates. of the actual words in the bill

heck ill quote it here..

oh and if you want to still pretend that yellen can do anything, at a whim.. i should quote this

so yea, she cant decide anything by herself

doomad. the funny part is that i am reigning in o-e-l-e-o's confirmation bias and his exaggerations..
but your insults are boring when you pretend someone else is doing what your buddy is doing.. such a lame rebuttal.
if you cant work out who is doing the exaggerating and saying things not wrote in the bill.. then thats your problem

whats next, slap someone. and then cry by pretending you got slapped. sounds about right.

and if you think that not being a hugging ass-kisser is sociopathy. then you really need to so some research.

anyway dont reply with more social drama. just go read the bill.. not your friends summary, and not some twitter or blog post summary

incase anyone is interested, here is one example of the changes that some have EXAGGERATED
here is an edit the bill asks for:

so lets do the edit
before bill:

after bill

as you can see.. its actually made it so that they have to do it within the law. meaning its not just on a whim. which was the before case.
but o-e-l-e-o thought that this addition made it easier to require domestic financial institution to take special measures.

i have to laugh.
o-e-l-e-o quoting twitter as his 'back-uo' argument

did you even read the stuff
firstly jerry britto wrote a exaggerated blog piece, which he presented to tom emmer who just parroted it out in a version of the exaggerated blog piece, without actually reading the bill.

the exaggerated blog piece basically said: everyones transactions are going to a criminal records investigation(face palm) and that the treasury can do anything on a whim(facepalm).

yet the bill:
is not criminally investigating all transactions. nor is the treasury allowed to do things on a whim.
the exchange needs to record keep(locally). as all MSB always have. but they only REPORT activities that flag up as being suspicious. as all MSB's always have
also the treasury still needs to consult courts, and other agencies. so not on a 'whim' nor 'unilaterally'

but hey.. because o-e-l-e-o can quote 4 people on twitter, it must be as o-e-l-e-o believes..
this is the same social games i detest the most. where people believe things because of social conversation groups. not because they done any actual research.
it happens alot. someone informs you in social media of an opinion you should have, and then you foolishly only search for people that agree with the opinion you have. and then use the group as your proof of opinion..

again the only big deal thing that has significant change is the 120day rule.

YOUR method of backing up your opinion is the same confirmation-bias  method flat-earters and covid conspiracy nuts do.. find 4 people that agree and use them as quotes, and then get buddies like doomad to come chiming in to add a few worthless boring insults.. very sad effort ob both of your chummy social games. if only you spent more time reading the bill and less time reading twitter blogs and friends opinions, you all might see beyond the social drama

you are finally starting to see the light. about why trying to get people to stop using bitcoin has its drawbacks and why increasing the transaction count onchain has its advantages.

one thing i will knitpick from your lightbulb moment.. increasing the sats/vbyte alone is bad enough. but put that along side the inevitable increased bitcoin price.. might help pools. but it damn sure wont help people wanting to transact.. after all it doesnt matter how much a fee is increased to if people have been steered away from making transactions due to offchain ramps and excess onchain fee.

no solution option should be to increase the sat/vbyte.
the only real solution is to increase the transaction count per block thus more people contribute collectively without it costing them their pension personally.

some people only get real world income of $2 a day in developing countries. some only get $40 a day. if you really think people will tolerate $2-$40 fee's+ you are much mistaken. would you use any visa,paypal,venmo, bank service that charges $2-$40+ per transaction, no you wouldnt(be honest) so why think it would even be a idea to think people would pay it in bitcoin.

increasing the fee/byte is just asking to steer people away from bitcoin. and deep down i think you know this.

drug addicts are not thinking about prison potential when they are craving drugs but have no money on them. they are just thinking about getting money by any means. no jail sentence will be a deterrent to drug addicts doing crime

drug dealers know they cant report rival gangs to the police as the police then start asking questions to the dealer.
so drug addicts knowing they cant report their drugs were stolen, take their 'justice' into their own hands. firstly to stop the thief, and secondly to send a harsh message to everyone else to not repeat what the thief done or it will happen to them too.

when you hear the news of "drug related crime" this is only 3% about some doped up knuckle-dragger going insane and starting a killing spree. its 97% of the time gangs doing their own justice.

so why cant they go to the cops if someone stole their product but can go to the cops if someone stole their car.. because drugs are illegal.

instead of society trying to make kids bored and locked up at home playing videogames. where the only entertainment in town is gang socialising. society need to make parks and sports grounds more accessible. youth clubs boxing clubs sports clubs. give things for youths to do apart from being bored, and resorting to drug/gang life to escape the monotony of life.

they say that kids know that drug dealers dont report each other to cops. and instead do their own form of justice, which then makes even the innocent kids feel like they need to carry a weapon on them for self protection. which then gets whispered around where X now has a knife so Y needs a knife to incase X does something. and the snowball cascades.

this is where 30 years ago, if a kid was leaving a school and a group of bully's at the end of the street started shouting, the worse that would happen is a punch in the face and a speedy run in the opposite direction..
but these days even those innocent kids now have knives which injure others and so the bully's/gangs end up carrying harsher weapons. 20 years ago it was steak knifes(small) then its become machete's, and now even in england guns are starting to be found. its snowballing in the wrong direction.

instead of waiting for kids to turn into criminals and then send them to jail until their 40. the solution should be trying to look for the cause. and solve the problem before it escalates.

im not saying just give a kid a slap on the wrist as a first offence. im saying have the usual 2 year sentence, but suspend it till they are 18 IF the kid shows he goes to school each day, and goes to a evening sports/social club each evening, basically separate him from the gangs or face 2years in prison. its like probation before the prison. but where prison can become a slap on the wrist if the kid shows he moves away from the gang life.

also legalising drugs where people can get CLEAN prescribed drugs from a qualified doctor, thus remove the gang culture. also where the doctors do not have a 'cut off' point where they just stop prescribing. but instead titer down the dosage slowly or use less opium based meds to solve the route problem that got people hooked. (complete opposite to the pill mill doctor farms of the 90's that increased dosages)

the problem with society is the annoying binary option of being to harsh or too liberal
the problem with society is the annoying binary option of high dose prescriptions or cut off 'cold turkey'
the problem with society is the annoying binary option of close the parks to then open the prisons

EG 40 years or slap on wrist.
there needs to be alot of middle ground and lots of options in between.
yes have a harsh sentence even for first time offences but suspend it until they are 18 if the person passes a few goals/targets set by the court. find out the route cause of the kid turning to crime. EG abuse at home, welfare/poverty and fix some of the problems so the kid doesnt need to rely on a life of crime to survive.

if a maximum sentance for a crime is 10 years. instead of making a JOBLESS person have to pay $500k bail. have it where his prison time is reduced for not absconding. or addition time(above 10 years) if a warrant is needed for absconding.
then when infront of the court judge can set the sentance to be suspended for a certain time as long as they abide by some court orders. (time served on probation/sanction)

it costs over $30k a year to have someone in prison. but that same money could be utilised in so many other ways,
heck for $30k they can hire a person to pretty much follow a kid around from 3pm-11pm each evening and deter him from rejoining a gang, mentoring him to get his grades up, cook him a meal, play sports with him. get the kids life back on track
..
throwing kids in prison just makes them more vengeful and angry and leads to them doing more criminal acts when they are out.

i guarantee you for the supposed $30k per juvenile in prison. if they spend that money on support workers then a neighbourhood could be cleaned up quicker than just trying to throw kids in jail
because a kid in jail is simply an oppertunity for another kid to take his place in a gang.
but get doctors and support workers out on the streets to make being in a gang or dealing drugs a waste of time and not needed event. can stop all of it.

before the 1920's cocaine,heroine was legal and doctor prescribed. there was no gangland killings, no mass overdose statistic,

but society has made getting therapy and medication for ailments alot harder officially. so people suffering from trauma or neglect or just boredom will instead turn to illicit drugs to escape their hells.
there have been scientific studies. 2 groups of people. 1 group, bored, jobless, no hobbies. and another group working with hobbies. and both given the same amount of meds over a period of time...
guess which group got addicted and which group didnt need to take them.

the main route cause of addiction is the need for an escape from life that makes them dependant.
the need to escape from life results in drugs, which wear off which then the need of escape makes them take more, and eventually the body is hooked on them.
where as if you have a good life you dont need the escape so you just dont continue taking the meds, thus you dont get hooked.

society says people need to reach rock bottom before they decide to change. but reality and scientific study says the complete opposite. reaching goals in life makes you no longer need to escape life through drugs

prevention is better then prosecution.. it never should be a binary option of harsh sentence or wrist slap. there is a lot of middle grounds and alternative options

the el salvador government did not write a bad bill. they just didnt explain to the public any affect it can make

alot of people thought that el salv was dropping the dollar and suddenly using something else. rather than explaining its an extra option beside dollar.

i think greyscale holds more bitcoin (guessing about 640,000btc)

greyscale are not custodians. because its customer are not buying bitcoin or able to remove bitcoin. they are buying company shares and trading company shares based on the companies worth (based on companies ownership of ~640,000 btc).
its not the same as a exchange that allows you to deposit and withdraw coin where the ownership of coin is deemed the customer and the exchange is just the temporary caretaker.


topic infers "biggest CORPORATE owner"

albeit, michael saylor and elon musks stashes are probably the largest stashes were a CEO treats the coins as their PERSONAL investment

and he hits the nail on the head. (translation. 'he is spot on')
 though i doubt he realises what he says in regards to other offchain services that want people to keep their value locked into offchain systems. or sway them to swap to altcoins to exit the offchain systems. hopefully LoyceV will expand his thought and see where it also applies to other offchain systems.

..
that said, bitpay used to be the number one payment service for merchant tools years ago. but they purposefully added altcoin offerings which automatically bring the number below 100% and then by having steep fee's compared to other services. bitpay has lost alot of btc customerbase.

its not to say that btc has declined. its to say that merchants just dont use bitpay for their merchant tools.
now with many exchanges having merchant tools and many other services, ALOT more bitcoiners use those. leaving bitpay with the laggers.

bitpay had over 10,000 merchants using it in 2013.. by the look of the transaction numbers i dont see they still have 10,000 merchants. because if they did it would be only ~4 transactions a month per merchant.

bitcoin merchants now use other commercial services to accept bitcoin

my vote
anti-hero: franky1

if i win. i dont want any financial prize. i just want to continue using the anti-hero image for the rest of the year.
donate the prize to the runner up
if i dont win. ill remove the anti-hero image from my avatar


anti-hero is not a villian. its a hero without the "boy scout" personality. he helps even when being an antagonist. simply because being a boyscout singing happy songs around a camp fire of friends doesn't get the job done.

if everyone agreed with everyone simply because of friendship. the world would go to hell and the oblivious people would still be trying to make each other happy, while the world gets worse

dont expect a hug. even when i tell people the brutal truth they may not like.

note: answering blackhatcoiner and nonce social drama queens of ass-kissing clubhouse below
anti-hero advice: if you just want to talk to kiss-asser's that agree with you.. thats your problem.

funny thing is..
for years i have been running charts of the cheapest and most expensive mining costs.. and treated that as a value window.
and in 99.99% of chart plots the price sits within the mining cost value window.

check one example recently
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5382559.msg59053731#msg59053731
the blue and purple line is mining cheap-premium. and if you look at the peaks and valleys of mining cost. and then look forward a few days,weeks the price then follows with a peak or valley.

this is because when it costs more to mine, for instance in USA than the price is. hobby miners switch off their asics to then buy. which then makes the price rise with the mining cost.

when its cheaper to mine than the price. people turn on their miners and stop buying.
check out the april mining cost dip. and then the price dip in may
check out the june mining dip due to china.. and then the price dip in july

yes the november 2021-jan2022 is a bear sign where prices decrease even when the costs dont, but that shows the cheapest miners remained bullish from jun-december even with a market being bear november-december.. but even so even now today the price sits within the value window of cost. the bottomline blue are the cheapest miners on the planet and they only react when their profit margin gets small. they dont react daily, weekly monthly they only started reacting in january this year and only a small amount of them cheap asics miners reacted

i see the first step not being silly lemonade stands busking for btc in every neighbourhood, but the first step is remittance exchanges setting up in arizona where people can use their dollar buy some btc at a BTC-atm so that they can send the coin to their relatives in el-salvador, rio-d-j and other countries. as well as for people working in arizona to put funds aside in btc as a savings account because many are undocumented and cant get a bank account, yet dont want to stash cash under the mattress.

so i dont think its going to be local 7eleven letting you buy chewing gum for btc initially, but it will be businesses allowed to offer BTC-ATM's inside 7elevens and have the banks not question the large cash deposits each time they empty a BTC-atm and deposit to a bank to then buy more allotments of coin, to refill the ATM reserve.

so far banks are a little wary of bitcoin businesses, and will be less wary when arizona declares bitcoin 'legit'

alot of people think that bitcoin is a bad investment because of the dips.

however if you buy a brand new car. and want to sell it the next week. you are not going to get the new car price. you are going to have to sell it for less.
if you buy a house at market rate, but want to sell it within a month. where you cant wait around for market rate to give you profit, nor wait for a fair offer, again you end up selling for less.

heck even the 'cash for gold' businesses rip people off by under valuing gold when people need money same day.
but you can limit your short term loss/break-even buy first not buying bitcoin at a premium.

what people need to do is stop looking at just the market rate.

instead look at the value window of bitcoin
(call it $30k-$70k the last couple months)
(call it $34k-$83k at this point of writing)
 and THEN look at the price within this window. if the price is near the cheap value. then you know its good time to buy. if its near the top premium then its bad time to buy

many people know this by avoiding buying christmas gifts mid december where everything is a premium. and instead buy early on black friday or buy late in the january sales.

some peoples issue with bitcoin is more about the rush to get in and rush to get out. they dont plan their trades. they just react to emotion.
retailers love customers that react to emotion. like seeing a christmas advert. people instantly buy without thinking what time of the year is best to buy. retailers hate customers that wait for the discount sales
..
you cant escape inflation. but you can hedge against it.
imagine bread was $1.50 in 2012. you have $6 on you and btc is $6. but you want to make sure in 10 years you have 4 loaves of bread.

meaning you could choose to:
A) buy 4 loaves of bread in 2012. and freeze them and hope they still taste nice in 10 years..
B) keep $6 and spend it in 10 years
C) buy 1btc for $6 in 2012

then 10 years later
A) the bread has crystallised and gone bad
B) bread is now $2 so you can only buy 3 loaves
C) btc is now $36k meaning you can buy 18,000 loaves of bread, by selling coin for $ then buying bread

C seems better option. even if you cant buy bread direct with btc you are still better off with C compared to A or B

everything in life was atleast 'free' until they made a law prohibiting,restricting use of something. so its never about legalising something that was illegal. birds can fly. no law says otherwise.
no law was needed to say that birds can fly

unless they make a law to clip wings of all birds, or a law to make it criminal for someone to clip the wings of a bird
its more about recognising something officially as legal which before was just free-to-use but not recognised.

the constitution is a rule book mainly to prevent things from being prohibited, by stating certain things that should remain free no matter what may happen in the future
this law about officially recognising bitcoin is not against the constitution.

bitcoin has not been made by arizona. its not about making it a replacement of the dollar. its about recognising its legitimacy as a viable currency along side euro, pounds, yuan.

its not a law that will force businesses to only accept bitcoin in arizona and dump the dollar.

i am not excited about which politician/celebrity gets paid or converts to bitcoin.
what i find more interesting is, what the politician/celebrity wants to do in the crypto industry to help innovate and expand its reach in business/personal use of their nation

EG new york mayor wants to repeal the silly NYBitlicence that has hindered crypto start-ups. thus freeing businesses to use crypto more in NY.

EU seems positive about allowing crypto (within its regulated conditions ofcourse) but i wonder what Christophe De Beukelaer will do in the EU parliament to stream line and help towards regulations that help innovate and grow crypto usage, rather then stifle, limit usage in the EU

trezor seeing sense
not only is the aopp a gimmick that does not stop hackers from withdrawing funds and just puts an extra headache into withdrawing simply so an exchange is not seen as servicing an illicit receiver(which can also be worked around, thus useless feature).

but also for trezor to implement it, means a cold/hardware wallet, is less secure as it needs to be plugged in to a pc and then API a website. which can then put trezor device owners more at risk by browser extension hijacking to replace keys with ones supplied by the trojan extension.

yep trezor should not be adding more internet connectivity links. it should stay 'local'

values(features and benefits) are the emotional choices of demand
value(cost cheap or premium) are the economic measures that can be quantified

yes many people see different values(F&B) and decide how much its worth to them emotionally and then tag on a price point they see as their values
yes different countries have different acquisition costs (buying or mining) and decide which is more value.

which explains the SPOT PRICE volatility within the economic value window

when bitcoins hashrate was averaging 150exa its economic value window was ~$30k-$70k
which is why with all the price swings. the price refused to go below $30k and the price refused to go above $70k

everything inbetween that bottom and upper economic value metric. is the speculative emotion of 'values(F&B)and other reasons for demand'

right now with the value window at upto $84k no one and i mean no one values bitcoin to be worth buying for $100k, because everyone on the planet can mine it much cheaper.

the hashrate and relative acquisition costs have to go up 20%+ as a minimum increase, before japan/germany will even consider buying the spot price in an upward trajectory to hit $100k.
an it would require double hashrate increase for america to consider buying upto $100k
an it would require triple hashrate increase for iceland/kazahkstan to consider buying upto $100k