ATH is never a guage of the sustained value bitcoin should be at..today
ATH is a spike bubble of overhype. never a number to gauge as a stable value today

never ever assume that bitcoins value should remain at a ATH. always assume the ATH is a temporary blip that corrects down.

the actual sustained value is about ~$30k plus. anything above that is the speculative volatile up and down of human emotion.

yes in the future as the bottomline value increases it can increase beyond a previous ATH from years prior.
but when a new ATH happens now dont take this recent ATH as "sustained value" now

so treat the ATH as a guide to the future. and if you see prices today lower then ATH then you know buying now is going to get you profit in the future

1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts.
a. reducing the tx_signops_limit. dis-incentivizes big corps from filling blocks with just a few hundred transactions,
b. using the now allowed 4mb 'quota' removing the still existent 1mb wall. and the cludgy math that goes with it, allows full 4mb utility rather than constraining transaction data to the 1mb limit
c. also changing the fee formulae to make 'spam transactions (those that spend multiple times a day/every block, just to bloat blocks) more expensive will cut down the amount of needless transactions, giving more room to genuine spenders

2. we are not in 1999 days of floppy disks and dialup.
in 2010 average internet speed was  1.9mbs
in 2022 average internet speed is 58mbs
thats a 30.5x scaling of internet speeds
hard drives are now 4tb and within your range of costs(~$100 ~£75)

a raspberry pi and a 4tb is within your $500 spend limit
as is a $400 desktop with a 4tb hard drive upgrade

as for your monthly internet cost..
without even considering if an average american uses bitcoin.. just to get good internet for real life entertainment the average american spends $61 on the internet.. so i think you have set a very low bar for monthly costs of $25..
heck it costs an average american $25/month just to have their lights, tv and computer on (normal life stuff)


but converting YOUR $25 low bar to UK£ .. yes i can get more then 60mbs for £20 internet with no monthly cap

so lets say people upgrade their computer every 6 years
meaning ~600gb a year. is about 11mb per block..

now im not saying lets jump to 11mb a block now because hardware and internet can cope with it.. im just saying.. internet and hardware can cope with it so people need to drop the 1999 internet/hardware spec propaganda and realise its 2022

as for what the community wanted in 2017 was a 2mb base atleast. i would now say thats about 4mb base block as a acceptable way to go. and that can be achieved by just removing the 'weight' miscalculating cludgy code and just having the maxblocksize as 4mb straight and open for full transaction utility. along with a new fee formulae and sigoplimit reduction to avoid bloaty spam.

as for things like taproot and segwit.
though segwit promised more transactions and cheaper fee's segwit has had 4 years and by the looks of the transaction count charts and the block bloat charts.. the efficiency of transactions per Xbytes have not flourished as promised.

as you can see the average transactions in last 3 years

downward trajectory..
but the bloat is in an upward trajectory.

meaning the transaction per XXXbytes is becoming less efficient due to all these new "smart contract" bloat.

oh and one other segwit promise was the 4x discount of transactions. yet code reveals its not legacy /4 = segwit prices. its instead segwit * 4 = legacy prices.
they did not discount segwit. they instead increased legacy

static const int WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR = 4;


            // New feerate uses satoshis per virtual byte instead of per serialized byte
            CAmount feerate = weight ? (txfee * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR) / weight : 0;


if train tickets were $10, and there was a promise of 4x discount you would think train tickets would be $2.50.
instead though the station decided to make standard seats $40 and new carriages $10

maybe taproot might help change this smart contract inefficiency.. but lets see.. because so far segwit has not helped, even though that was a promise..(as was the NYA 2mb base that triggered(reached threshold in days) allowing segwit to activate).. and we all can see that didnt happen

what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. but forum rules dont like separate posts, they prefer walls of text, and so merge posts together.

to avoid having notifications of 'merged posts' i do more frequently just 'wall of text' to avoid such annoyances..
but to clarify. this forum prefers walls of texts. rather than separate posts per point being made.

my 'deleted message' stats are actually more proof of wanting to separate my talking points for clear reading, but the forum wanting to 'wall of text'

just today alone i earned 3 more "deleted messages" because the forum mods decided to merge 4 posts into 1 wall of text
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58920210#msg58920210.

so dont say i didnt try

i am not the one that mentioned LND's altruist watchtowers as an example of how LN 'cant' have watchtowers that hold keys
i am not the one insinuating that LND watchtowers are the default thing/part of some strictly ruled consensus
i am not the one saying LN requires consensus to enforce that watch towers dont need keys

i clearly said that due to lack of consensus means LND's altruist watchtower is not the default policy regarding watchtowers



oh, but it can.. as we have just agreed, the lack of need of a consensus, means that peers can happily communicate with many networks and with no other blockchain due to the lack of network wide audited policy.
are you going to now flip flop about the lack of consensus.. ?
the lack of ned for consensus majority to implement features means people can connect together via just the requirement of a publickey and (ip/tor address)... and then once connected . then set up channels with their desired other network, or private internal token.

again a smart PR person could use this as a advert for the benefits of LN in regards to atomic swapping, evolving network without consensus conflict hindering progress

the ip/tor address connection.. and the subsequent public key, handshake does not lock peer partners to a specific blockchain. that public key and formation of joint multisig can be used on multiple blockchains, or no blockchain at all and just some private token they invent together. the lack of consensus allows this


number 2, is specific about the inside LN payments.. yet you want to confuse this ln payment. with the separate contract to the 'force-close' transaction you also mention.
if you cannot tell the difference. please look into it. dont confuse the two
seems you still cant separate things. and want to cause confusion by pretending they are the same.

here ill give an example of how to separate things..
a condom is not a penis. a condom is not essential for a penis. and a penis is not essential for a condom. people can have sex without a condom and people can use a condom as a balloon or a waterproof cover for a rifle nozzle.
although sometimes a condom is put over a penis. and in those times a woman only feels a condom inside her when the penis is inserted.. but at no time is a condom a penis
do you get the common sense of knowing the differences between a condom and a penis.
that they have two separate functions. one locks in seamen.. one releases seamen

the LN htlc promises.. denominated in msat are a different contract than the funding contract transaction and a different contract than the settlement contract.
and yes even the funding contract. and the settlement contract may be the same format. they are still separate contracts.

EG imagine on the bitcoin blockchain. you paid me with one confirmed transaction. and i paid loyce with another confirmed transaction.. the transaction to loyce is not the same contract as the one you paid to me.
LN payments are not only separate contract to a 'force-close' contract. but also in a very different format. making them significantly more different than each other.

if you want to confuse the matter by saying that litecoin contracts are the same as bitcoin contracts. then try to get an ltc transaction to confirm on bitcoin and then try to get a msat promise to confirm on bitcoin..
point is the msat promise(LN payment) wont ever be understood nor able to confirm on the bitcoin network,.. because.. the LN promise msat promise(LN payment) is not a bitcoin transaction. so dont pretend its the same thing

i know if i read your responses to points 3&4 you then backtrack to then acknowledge the difference. but i thought its worthy of highlighting your ignorance at this point, to then highlight your contradictions and flip flop acknowledgement in the next responses
can you please just stop flip flopping and just understand the differences in things, and stick to acknowledging them

i just explained your flip floppy contradictions. but thanks for finally admitting they are different (you made one step forward, dont try stepping back now, you made progress)
an LN payment (in msat) is not a fixed format that is only used as a mirror of a bitcoin 'force close' settlement contract
the LN payment when rounded and value 'associated to consider what value to settle on can be settled in different blockchain coin denominated contracts. there is no consensus or network wide audit at the point of rounding up/down a valuation of a LN payment and creating a subsequent blockchain formatted contract.
scammy partners can mess with this and not sign a settlement contract to update the promise value into something more
tangeable the victim can use to settle his promised value


thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction.
just because YOU dont use it for altcoins. doesnt mean the network cant


thats your personal opinion. not a physical, hardware or software restriction..

just because you might only want to use a condom as a replacement of party balloons, does not mean thats its only function. other people have other uses of condoms.

trying to sell it as only to be used as a party balloon is a naive concept. where as a smart PR person can 'sell' a condom as many functions.

did you know in the military on tours of duty.. . more condoms are bought as a waterproof cover for their rifle nozzle. than bought for a soldier to cover his penis. sex is (discouraged in the military tour of duty)
does that mean the US government that funds soldiers waterproof budget should make TV adverts about condoms to be used only as waterproofs for guns?

did you even read your own referenced bip91

you had 4 years to look at the details of the block data and bips. and yet you still get it wrong

the first proposal (1mb base 3mb weight) envisioned november 2016, still had under 45% eagerness in june 2017.
devs were getting frustrated that their new feature wont activate as-is

the compromise:
the second proposal (2mb base 2mb weight) envisioned march 2017, announced june 2017 garnered 90% in days
because it "promised" bitcoin block scaling and segwit as a side node
(however the second proposal was a bait and switch to get first proposal to activate.)

as for pretending that if miners didnt want first proposal they just wont make blocks with the first proposal flag..
thats what they did from nov16 to jun17. no harm no foul.. no activation due to lack of desire
(this humiliated the devs that thought it would activate by december 2016)

what you find is the second proposal that 'promised' base block scaling+segwit. needed them to change to the new format after the second proposal threshold else the merchants like exchanges(nya party) would reject the old blocks(bip91). making none of the exchanges see the old blocks, meaning miners making old blocks cant spend rewards..

so they were forced to do new blocks as a condition of proposal 2, else end up not on the network/not receiving spendable rewards

however once the new blocks got 100% threshold. due to the old block kill off..
..proposal 1 kicked in and proposal2 was forgotten and not activated.

its funny how you spend many years jumping into this topic about the segwit activation.. yet you have never once referenced any blockchain data or bips or code.. correctly, but i have..

seems your the one that cant succeed in the debate.. but knowing you will ignore what has been said and come back in a few months pretending that mandatory was never a thing again and need to be disproved once again.
and then cry again that you got yet again disproven and argue how i never shut up about it..
sorry but if you want to tell people your version.. i will correct you. no matter how many times you forget and then re-assert your version

your memory may forget and your hopes that others forget. just so you can then pretend it never happened..
..but the blockdata remains solid and clear of the flags used and the dates used. goodluck disproving the blockchains version of events. it never forgets. nor can it be edited

encrypting a message so no one else understands it is easy..

having that message then transmit over the airwaves on licence free frequencies but have no one else blasting signals across to disrupt the message is harder.

interference cant be stopped simply by encrypting the signal.

its like speaking another language is easy in a room of people that cant speak it. but try to speak to a friend, when everyone else in the room is speaking over you.
your friend wont hear you even if he knows what language you speak,, theres just too much noise

you need a dedicated private room(licenced frequency) to not have others speak over the top of you so that your friend can hear you

if there was no dollar/other fiat to exchange to value it against. then it reverts to a barter system. where some can compare it to bottles of vodka, or a hour of minimum wage units or some other nationally recognised medium of exchange.

EG if people traded their time and valued it in how many loaves of bread they can buy per hour.
then right now bitcoins value would be about 30,000 loaves of bread

bread is a bad example as different regions value bread at different labour value, but you get the idea.

some may say that the value could be more refined to something everyone pays equally. such as electric. so bitcoin could be valued at 126060kwh/btc

over simplifying it..

blockchains allow finality/settlement. that once agreed that everyone sees the same ledger of transactions and they all compare. its final and locked. no changing it. because there is no central location that can be edited

crypto without blockchains are just signed promises that can be revoked, edited, lost, deleted or forgotten.

which would you rather trust
a freshly signed cheque where you cant see the payers bank account to know if he can fund the payment,
or
a cleared cheque that is on your bank statement that the funds are now in your account

in short dont trust a cheque until its cleared

satellite radio waves, cellphone radio waves only work because certain frequencies are only licenced to certain businesses/services.
this stops any interference.

though some agencies can illegally use equipment at frequencies they are not licenced to, to broadcast interference. but this is heavily stopped/sanctioned/punished if found, which makes the use of cellphone range of frequencies and satellite range of frequencies not be attacked by 'scramblers'

ham radios though are not regulated and anyone can just tune in a frequency and scramble/interfere with broadcasts by just pressing the microphone.

if you can get a licenced frequency dedicated to only one purpose where its transmitters are distributed under regulation/penalty of abuse. then you may have a chance.. but by that point. you might as well be using your cellphones dataplan, because then you become a telecommunication company to be 'protected' by the regulations of licences. thus no different than a cellphone company

if we for one second jump into the philosophy that god made humans

and we go with suzanne 5223 saying sex is not for pleasure,
then why did god give suzanne a clitoris, g-pot and hormones

biology shows that we naturally have body parts that feel pleasure, hormones that maximise that pleasure..
however its WORDS of religious priests that are telling people that sex is bad

so the only words that go against nature, are those in religion that tell people not to do what comes natural

i actually (for once) tried to keep the post short.. meaning tried to not load the questions..
by making them short and simple  to not have extra waffly clauses included
(usually you argue i load posts by waffling. now you say i load them by avoiding waffle)

so lets do the waffle version, explaining my thoughts and using examples

i can run a lightning wallet right now and it is not fixed to only work on bitcoin.
LN is not symbiotic(life depends on it) with bitcoin. LN can symbiosis with other networks..

also without having to download a different lightning wallet, i can bridge to litecoin or other crypto.

which is different than bitcoin or litecoin software which only works with their respective network.
(EG like litecoin electrum is a different software than bitcoin electrum)
(EG like litecoin core is a different software than bitcoin core)
(where litecoin core and litecoin electrum only work on litecoin.. and bitcoincore and bitcoin electrum only work on bitcoin)

one piece of software is inter-changeable with different networks, but not sub-servant. reliant to any of them

so using the same lightning wallet software i can set up a channel with many crypto networks.
i can run the same lightning software and have litecoin and a different crypto channels both active. at the same time. without the need to also have to bridge to bitcoin just to make LN work

in LN i can (with only litecoin bridge) communicate with lightning partners that bridged to bitcoin*

because the peer-to-peer structure of LN is not a handshake that requires both to use bitcoin.

lightning network can work without bitcoin even when partnering with users that have bitcoin channels
maybe by admitting to this you might be able to explain the positives of such, like highlighting atomic swaps

LN is its own network. there is no litecoin LN network and LN bitcoin network. thats just a user interface error in thinking. not a separation at code level that prevents such communication between peers.

again maybe if you see why LN is different and how inter-operable/bridgeable it is with other blockchain networks, whilst not being those blockchain networks, and not needed to only function with one blockchain, you could use it as a positive PR

*i personally havnt held LTC since 2014, but i have used ltc testnet with LN and done this with LN nodes bridged only to bitcoin.
(as one of my many tests of LN to look at how well it plays/fails and what its good and bad points are(found many flaws))

..
hmm
useful advice:
if you now want to distinguish that LN is not one network. but a bunch of networks of same name, each dedicated to each bridged coin.. im guessing you should use the plural lightning networks, instead of the singular lightning network.

maybe have a lil fun with it. with a Z instead of a S .. lightning networkz (z=lightning bolt shape)

i know you maybe ready to itch a scratch and say that within the LN island, there are separate towns like bitcoinLN and litecoinLN .. and then try to justify it that somehow bitcoinLN town is actually the bitcoin network

but bitcoin is a completely different continent. and you can to bridge to it. but LN island its not the same fixed land as bitcoin which cant move or be independent of. reality is it is its own island. and with the right PR that can be seen as a good thing

so be more realistic that nodes can communicate with different peers no matter what the bridged blockchain they have
(if your wallet cant do this then, your behind the game.. all you need is a nodes public key and IP.. nothing more)
whereby you can highlight this feature as a PR spin for atomic swaps. where people dont already need to have bitcoin to get bitcoin in trade for their litecoin

when i want to be paid on bitcoin. i see the coin confirm.. its mine. game over. no debate, its mine. finito.

when using LN and see the promised millisats. its not yet settled as being mine for good. there are many things that can take that value away from me.

if i want to settle. i have to wait for the other party to sign.
yes this may be automated to happen a millisecond after a HTLC secret is revealed. but even if a partner reveals the HTLC secret(LM millisat promise). he then has to sign off on the commitment(separate contract). and due to no network wide consensus. a partner can edit his own node software to break the 'autopilot' code to not auto update commitments straight after HTLC secret reveals

but even then, even if he did not break "autopilot" its not yet confirmed on bitcoin. and he can easily still send his older state commitments before you. and so you have to watch for his cheating and you then have to intercept and activate the punishment

soo much to do just to hope cheating does not happen. so much trust is needed to risk not having to watch 24/7
yes you have choices to discourage cheating. to ensure your promised payment eventually becomes your free and clear days later. . but with each extra choice to add extra safeguards requires more trust by other parties.

meanwhile, on bitcoin. when someone sends me value. its confirmed. finito. its mine, no takesy backsy's, no third party watchtower, no co-signer needed. no punishment. its just mine. done

---

in bitcoin you are not forced to have your keys in your node. active on the internet 24/7.
in LN you cant take your keys out to then use in another wallet. people have lost access to channels when they tried.
when setting up a channel you have to put keys in even if you are just watching balance. those keys are needed actively all the time. even if you are not buying anything for yourself and instead just routing..

this flaw might be fixed in later wallets . but is a flaw right now. a big one. that puts people at higher risk of hackers due to it


because there is no network consensus on LN. although LND's variant of watchtower might be altruistic. there are other brands less altruistic.
for instance watchtowers that are based more on the "factory" concept (fed reserve hub) methodology

---

LN can work with litecoin and other coins. you are not sanctioned to only handle bitcoin when using LN.
many users right now use LN but do not bridge to the bitcoin network. there is no need to monitor bitcoin by all LN users

some users are even using LN with a completely different token privately agreed with just themselves. this token has no blockchain at all

---

anyway lets skip ahead a few debates and just get to some talking points finalised/rated to see peoples understanding so far
ill number them and you can quote them and put a * mark in which box you agree or disagree with

1. lightning network is not the bitcoin network. they are separate networks that do different things
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

2. LN promises (payments inside LN) are denominated in picocoin(11decimal) also known as msat/millisat
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

3. LN promises (payments inside LN) are different contracts/transactions/promises/lengths of data, to a bitcoin transaction
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

4. bitcoin network does not understand the format of these LN message formats(payments) in 11decimal valued promises
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

5. LN is not tethered to only function on the bitcoin network
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

---

6.LN wont work without bitcoin
agree[ ]   disagree[ ]

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

watchtowers.. ok now you are creating bank managers.
so now people have to trust their channel partner to not cheat. and then trust a bank manager to watch that the partner has not cheated. and hope the watchtower server does not glitch out and go offline one day, thus not able to watch and activate punishments.

oh and watchtowers can only intercept and change ownership if you trust them to have the keys to do these interceptions on your behalf..

so where is this trustless system you mentioned?

in short
my keys my coin. not my keys not my coin.
multisig requiring third party signing is not trustless independence, definitely not permissionless
giving others your keys is not trustless

useful advice:
by now admitting that cheating can happen and maybe can be discouraged via other features. please try to say cheating can happen but can be discouraged.. rather than saying "they cant cheat"

utopian fantasy advert of PR: "they cant cheat"
honest, risk aware PR advert: "they could cheat but it can be discouraged using other 'trust' features"

ok i must start with the first fatal flaw.
LN CAN infact work without bitcoin. LN's function allows it to peg to different blockchains. its usability of LN is not fixed to only work with bitcoin. nor is it under any condition that the another altcoins can only work on LN if LN is pegged to bitcoin at the same time
LN has no network wide audit/consensus that checks that all nodes/channels are all connected to the bitcoin network.
some LN users right now only have channels/nodes pegged to litecoin

---

---

to this he is very much expressing how bitcoin is like gold. and LN is like bank notes.
however there are many ways to cheat the joint bank account partner.
many devs and LN users have lost funds. even with "punishment" clauses attached.

as for the "free to withdraw their promise anytime without permission". the LN millisat promise is a separate promise from the bitcoin sat denominated commitment. both of which need the signature of the other party
if a HTLC "secret" reveal is not sent ontime. problems start
if the other party does not sign the settlement commitment on time. problems start
as for the "cant cheat".. the whole punishment clause is because cheating can happen and activating the punishment clause when cheating has happened, involves the victim noticing the cheating fast enough

if faketoshi and his altnetBSV desciples wanted me banned for calling them out. would i think im the problem. no.
.. same applies to other altnet bunnies, chums

when out of millions of registered users, its only the same dozen altnet bunnies being angry.. i think maybe im just poking the correct bear cave.


forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off..
you might want to check devs own wording of bip148
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times

my favoured buzzword is not madatory. my favoured word is segregation. apartheid. .. though segregation causes some confusion so i used mandated on purpose as its the DEVs chosen words

anyway, i know yet again even after reminding you after 20 times in the last 4 years..
the june/july 2017 drama about the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks
i even sent you the pretty picture many times

this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code

thus the blockchain data, node software data and github references does not lie. its all available to read

as for outnumbering?

there are literally thousands of topics about bitcoin scaling. none of which i created, which have posts by more then thousands of different users..
yet LN (advertised as the solution) only has a couple dozen topics created by the same group of people.

oh, and that pretty picture above..
(red line)shows that only <45% of miners wanted segwit from nov 16 to jun 17..
(blue line) shows a compromise agreement to have a 2mb base block and 2mb weight, as an appeasement to the community. and look. boom loads got onboard.. WITHIN DAYS(literal vertical line straight up)
for the offer of a bitcoin scaling + segwit compromise

but as you can see. once threshold was reached. the first(1mb base 3mb variant(redline)) got activated and the compromise got dropped
meaning fake vote using fake policy to not give what the compromised promise had to offer, but instead bait and switch to get a version that was only getting 45% max community agreement

the only reason you only see most of the people you read discuss LN is because of cabin fever. when a group of people are locked in a cabin. all they see is the people in the cabin. all they talk about is the things they have in common.
it ends up being stockholm syndrome. favouring those you are locked up with because its all you know and see
EG you only see me enter your closed cabin with no fear of debunking you guys. so you wrongly think i am the only one.

dont worry, your not alone though.. faketoshi has a cabin just like yours. he decorates it the same too

i can engage.
and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply.
 
if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great

it could actually lead to some proper dialogue.

..
as for my crusade
my crusade only flows into other topic when:
other topics about BITCOIN scaling fill up with altnet advertising
other topics depict altnets as BITCOIN2.0
other topics 'sell' the utopian fantasy of security and success of an altnet
when a bitcoin scaling discussion gets told not to scale bitcoin
when altnet supporters say bitcoiners should f**k off if they dont like the scaling delays,stalls, hindrances
when altnet supporters say bitcoin should not be used for X and Y type of uses. but their altnet is what everyone should use

by the way, i also called out faketoshi, his BSV pretending to be bitcoin and his disciples when they do their altnet adverts crusades the same way LN'ers have. yet there was no controversy when the faketoshi disciples were called out.. (strange but true)

the fuel price ranks of the world are based on a dollar valuation.. not based on each's nations % of average income(domestic value)

kazahk's seen their prices DOUBLE from 60tenge (local currency) to 120tenge (local currency)

what you have to realise is that
60tenge is 14cents

what you also have to realise is that kazahk minimum wage is
22,859tenge which is $68 a month
american minimum wage is $1160 a month
us car fuel prices are $0.98 a litre

which is if we used say 1000 litres = $980 = 84% of income for 1000litres (0.084% of minimum income per litre)

now lets take this same 1000 litres = 60,000tenge = 262% of income for 1000litres (0.262% of minimum income per litre)

then this week that 0.262% of income per litre became 0.524% of income per litre
meaning a kazahk if spending all his income on fuel can only drive for 190litres worth of distance a month
meaning a kazahk working 5 days a week 4 weeks a month. to work and home. if they use just 4.7 litres per journey.
then they are spending their whole monthly income just getting to work
no food, no bills, nothing else can be bought


0.524% is bad economy compared to americas 0.084% economy
yes kazahk are based on income value. paying 6x more then america are. based on 'value'

but men dont get pregnant and produce new life... so i think you find its women that are the people builders and the starting point of life

im going to guess that you probably wanted to include "business tools" such as having the email address using the domain name.. which would trigger a request for business incorporation documents.

try setting up a domain for personal use only. and you might have success.