you quoted the link to check
its 0.5btc from 374 donations. (~$18k total)

so far Lord F' has not spent a penny of it.

mean while neighbouring governments have put aside $3m in fiat to get aid to tonga, and the NZ gov ships and planes have already got there days ago.

i can understand some people loving the hype of 'bitcoin' being mentioned along side the viral messages of a disaster. but the actual donations this week are not actually being spent on the disaster. so far only fiat is actually helping with the disaster

he says its a hard thing to do right now as he doesnt have enough laser based satellites. so wants an official plea so that he can concentrate on diverting allocated satellites to be deployed for tonga, thus delaying other purposes. so he wants to ensure that they need it rather than want it. as its not going to be an overnight fix. (the undersea cable could be fixed by the time elon gets the kit to them). so he wants to be sure its a immediate but also long term need. rather than a temporary "want"/need.

ill throw my guess in.
'value window'(mining cost, not market price) bottom sits at:
one month low of $33229.81
three month low of $30237.55
six month low of $20333.11
twelve month low of $16751.05
these lows mentioned above are not based on "price" lows seen.. but based on absolute bottom mining cost which has nothing to do with the market price. but has to do with the cheapest anyone can mine on the planet on the day of the hashrate that day

its based simply by calculating the mining cost and tracking that with the hashrate(no market price variable included).
premium mining cost (hardware with ROI+ $0.37/kwh electric)
cheapest mining cost (hardware with ROI+ $0.04/kwh electric)

and separately THEN adding in the market price into the final chart as a comparison


note the mining cost b & p is pure [asic hardware ROI+electric cost] vs hashrate. using bitmain s19pr (110th at $12k with 2year ROI and $0.04elec or $0.37elec). it has no market price variable,

yet for all the years i have used this. the price(separate stat in grey) has happily sat between the cheap-premium mining cost window.

yes the mining hashrate can retreat back to 3month, 6 month or 1 year bottom. allowing for the price to retreat down too.

this method is flawed beyond belief

its based on investing money based on "coinmarketcap" top 50

well its flawed because i can in 2 hours create 50 new altcoins all offering 20trillion coins each and buy just 1 coin from them for $1 each. and create my crapcoins to be the top 50 of coinmarketcap. based on their 'market cap' numbers

thus anyone investing, no matter what ratio per coin they want. end up buying my crap coins.

..
NEVER EVER make investments based on coinmarketcap.. its a meaningless stat.

although there may be say 19million btc in circulation. and the single price is $36k today. a coin marketcap is not a reserve store of dollars holding $684,000,000,000. . instead its just the estimated circulation multiplied by the latest price. even if the latest price was triggered by a very very small purchase.

Eg if one of my demo crapcoins mentioned above was bought for $1. it instantly creates a market cap of $1trill. but only $1 has ever changed hands.

yep its really easy to get a top listed crap coin onto number 1 spot based on 'market cap'

the real reason these 'divide your funds amongst the top 50'. is simply because the average amount of 'assets/stocks' a portfolio has is more like 25, meaning with everyone trying to pick the top 25 the crappier assets in 26-50 never get a chance,

heck if people have 5 investments in energy, utility, shares, commodities and crypto. usually only the top 5 cryptos even get a chance.

the article pretends to be wrote by 'whales' but it seems noobish as if its writing TO whales hoping some try this noobs method.

experienced traders know alot more then the article wants to give whales credit for, and many details in the article reveal the writer has not done much research

i am a bitcoin hoarder. i can many money when its bullish.. but i can also make money when its bearish

first you have to define money(bitcoin and fiat are both currencies)

for me i have funds on both currencies..

my btc increases in value in a bull.. my btc increases in amount in a bear
my fiat increases in amount in a bull.. my fiat increases in value in a bear

there is opportunity in both sides especially if you have value on both sides to take opportunities

you can flip the mindset and stop imagining you can only "buy" from one and "sell" from the other. once you start to pretend that bitcoin is the legal tender and fiat is a asset. where you flip the terminology. then you too can see the dynamic change.

when the 'price is high'
sell bitcoin to get more fiat.
buy more fiat using bitcoin

when the 'price is low'
sell fiat to get more bitcoin.
buy more bitcoin using fiat

and thus take advantage in both directions

having watched the 2 hour video. many things were stated wrong, many seemed positive.
i didnt feel that it was a war against crypto. but more of an intro to further discussions.

i found things funny that they worry about 'grid operators' able to meet the demand of crypto..
yet the ~38TWH worldwide(better guess) is nothing in comparison to other industries.

EG if people travel on average 20miles a day for work/leisure. an electric car scenario of all 290million cars being EV in a decade, would need over 1000TWH a year just for the US
 
if governments think 38twh WORLDWIDE (14TWH US) is a problem now.. yes US only 14twh.. . then they have a real problem in the electric car plan for 2030 which would need over 1000twh

14 vs 1000. i think they need to concentrate more on regulating and making the EV industry more efficient

easy answer is. when people want to sell. they are trying to then coax in buyers. so when the price goes up the sellers want to get the price as high as possible.
when the price goes down they shut up.

you can spot these guys very easily. if they are telling you to buy while its 'green (going up) its because they are ready to exit.

i am a hoarder i have no intension to sell. so i happily tell people when the price is going down that its DISCOUNT where buyers can buy coins cheaper.

however those wanting to sell wont influence people about times of discount to buy, and instead only influence people when the price is going premium.

so the smart advice. never listen to people telling to you buy the hype(pump). listen to people telling you to buy the dip(dump)

and its people like these that make it obviously clear that what they learned from doomad and their group has alot of errors of thought and research.

windfury has had years to learn. but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing.

seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions

its a public forum, the quote button is there for a reason. so go ahead. i have no issues with it

the post of bitcoin bunny with the image. was not bitcoin bunny hating on bitcoin. it was sarcasm/satire.

.. in the link below the image in the topic post is more charts and data. but some seem to be over exagerating still

take the so called 79TWH number
we all know by now that current gen asics are 110thash for 3.25kw
we all know that the hashrate is 195exahash
thats 1772727asics which is
5761367kw per hour
5761mw per hour
5.76gw per hour
which is over a year
50470gwh/y
50.Twh/y

well. thats based on if the hashrate was always 195exahash every hour of every day
.. well its not. hashrate is not static. and most people have had years to upgrade to current gen asics.
the cambridge reports assumptions are guesses of a large mix of inefficient asics.



the actual average for the year is 147exa.
meaning a better guess than cambridge assumed guess. (they even have an explainer page where assume and guess is mentioned many times))
the better "guess" is more like 38twh/year

and where it comes to the 56% renewable figure.. well other reports are not basing that on actual county/states renewable % vs a asic farm inside that county/state. instead it took a national view and guessed.

asic farms are predominantly in renewable area's im guessing 85%+

so when the reports show 79twh of 56% renewable. = 34twh being 'dirty'
the real and better guess is more about 38twh of 85% renewable = 5.7twh being 'dirty'

---

heres what my cynical mind is thinking in regards to why these reports are done:

by over inflating the power usage. and deflating the renewable %. they can make 'a mountain out of a molehill'
(make a small thing seem like a big thing)
thus the pen and paper waving politicians can then make some climate regulation to inspect asic farms and make a new report showing suddenly due to regulation. suddenly the ^(Cough)good work^(Cough) of politicians turned 79TWH of dirty into 5.7TWH of dirty
(meanwhile in reality nothing has changed to asic farms)

done so just to get some political pats on backs and also some nice juice donations from climate advocate groups

arbitrage is purely about moving an asset from one market to sell on another market.
arbitrage is not about having an asset locked into a market where its not redeemable to then move to another market.
in short if GBTC cant be moved. there is no arbitrage opportunity so no arbitrage risk.

an arbitrage risk is where an asset is redeemable(movable) to other markets. but the risk comes in the delay of the movement which then gives time for the other market to changes its price point where the opportunity is lost in selling for more/buying for less, due to the other market 'correcting' before your deposit.
arbitrage is not a term to be used to buy on one market. and then months later sell elsewhere.. as thats just general trading. arbitrage is a short lived event, part of day trading.(within milliseconds to an hour at most)

arbitrage risks were higher in the days of btc-e and MTGOX when it needed to withdraw coin(confirm) and deposit coin(confirm) meaning it took 20mins+ to arbitrage.
this was then less risky when they introduced 'mtgox/btc-e keys' to reserve swap in seconds..
(i used to love arbitraging the different markets, back in the day when it was fun. easy money)

and now many exchanges use stable coins and sidechains/altnets for instant exchange-exchange swaps.

meaning if exchange A has coins at 2% less than exchange B. someone can buy on A and sell on B in seconds and not have arbitrage risk

the cambridge report and other reports of bitcoin using too much fossil fuel in chaina (pre china ban) were not using actual data of what regions a asic farm was in and the power plants of that region to realise most asic farms were in renewable(hydro) area's.
the reports just to a blanket view of the entire china production where renewables were only 14% mix and the reports asserted that china mining must be dirty because of that.

even as far back as 2014 when asic farms really kicked off, the managers already organised where they would locate their farms for the best electric rates, and ensuring renewable/sustainable energy for their mining.
yep most asic farms were within that 14% renewable regions

the only real issue china actually had was not from asic farms. but from home hobbiests over-using the residential supply causing local neighbourhood brownouts by over-doing the local circuits, as well as not re-locating their home to cleaner energy regions.

EG someone wanting to hobby mine for $5-$50 a day to cover electric and get some extra coin to invest, is not going to relocate and spend hundreds of thousands to buy a new home in a neighbourhood away from friends.
but a business wanting to mine for hundreds of thousands a day(even 1 block a day is $250k) is willing to ensure their location to set-up in is sustainable and cheap electric region

seeing as you want to limit yourself to a DNS uptopia and a 3 messages scenary of network wide channel update, and the only in channel partner private message share of update htlc and commitment signed.
but let me just show you a few things outside of your box.

the ping pong message:
first you claim that unknown message types are just rejected, yet
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format

then you thinking ping pong is useless for anything but poking a node to wake up
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4

hmm. and maybe you can take some time to wonder what other things you can put in the 65kb allowance of a ping message apart from ping:"awake?"  pong:"yes"/"no" (human translation)


hmm payload data. i know your not thinking what im thinking. but take some time, it might dawn on you what im hinting..
some hints. another name for payload is TLV. and guess what TLV im thinking of.

because 'ping' messages only go direct to peers its connected with (and not some network wide 'internet' of nodes connected to everyone). you might see that your thoughts of 'spamming' the network. is a little out of place.
ping and pong is direct messaging between connected peers and not a network wide spam. where ping and pong can be used to send a payload of hundreds of TVL(types) of messages

but it appears in your philosophy of your understanding of the network there is no privacy. in your eyes any SEC or law enforcement department can just sniff a DNS and see all nodes using LN and send them cease and desist requests if they are not registered money transmitters.

so in your philosophy you feel the only privacy is the payment.. and the only way to hide a channel is via tor(facepalm), just t hide a channels IP.. its kind of a shame that you want to break your own PR campaign niche features just to make a narrative to fit your personal philosophy.

heck i did laugh that you think even if channel partners set their channel to private, the channel is still getting listed on some DNS.. ill quote that just for giggles

first, im guessing you didnt read the bolt about pruning the map(i call it cutting off branches of the tree)


its funny because not only are you trying to make a narrative that its all public, al channels, all nodes, always listed unless channel close is announced formally..
but you also contradicted yourself before even making your narrative by your own admission that "private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network".. i guess the DNS philosophy must be psychic then.. having the listing without it ever being announced. amazing. much like your make a payment without sniffing the route or knowing whats available on the route.
yea, seems like utopia best-case guess and exaggeration of psychic understanding of the network without sniffing the network is your narrative.(YOUR philosophy of not needing to ping to see if route is all active, just sign a commitment and wait for fail to learn(facepalm))

where as reality is more like nodes only know about their map(tree branches) of the peers within their tree. and only get announced updates when a node wants to announce. and that ping and pong messages can happen inbetween such formal announcements to test a peer is still active and also to arrange regular key changes and updates of fee's

..
but your philosophy of only relying on network wide(facepalm) formal announcements could leave your map outdated
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4

oh and yea, i know you think that the messages of amount, fee, cltv are only handled in htlc updates(your 3 message type limit box). but take some time about the thoughts of ping-pong payloads and their ability to have TLV's (payloads) of hundreds of types..

P.S
and my hints are not of anything new, its stuff i have already said. but things you have failed to have "make the connection with"(pun intended) yet

alot of people think its "whale" manipulation of exchanges.
but after studying things. its not. its actually the minnows


in 2013-4 when the markets were $400 there were whales making walls of 1000btc
obviously with prices at $40k now it means a similar 'wall' only needs to be 10btc deep

this is because although the market is portrayed as supply and demand. where instead of 2013-4 supply was only 12mill coins and now there are 19mill.. the more supply in circulation has not resulted in more supply on the market.
eg. if average order was 2btc in 2013-4, youd think with 50% more in circulation average orders would now be 3btc

however, most market orders now are of 0.01btc-10btc not 1btc-1000btc in earlier years.

meaning there is probably an equal 100x less coin in exchanges offsetting an equal 100x more price.

sellers have figured out that buyers are not spending more money. they instead are spending the same amount.
so if someone in 2013 wanted to spend $600 a month he would get 1.5btc in 2013-4. where as now he would get 0.015btc.

the market price does not mean someone in 2013-4 who regularly paid $600 a month to buy crypto is now buying $60,000 a month.
buyers value per order has not changed. and so its the sellers who dont want to crash the market by selling 1.5btc now or even 2.25btc with there being 50% more supply in circulation than in 2013-4.
instead decide to play the economics game, offer smaller amounts of coin

imagine it this way. a seller.. with 1.5btc. wanting $60k
right now he can make 2 choices.
sell 1.5btc at $40k/btc =$60k fiat
sell 0.1btc(15 times) at $4.01k= $60.15k   (0.1*15=1.5)

sellers find it easier to not try selling 1.5btc at 40.1 as that creates a wall keeping price below that, but if he has small orders that fill of 0.01 for $401, they fill fast and are seen as a price lift to $40.1, even without buyers having to buy up tens of thousands of dollars to achieve it.

what im saying is dont worry about the only last few whales pushing 10btc.. instead watch out for the minnows putting in 0.01btc orders spaced out by $1 a coin meaning small orders causing large movements in prices

sellers realise instead of trying to push 1.5 coins on a market which can cause the price to go down. if they sell small portions in small amounts at a slight premium. the buyers dont notice the big hit as much. but it pushes the market price

ill add this for reference

code can prevent big whale wallers, but human emotion and greed will play the opposite and find a way to play the markets

your word games of "no one can change the code" and "anyone can change the code" are contradictions. done so purely to avoid mentioning the actual events that actually happen.

i know your contradictions, you have said them for 5 years. now stick to the facts of the actual code and the actual bips. the actual events

are you now denying 148/91 happened or are you accepting 148/91 happened

segwit activated on 24th of august. .. not the 1st
it did not require majority to run segwit on the 1st to trigger the segwit grace period

at that date of august 1st it required legacy node users of pools to just change a bit flag in a header. that is all. or have their blocks rejected. again nothing to do with segwit block template formats causing rejection.

the threat was not of 10,000 nodes rejecting blocks where those nodes are all random users. unable to understand segwit format templates.
the threat was from 50 prominent economic nodes(merchant services, exchanges, pools(NYA)) rejecting blocks without the flag. meaning opposition pools(not flagging) cant then spend their value.

again you forget that its not a opt-in to activate. it was a opt-in or else get your block ignored.
where the block count after then triggered segwits grace period due to lack of opposition.
again witout any pool needing to run segwit code that could create segwit block templates

again it was not a normal system where those who dont upgrade would get forked off purely due to them not understanding accepting a new format after activation.
it was those not showing willingness to allow a new feature to even enter a pre-activation grace period will be forked off.

it didnt require everyone to upgrade. to activate. it just required a flag to say you dont want to be forked, which also was the same flag used to allow segwit to enter its 3 week grace period to activate segwit

ok ill make it simple

1. which version of events happened in 2017
A[ ] mandatory fork(148/91) before aug 24th.. then segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation on aug 24th
B[ ] segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation, without 148/91 flag event prior

2. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 1st to cause a segwit activation

3. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 24th to cause a segwit activation

i know you want to let the devs of core just change things as they please..
i know deep down that you know that they have done it even without users needing to upgrade to vote.

so why play games of denial acting like upgrades cant now happen unless everyone runs the software
again you deny the existence of the backward compatibility that ensured those not upgrading didnt count at the protocol
validation level.
(debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to)
and the block rejection of non voters ensured the opposition pools didnt count at the block level.
(debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to)

so why keep saying that things can only upgrade if majority vote for it.
consenus should be. if there are 10 pools the vote should be 9/10. but what actually happened. before pools even downloaded the actual software to even make segwit formatted blocks. pools using legacy code. had to (by threat) just flag a bit in a header. or have their legacy block rejected

EG if 7/10 pools vote yes. it wont activate. so the bips used would reject the 3 opposition to then have a 7/7. before then activating

you are pretending there was no threat, when deep down you know that the new trick is to just reject the opposers, and slip a stripped block to the abstainers.

seems you just want to pretend that everything should only work the way core want it. with a FAKE pretence that users should just take the centralised point of failure as a feature. and that core should continue as they please

screenshot taken from binance whilst writing this post


When it only takes  0.32725btc to                         When it only takes  0.31331btc to
change the priceby $6(38772-38766)                   change the priceby $7 (38773-38780)


then you know the problem is not due to lots of orders or lots of buyers/sellers.  but instead its the LACK of traders, which means that a price can change, not by 1cent amounts but by $2-$3 in one order line fill

if there were thousands of users:
which would put orders 1cent above the next and so order fills would only move by 1cent
or
many people will put lots of coin on one priceline meaning it would appear  as 1-20btc not 0.02btc
but instead.. look at
SELL 3->4 one order fill can change the price by $3.39
BUY 2->3 one order fill can change the price by $4.35

..
one fault.
is that instead of 1 exchange(wall street) where the whole world of millions of people trades into, filling order lines with $billions where movements happen in microcents movements.
because there are many dozens of crypto exchanges. and even some crypto exchanges having many 'usd/tetherusd' markets. it dilutes the trader pool down to a few dozen-hundred users per exchange

point is. that people should be aware of actual events and the risks that come with things.
i know your "a pretend it didnt happen and shut anyone up that wants to discuss it" type of person
i know your a "deny it happened and argue with people that want to discuss it" person

but how about you stop contradicting yourself to cause debate and stop calling people a liar because they say something that goes against your view.

basically, LEARN actual events, and then be consistent in your memory of those events
in short.. stop the contradictory social drama of trying to hide discussions about risks and issues people want to discuss/know.

by making people aware. makes people risk aware if these things are attempted again.
by you wanting to hide the risk, deny the risk, you want people to aimlessly let the risk happen again.. which is not a good or helpful thing on your part.

EG LN: making people aware of the pegged asset, and the payment systems different denominated token, and how the payment system can allow unpegged tokens.. is making people aware of how the 19th century bank system moved away from the gold standard.

EG consensus: making people aware of a mandated activation done via opposition rejection pre-activation to fake 100% for activation. shows that devs could repeat the same thing again if they ever wanted to break a rule that should not be broke

proof of threat, proof of wanting someone removed
well
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0

and who made this threat.. ohhh it was you

but i do like your quote of what you deem my abusiveness comes down to

i usually say those things multiple times per post.
but lets be generous and pretend its 1 "abuse" per post and just call it 1055 posts. (its actually far far less)
well i have made 22,000 posts
where by, even at exaggeration of extending some generous stretching, thats only 4% rate. (reality is more like 0.5%(but who's actually counting))

but if those words are so abusive in comparison to 'autustic, liar, troll, angry man, mental case, ban him"
then its probably worth you realising, that im not the harshest abuser. and you picked the wrong bear to poke.

and if you think im more abusive than you, then please show me where i have demanded you be banned

heck ill be generous, and admit a word i have highly over used and deemed as abusive

fangirl: 39
oh and some context, i have been talking about a certain group of like minded people since 2015
16,000 posts ago. yet 39 of 16000 is 0.24% abuse rate

but hey lets be generous lets post count from the date i first used "fangirl"
5840 posts ago (2019) is still only 0.66%

so if you want to pretend im abusive in every post, or abusive in majority of posts.. please do try harder

now how many times has blackhatcoiner "abused" the word wrong:203

now how many times has Doomad "abused" the words
wrong:507
ignore:114
troll:100
lie:75

funny that you now want to ignore that 148/91 happened(again), and pretend it didnt happen, because.... i said it did happen so it must be wrong..

you have the very oddest gauge of deciding an opinion.. you base what is in your reality, not by evidence like block data and bips.. but by who is telling you it, and are they kissing your ass or debating you.

your opinions seem to be based on social bias where you ignore evidence just to stay loyal to your friends opinion, or to say the opposite of evidence if some one is debating you or your friends.

you use friendships of like minded people as your backup... not evidence.
i see many people like you, the conspiracy nutters on the P&S category are much the same.

EG if you were a court judge, you happily would take here-say statements from friendly people, and ignore any documented evidence from brash people.
you sir, would be the type of person that gets innocent people locked up and turn them vengeful, to then use their anger of wrongful conviction as a reason to never overturn the conviction. 'keep him locked up, he is angry i dont want him in society'
and if you ever did decide to release the innocent. you would blame the brash evidence giver for not being an ass kisser as the reason for the conviction. not your ignorance and personal social preference

oh well, your boring me. if you want to forget ignore that 148/91 happened. thats ignorance is on you.

and blackhatcoiner does not want proof, he just wants me to shut up.
he thinks absence of opposition by removing opposition, then becomes the proof that blackhatcoiner opinion must be true.

no wonder doomad and blackhatcoiner like each other.. they both DONT want evidence. they just want a lack of evidence that disproves their opinion, by trying to shut up anyone providing any evidence.

seems familiar.
like threatening to remove the opposition unless they pander to your mandates. and anyone still not falling inline, you just reject them and not count them... so that all you can then see and count on, are those who agree and have your like minded chain of events. thus you activate your mindset as fact based solely on that game

hmm..

---

as to rath.
here is the code for LND that shows that channel data is stored not in binary rat blockchain format template. but in variables of keys and values. where 'amount' is saved in millisats

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/channeldb/channel.go
the first several hundred lines of code are the variables..

and it does NOT just have a simple 'sent to file (raw tx)'
where rawtx is a blockchain formatted transaction template in sat denomination

oh and if in any line of code it says "btcutil.amount", this is not a reference to sats in btc form..
its actually
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcutil/blob/master/amount.go#L13