for factual interests sake it was not 12,239 transactions
it was a heck of alot of 'dead end' data without a payer address and without a receive address

thus not a true example of bitcoins ability to actually TRANSACT (value transfer)

here is one such example of the 'dead end' data
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3e064b3f2d303c0ff78180ffe76e99a0d9032d406c9ff2df40077b1976c56a57
nothing in -- nothing out

there were only actually 442 transactions (with a utxo paying out to an actual address) in that block

the winner had a USB hub with like a dozen USB miner dongles on it.
not what i would call a farm. more so just a hobby miner.
this is his so called "farm"



the electric usage would have been way under 500w so would cost him about $1 in electric a day for the chance of a over $200k reward. he was very lucky to get that reward. but it was not due to him having a massive farm..

with all blocks of all pools there is always one asic that solves the block. always.. his chance of solving another one is probably more then 400 years away. so it was pure luck he had the solution. and also luck that he chose to use a pool with suck a large reward which was specified to the solution giver instead of sharing it out amongst everyone

gotta laugh
here i took a screen shot while reading your comedy


notice the right side
Sell 1    36678.45      0.00030       $11.00
Sell 2    36681.59      0.00030       $11.00

hmm.. shift the price by $3.14 meaning shifting the entire market cap by $59.66million. all for the low cost of $22

if you wait around long enough you will see lots of different opportunities to move the market cap by millions for just a few dollars

as for suggesting ive never looked at a large marketbook.. ive been trading since 2012.. and i have mentioned these small bid issues many times before. here is a most recent one
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5382387.msg59041691#msg59041691

but if you think that people cant shift the market cap without spending hundreds of thousands. heck even YOUR screen shot shows

36913.39     0.00093      $34.32
36911.10     0.00137      $50.56

meaning you can move the price by $2.29 ($43.5m cap shift) for under $85
yep remove $43mill from cap for $85

funny part is

i procrastinated that segwit would activate due to mandated bips.... it happened
i procrastinated that LN is being labelled as bitcoin 2.0 for everyone to use instead of using bitcoin daily.. it happened

yep i am cynical, and critical thinker. but my thoughts come with references and data to back them up. not emotion
i actually pulled out a key thing to campaign over.. the 120 being removed. and explained how 0-e-l-e-o thought it was a grace period before an order is activated, when infact it was a limit to how long an order can last. which has been removed meaning orders can now last longer.


i dont rely on twitter/blog influencers to form my opinion by them handing me a script to recite. i read the source data, i then check it out and verify. 0-e-l-e-o seems to have just jumped straight into the same script recited on the blog found in the tweet. and then his buddy(you) defend him without you checking if o-e-l-e-o is right or not..
sorry but social drama does not make things fact just because 2 people can poke emotion into a discussion.

try spending more time researching and less time crying and social dramatising then crying more when someone bites back

after all
atleast i dont go full utopia of altnets and full bitcoin doomsday exaggeration("100mb by midnight, or broke")

but it is funny how you have not even bothered to read the topic or add substance to the topic content but just came here to start social drama .. as you always do

just quoting again to emphasise the exaggerations, mainly for comedy but to summarise how its all silly fear from those that took more time reading a conspiracy blog as their opinion rather than reading the actual wording of the bill (without said conspiracy leaning preset-bias)

1. its not yellen simply saying so, its not on a whim.
2. she cant just write an order on a post-it note. there are processes and things inplace that she needs to go through
3. she still has a process of consulting multiple agencies and assessing the negative impacts, and the lawfulness.
4. she cant just say 'close account X' for no reason

even that is a bit of a exaggeration..
the exchange has to record keep (locally within the exchange(same as usual)). and only report users that flag up as potential money launderers, criminals, terrorists, ransomware(same as usual)

EG if yellen tells an exchange that some ransomware used address bc1qransomwareretirement
then the exchange could check the taint of its users deposits and if a deposit was tainted with that ransomware funds. THEN that users records would be reported.

this does not mean that the users funds are frozen at the time of the report. the exchange then needs to receive an order once fincen/nat sec does an investigation

its not the case that all users are reported for every transaction all because they had transactions in the same block or blockchain that a ransomware transaction occured in.
only the user with ransomware taint would be reported if a order was to report ransomware related transactions[/list]

im going to have to laugh here.

o-e-l-e-o is taking a context of still requiring that she doesnt go against any law/regulation.. to make it sound like she can do as she pleases at a whim..
ignoring things like she still needs to consult many other agencies and assess the burden/legality any action she takes might have..

but hey. instead of arguing about the removal of the 120 limit of action. he wants to argue that yellen is an outlaw and can do anything for any reason. totally ignoring how the representatives would quote back to o-e-l-e-o that yellen cant just do as she pleases. listing the reasons

firstly. what o-e-l-e-o misses out on is that yellen cant decide what she wants and freeze any account as she pleases on a whim

because she is restricted by:

meaning she has to get a court order.. (means she has to explain why, and a judge has to agree)
its a reason already listed in regulation or law. (she is not creating law, she has to follow the law.. as fincen does)

she has to obide by the laws. and can only request a account to be frozen if its deemed to have broken the law.

its not that she has new powers that fincen do not. its that she has the SAME powers as fincen.
the removal of (3) 120days. is not about any grace period before something becomes new law. its that any current order used to only be active for 120 days. but now can last longer.

where she and fincen both have to actually provide proof and reasoning for requesting a account to be frozen
..
as for the rest of the twitter rant and attached blog about shutting down an exchange purely for confirming a block that was made by some foreign asic farm.. thats just pure BS crazy nonsense

if people like o-e-l-e-o actually read it and campaigned for "dont allow special measures to last beyond 120 days!"
instead of his conspiracy "does this mean new laws can happen without notice"

he might actually have a more realistic campaign

old (3)

new (3)

as seen she still needs to seek authorisation from governors of the FRS, banking agency, secretary of state, SEC, CFTC NCUA. and assess any impact she makes.

the only difference is those orders can only last 120 days prior revision, but now has no end point.

really??

most market orders are for 0.01 ($350)
its easy to make a change from
bitcoin price: $35000    market cap: $665,000,000,000
to
bitcoin price: $35100    market cap: $666,900,000,000
yes a change of 1.9billion in cap by just being willing to buy 0.01 for $1 extra ($351)
yep it only costs $1 to move the cap by 1.9billion

yet the utxo realized capitalisation or the minted realised capitalisation accounts for each coins value requiring time and actual calculations

its actually not the best thing we have
a better metric is the utxo realised value.
basically it looks at all the utxo's (unspent btc) and checks the price of them on the date they EACH moved. which means each coin has its own price that is calculated from when the coin was received. and so thats the value someone paid for it.

..
market cap is meaningless because i can make a crap coin with a 1trillion coin premine. get it listed on an exchange and sell 0.01 for $0.50 an instantly create a coin with a $50 trillion market cap.

yet if i wanted to get a utxo realised value, id have to sell all the coins and calculate the total of the price they were moved at.

..
take for instance other easy metrics to measure
like did you know if you take the coins as they are mined and give them an min, average and max value of that year. you can see that just the minting of coins created a baseline value of:
   min total   $18,518,589,967.50
   avg total   $34,424,101,251.86
   max total   $68,483,090,513.25

and the utxo realised total (realised capitalisation) is ~$455 billion

these numbers cant be faked as it require actual movements creation and prices of those movements/creations. OVER TIME

seems like another over exaggeration of the wording.. much like the crazy nutjob conspiracy of the 'devs are broker' thing last year that spread on twitter

seems someone thinks that asking an exchange to record keep its customers trades.(in the bill) is now sounding like destroy exchanges in a tweet

sorry but the bill does not say anything about unilaterally shutting down exchanges

the special measures in the tweets linked exaggeration blog are said like this

reality is 4of 5 special measures ask an exchange to monitor and record keep customers transactions
and report activities deemed as possibly money laundering/criminal
the 5th allows the secretary to send an order to freeze a customers account if deemed illegal activity has occured

this is not new powers. this is the same powers as all money exchanges have to be regulated by

so here is the rational view of the bill
firstly every transaction is not put on a 'criminal investigation file'  fincen and SEC are not going to be given reports every millisecond of every transaction.
an exchange just has to record keep. and build a policy to notice certain flags that appear as laundering. and only report those. and its then the authorities who investigate and if deemed illegal(laundering/terrorism/ransomware) related the authorities get a court order to then ask the exchange to freeze the account

this is the same policy as any fiat exchange for the last few decades

..

the exaggeration blog also tries to make it sound like if a exchange even has a node confirming blocks where a block is from russia, the exchange can be charged as a money launderer(facepalm)

seems someone wants to go to crazy town and misinterpret the actual wording to make it sound crazy, and then blame the crazy on the bill. (like the crazy exaggeration of devs are brokers' exaggeration last year by twitter nuts)

personally i dont want to see any government over-reach that goes beyond consumer protection.. but when there are people exaggerating what is included in a bill. it makes it that much harder to fight any real problems, becasue when a bunch of conspiracy people are trying to get a bill repealed for non existent crazy reasons they made up. bill representatives think any campaign against a bill are just conspiracy loonies. thus the bill representatives close their ears to any real campaign treating real campaigns if they are also the conspiracy crazy ones

if only these people thought rationally and actually looked for real flaws in a bill instead of making up crazy exaggerations/conspiracies, then campaigns to get representatives of a bill to listen might get some more attention when real flaws come up.

never use market cap as a number of anything. its a meaningless number
it does not represent reserves of value transfered.

same goes with anything.

if i had a company that had 1 million shares. and 1 share sold for $10. only $10 has changed hands. yet a market cap would show as company valued at $10million

the market cap of bitcoin is the same. there are 19mill coins. and those 19mill are multiplied by the latest price even if the latest price was for just a $35 order of 0.001coin.

as for the value transfered.
lets say that 275.4million coins moved in a year
and the average price of the year was $47.6k =13,152,000,000,000
yea $13trillion change hands

(asking google)
visa does 188billion transactions per year
(asking google)
visa does average $80 per transaction

meaning visa transfers $15trillion per year

some may argue
that bitcoin transfers arn't all 'spends', where some are shuffling coins to addresses of same wallet.(hot-cold)
but the same can be said for visa, people shuffling money into different cards in the same wallet(debit-credit)

the pool (looking at stats in previous posts) is not a farm, its lots of small users in different locations.
the users (looking at stats in previous posts)its hobby miners not farms, its ~2200 people with 5-6 asics each on average.

a block if we average it as 600 seconds.
imagine your a normal home user with 8 connections to peers and say there are 80,000 nodes to reach where each peer also has 8 connections

8*8*8*8*8=32k(4 relays)  so your going to need 5 relays to reach 80k nodes meaning if each relay takes just 1 second that is atleast 5 seconds
(EG home internet at 8mbps = >1 sec to send 8 blocks)

then its the case that because you are not in the centre circle of the important nodes you are going to get previous block a few relays after the important nodes. which is another few seconds.

so just at relay delay of getting pre block and sending out your solved block is more then 1% delay(>6seconds)


however pools that are at the centre of the circle with 900mbps speed can reach the important nodes(otherpools and merchant tools) in 1 relay under 1 second. and the rest of the network in a couple fast relays
so what might take you 7-10 seconds just in bandwidth time can be just 1-2 seconds for pools

then its the smaller millisecond math of how fast a blocktemplate can be formed and then sending the work to an asic and updated the asic with new work each time it runs out of extra nonces. generally a pool can do this and send it to your asic faster than a home hobby miner can do self managed locally.

so the 'speed benefit' of pooling might be 1.x% but also a pool has lots of servers and thousands of bandwidth connections to cost in.
so 2% might not actually be unreasonable.

---

but then again. a block reward is 6.25*$35k=$218k so 2% is $4375
however although the POOL showed it solved 10 blocks in 23 months.
an average user if it did indeed go solo would take 400 years to mine a block. and the monthly internet bill of a 900mbps connection to have the same low latency delay as a pool will cost you more then $4k by the time you get a lucky block

if you can work out a value window of what the last highs and lows are of the last X months. either just looking at the price chart plots. or being smarter and also considering the mining cost numbers.
example here a couple pages back
and say the value window is $30k to $70k range
then you take that amount difference between. and decide where the price sits:


$30k-$40k 'so cheap id sell my wife for some coin'-> cheap
$40k-$50k cheap->average
$50k-$60k average->premium
$60k-$70k premium->'so expensive id rather buy a wife'

try not to buy coin when having a wife comes with more benefits

the topic creator was mentioning a scenario of in 2140 when the reward is zero. where the income for miners is very much 100% based on transaction income. where he then asks of a scenario where there are no transactions in mempool to choose from.

its not just about solving a block. its then propagating that solve out to the whole network so other peers can "first seen" it and declare it a winner if its validated before another pool gets a solve.

a pool is not connected to just 8 nodes like a normal home hobby user is. a pool is usually connected to hundreds of nodes including other pools.
other pools dont waste their connections on that many random users. they prefer to white list other pools and then merchant services(economically important nodes) who then propagate out to their peers.

so the more connections a pool has to important peers means their block solve gets seen and validated before other pools solve their block. and of course a pool is connected to the 13000 asics(2325 users)

..
a normal hobby miner doing true and very well known actual solo mining where it has to get the previous block, create its own header and then send the work to its own asic, takes longer. for these reasons:

its not in the same hierarchy of the important nodes peer connections (pools and merchants) so it gets its last block delayed by atleast two peer 'relay times',
..then because its usually managed by a desktop computer which validates the previous block slower. and then prunes off the spent coins out of mempool and then picks the unspent transactions from mempool to add to a template. means the hobby miner managing itself would take longer to form a template. and then because its not then well connected to other peers. if it solved a block, propagating that block might require several 'relay times' before the important nodes see it.

all of which gives pools an upper hand of multiple seconds compared to a home hobby miner doing it truly solo.

---

with that said yes 2% seems high. but then again 2% was not worth much years ago and CK simply has not decreased his amount.
and the asics that use CK have no choice. accept what CK programs to give them or use another pool. because after all asics/users dont set the rate, the pool does

as danny is now seeming to realise(congratulations) that its CK that create the block templates and ck that make the payment arrangement to give 98% to someone.

the reason for the 2% is easy to explain.
2% was worth alot less years ago. and ck simply has not reduced it to 1% or less, in recent years.
the user that got a 98% reward. has 4 asics averaging 3thash/s each, all using the same reward address
{
 "hashrate1m": "10.2T",

   "workername": "3EoqjNmeaaVvVDCPbVXxQQRH6UFpDUqpPg.Golf1",
   "hashrate1m": "2.97T",

   "workername": "3EoqjNmeaaVvVDCPbVXxQQRH6UFpDUqpPg.MegaRig02",
   "hashrate1m": "0",

   "workername": "3EoqjNmeaaVvVDCPbVXxQQRH6UFpDUqpPg.TheOmen",
   "hashrate1m": "4.15T",

   "workername": "3EoqjNmeaaVvVDCPbVXxQQRH6UFpDUqpPg.MegaRig01",
   "hashrate1m": "3.41T",
}


ck pool manages
{"Users": 2325, "Workers": 13532,}{"hashrate1m": "26P",
thats ~ 13532 asics running at ~2thash/sec each

with 26peta at play all working to solve a block. every 2.3 months on average the pool solved a block. and within that pool the asic that was the lucky one gets the win

emphasis on average
out of 190exahash network, the 26peta pool is a 1 in 7300 chance of solving a block
every fortnight there are 2016 blocks so on average a block 'should' be solved by ck pool once every 1month 3 weeks
but looking at the last 10 blocks solved by ck pool, it has averaged at a rate of 1 every 2.3 months.
so it has had a period of bad luck and now having a period of goodluck.
thats the thing about randomness. its never an even projected/predicted result. you can have good and bad months

your mindset is solo rewarding rather than share rewarding. ..
solo MINING is about management of the MINING WORK

also the pool is the business that has employees(workers) its not that a pool is the worker..
so dont try mixing metaphors.

a business with employees where the manager sets the work for the employees is a pool

a self employed worker with no boss telling him what to do and no one to be accountable to is solo

i know you now want to add in a new paradigm of a contractee contractor. but CK is not a contractee.. as his stratum is the same management system as a pool. all that changes is the reward share. being CK 2% worker 98% instead of CK 100% 0% worker, then negotiate share separately.

the WORK management for ck pool and other pools is the same. all thats different is the pay structure

solo vs pool MINING is about who manages the MINING the secret is in the word mining
solo rewarding vs share rewarding is about the payout rate. not the mining task

different pools have different pay schemes. changing just the pay scheme does not mean a miner is suddenly a solo miner.

a business that pays waitresses just on tip they personally worked. does not mean she is no longer an employee of the cafe. because if she was not an employee. she would not be working in the cafe being told which tables to service.
it just means she has a different pay structure and is probably going to not take home any money if she doesnt do the work

if she was self employed, she would own the cafe and serve the tables herself. and keep all the money.

if there are no transactions. then bitcoin is already dead.
if there are transactions then bitcoin is still useful.
once the reward depletes miners are less incentivised to mine PURPOSEFULLY empty blocks just for the reward because there wont be a reward, so they only get paid by adding in transactions.

obviously if there are no users making transactions. and thus no miners wanting to mine for free. the blockchain just halts and stops building on itself.

bitcoin remains useful to users if its affordable to users. it txfee's become stupidly expensive because of limited amount of possible transactions. that will deter usage. and thus shoot miners in the foot.
..
imagine user preference is a max of $2/tx before they move away from using bitcoin.
a block that only holds 2000tx average is only $4k fee total

gentle progression of more transaction count capacity per block ensures that the overall block cost does not have to be met by only 2000 transactions. but progressively 4000tx, 8000 16,000 thus keeping fee's low and keeping bitcoin useful, while combining the fees to award more to miners.. ($8k, $16k, $32k respectively, while individual users still only pay $2 each)

other factors are that there are about 1.5millions asics (distributed within ~20 pools)right now..  where by if transactions become lax we may see many asics drop off EG 1m asics in 13 pools... then 500k asics in 6 pools.
the 'share' of the fee's can be shared between less people meaning each miner gets more of the share
eventually if transactions become so infrequent, it may become only 3 asics running by 3 people who can just about afford to keep mining.
(the difficulty adjusts depending on how many asics are hashing and solving blocks too quick or too slowly)