enforcing?
im not the one trying to ban users.
im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork
im not the one telling people to abandon bitcoin and use another network.

tell me again. what have i enforced?
oh wait, i remember..
when i told you to take a step away from the computer, for 10 minutes, have a cup of coffee, put aside your personal bias and think about a topic from another prospective for the remaining 9minutes 30 seconds.. its not enforcing. its actually asking you to try something that causes no harm to yourself or anyone else. but just might give you an opportunity to have a rational thought outside of your personal grievance/bias/desires/personal goals/loyalties
....

ok. lets start at the top this time
as things only look 'derailed', out of context, off topic only after messages are deleted and posts are left without explanation/defence. (standard tactic of certain people)


1. rath was pretending that the 1500 actual pizza orders. but only 10% successful payments. was some how not what FOLD reported direct, but instead raths wrong opinion that thre were somehow only 150 pizza orders ever ordered. and presuming they all got successfully paid. whereby in his presumption 1350 fake payments that didnt succeed with no pizza order attached. (rath presumed there were 1350 random spam payment attempts not meant to succeed)
sorry but that was not what FOLD reported

2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks.. yet.. Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic.
me saying the topic is about bitcoin scaling.. is me saying what the topic is about.

3. the noise of using the 'piss/swimming pool water' analogy is in reply to LN users using a piss and swimming pool water analogy. if they dont like it they should not have started the analogy

4. already mentioned this in previous post.

5. i mention how many fails. rath admits to fails. but then says he cant explain why it failed. then he went on to assume failures for odd reasons.
how is me saying he did 389 fails, and rath admitting he done 389 fails FUD?

also using the point 5's link.. rath admits that his "payments" are not his payments but routes of others. which goes to prove point 4's debate about the number of payments do not mean the number of actual real world purchases of goods or services the node itself makes for itself. EG juices 44 'events' were not 44 payments juice done for himself to buy things. they were events of the network to get around a LN flaw.
...
now lets pick another post to defend

im on the bitcointalk forum... (wait for it.. drum roll.. 3.2.1 .. here goes nothing..) to talk about bitcoin
i dont want to be advertised other networks as solutions to bitcoin.
also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script

yea dont want to see a group of people advertising their other network as bitcoin2.0, i dont want to see people being told to f**k off to other networks if they dont like how the other group wants bitcoin to change in their altnet favour. these are MY opinions. i am a bitcoiner.

but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers

the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped.
..mega insanity loop.. done purely just to get people off the bitcoin network
(doomad stated this insanity loop script, and blackhatcoiner is keeping the loop active by repeating it)

its these insanity loops that show those altnet bunnies do not care about bitcoin.


here is a game everyone can play.. it harms no one and causes no controversy. but is an interesting thought to realise.
read the altnet bunnies posts. but.. in your mind change their username to "faketoshi" and read it again.
it will give a whole new prospective to the context of their adverts. it a very simple experiment.

..
if the resentment is about "walls of text".. the forum rules do not like splitting messages over multiple posts
(yea i saw that game 5 years ago, trying to force me to break up my context into different posts to force me to break the rules.. ha, nice try. no dice, game over, try another game)

if the resentment is about me calling out a group of chums, fangirls, bunnies who work as a collective mind patting each other on the back for circling their closed minded PR campaign of another network between themselves.. well the merit cycling clubs and backscratching, is obvious
https://loyce.club/other/Backscratchers.html

ok this should be fun

lets start from the previous posers comments first

Rath used one example of 1 transaction(that was RBF enabled by the way) to persuade that transactions are 7cents..
yet the block in question of that example had an average transaction cost of $1.79
the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60

he went extreme of saying an 7cent exageration.. but yet i did not go extreme by saying $60.. instead i said a fair value amount of ~$3.. which is shown in hard blockdata and real math of many examples.. i did not cherry pick extremes

(by the way, enabling RBF discounts fees to lower amounts purposefully to delay a confirmation to allow someone to replace a transaction in pools mempool using a higher fee, without having the newer higher fee tx being too extreme to persuade pools to drop the first)
so yea, rath used a bad example transaction to pick as his 'proof of cheap' especially when it does not compare to the average fee people do pay per transaction for the last 3years, or even 1 year, or even 1 month averages

as for me saying the lightning network is not the bitcoin network.. its not.
the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network.

why are people having a problem with saying LN is a different network

i know i know LN supporters dont like me undoing their hard work of their strange PR campaigns, where they try to sell LN as being bitcoin2.0.. but tough luck

what they need to learn is they might have a better PR campaign if they actually explained the risks (for user awareness) explained the differences of why its not bitcoin network(so that they can advertise the niche need)

after all. if LN was bitcoin network, then bitcoin network would have the features to do everything everyone needed and people would not need these other network "payment" systems

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.. if the PR bunnys of LN actually explained the truth, they would have a better PR campaign.. but instead THEY want to confuse people

i do get it, i fully understand that a certain group of other network users want to tag themselves onto bitcoin fame to win instant trust..
but put it into this context:
if faketoshi was to create an altnet that bridges to multiple coins, including btc. and faketoshi advertised his network as bitcoin2.0. i can guarantee you that the debates would begin debunking that branding/association with bitcoin

fixed that for you your welcome (grammatically incorrect on purpose of comedical slavic accent)

as for stompix.. i emboldened and underlined a part of my last post.
might want to read it, and then look at the topic creators first post..

the stats are not from blockchains bad math guestimates.. (you!!!! love to use guessing/estimate sites as your stats source)
the stats are straight from pools own workload reports (actual hashrates)
the topic creators post mentions nothing about block numbers, nor network rate. nor difficulty nor blocktimes

..
edit after checking on a few things:
other topics elsewhere in the forum. with other users opinions seems to be where stompix seems to be getting his random numbers
(13%) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380126.0
(15%-20%) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380053.0

but those are other topics. involving other people

again read the topic creators post.

it never mentioned 20% like you dream of... nor 13% nor 18% like you think i dream of (yet i never said 13 or 18)
it said clearly 12%

so you are making up 13%.18%.20% numbers that were never said by anyone bar you

funny part is stompix first said "barely 2%,, now saying 6.25%"
care to pull a new random number that was never mentioned in the topic creators post??

..
oh and the image in the topic creators post. is not from blockchains network hashrate..
its from looking at the number of hashes(asics work) of each pool.
it actually lists each pools work load.

but thanks again for playing. maybe try to use the information provided rather than make something up then double down on your made up numbers by finding another irrelevant thing.

the numbers were not based on blockchain.info network rate estimate
heck even blockchain are honest enough that it uses estimates and guestimates and assumptions.. so understand not to use those guestimate assumption sites as your proof/counter argument, especially when they are not used by others who use other sources with more accurate math, stats

anyone can create a product, good, service, token.. nothing should stop that and hard to manage/moderate..
however when that product/token is then advertised for sell to the general public. then that should be moderated/supervised whereby law enforcement should get involved in stopping it, should users/customers get scammed by it

but with that, if you are producing something for personal use and doing it in private where the general public are not harmed.. then aswell as not being easy to moderate/enforce. it should be upto those in private to sort each other out

but the general rule is. if cant slap someone with a wet fish if they wrong you. if you cant file a lawsuit against them. dont just hand value over to strangers, even if said strangers tell you a good story

where did these two read 20%

topic creator shows 12%

also 12% is not based on counting blocks.. its based on looking at the hashrate change from ~180 to ~160exa

so seems stompix is picking an argument that does not exist, based on numbers never mentioned by topic creator in relation to block count

the riots were caused by a strain on the FIAT economy due to car fuel prices doubling overnight..
the riots were organised by hundreds of people communicating over the internet to assemble in different places
the internet was switched off to cut-off communications between rioters

separately as an after affect(not cause/reason for the internet cut-off) the internet shutdown meant kazakh asic miners could not submit their hashwork to pools.

as for the price.
depending on country.. mining cost fits into a window of between $31k-$66k
the price can move between these numbers volatility depending on many emotional human decisions and effects.

the price dip is not due to a infrastructure impact of mining (affecting the window range) its just human speculation/media drama causing human emotional decision changes

you can try taking that argument to ISP's, requesting them to revolt against government telecommunication regulation.. but part of their response is that some ISP operate in multiple countries and thus have multiple different government policies where by a rule in one does not apply in another so their not as centralised as you thought

EG t-mobile, Vodafone, Comcast
a US government can tell these companies to shut off access to its US customers. but this does not affect the UK,african customers.


even if doing so. by offering a service to customers for communication utility you then become a communication business which then puts you right back into the jurisdiction of communication regulations of the government the service is offered.

facebook is very much now under the thump of communication law. which is why they keep getting fined for not moderating illegal communications

and thats the point..
if the system was just 'nonce' + coinbase alterations.. then yes the asic will be begging the pool for new work 1100 times a second. per asic

but by using the timestamp as a extranonce an asic only has to beg just once every 5 seconds.
thats 5500x less begs for new work from the pool each time each asic..

as for the timestamp increments. they can change the time upto 70minutes of the current time(4200 seconds).
meaning 4200 more cycles of nonce. thus once per 5 seconds instead of 1100 per second

what you find is that each asic is given a different bit of work(coinbase alteration or other blockdata alteration).. they are not all going to do the same work. otherwise thats a waste of "double duty"/duplicate hashing.

so having 5 asics does not mean you pass through all the work in 1 second instead of 5. instead its 5 pieces of different work each lasting 5 seconds before each asic asks for more work from the pool

the UN is trying to make the internet a basic human right. much like water.
where utility companies and governments cannot just stop citizens access to basic utilities on mass.

you may see temporary 'delays to service' or curfews or however you can word it. but if a government under UN rule were to permanently cut off access to utilities for all citizens. then that country can get into alot of trouble with the UN.

in the future you might see for instance if there was another US capital riot. US might temporarily switch off internet in washington neighbourhoods, to break communication methods of rioters. but trying to have a mass internet cut off of america entirely and permanently would result in UN putting sanctions on america until they re-establish internet connectivity.

segwits 'increase in blocksize' did not yield an increase in transaction count, because the cludgy code of "weight" did not cause a more efficiency of transaction data to match the 'block size' bloat increase.
yes block MB is now 1.3mb instead of 1mb but the average transaction count has not 1.3x
what actually happened is people made more 'weighty' scripts/signatures by doing multisig.

segwit made multisig more popular causing more bloat, which then needed taproot to counter the segwit effect(if people decide to shift from segwit to taproot when they transact)

however devs did agree that 4mb block bloat was no longer a harm to the nodes.. so pretending that blocksize of full utility 4mb would harm nodes is a dead propaganda to push.. it was debunked 4  years ago when devs allowed upto 4mb saying its safe.
so scribble out that script from your hymn sheet. its dead. obsolete

but while on the subject thank you for admitting that increases are needed(straight after arguing why they shouldnt be done(facepalm)). but these increases should not in the form of allowing more bloat in MB sizes, but instead allowing more transaction utility of that new size. which can be achieved by removing the cludgy "weight" code and just having a full transaction utility of upto 4mb. instead of being beholden to the 1mb base plus 3mb weight cludgy mis-count of data

as for the future of 20 years time.. well if you now want to revert back to kodaks 1999 fear of digital storage of photo's using the floppy disk arguments of 1.44mb storage space never being sustainable for 35 pictures of high resolution.. well we are in 2021 now and guess what. we have moved passed 1.44mb floppies. we are no in the realms of 1tb microxd cards the size of a fingernail.
yes high-res photos of 2021 are more then 2mb per photo. something kodak cried would never be possible to cope with on old storage theory.

so take that as a lesson when you want to talk about "but what about in 20 years", the answer is, storage and bandwidth is moving forward faster than bitcoins scaling is.
2010 had users on an average 0.5mb broadband. now average speeds are not 5mb/s(10x) nor 10mb/s(20x) but 50mb/s(100x)[speedtest]
100x internet scaling in 10 years and 1,000,000 portable storage scaling in 20 years

we are no longer in dial-up era we are in fibre optic era.
so please dont use old outdated and debunks rhetoric propaganda. stop using old scripts from the altnet support group. think outside of the box if you truly love being outside the block.. and think for yourself.

i know you want to hinder bitcoin scaling to give LN a niche need, using propaganda of bitcoin flaws to sell LN as a utopian place people should move across to.. but that niche option is not there due to technical hardware limitations of physics on bitcoin. its a political/commercial decision by devs that like altnets.

just accept it.
sure advertise LN as a separate network for the things that it can do differently than bitcoin. highlighting the differences. but dont even dare try to FUD propagandise that bitcoin is broke to try advertising LN as bitcoin2.0

bitcoin hashrate swings from 160exa to 200exa range
12% is only about 20exa. so within range of the norm.. thus no effect on day to day activity

what you will find is people in Kazakhstan cannot mine, so they cant get bitcoin... but their internet is down, so they also cant purchase from the market either. nor can they sell any coin they had mined the day before.

over all. kazakhstan wont affect the price. they wont be jumping on the market + or -. as they have no access.

what you will find is americans, europeans now get a 12% better 'luck' of them winning a block. or more precisely american/euros get a few more shares of the reward than they did because their kazakh's pool partners are not there doing the work taking slices out of the reward pie away from other countries in the pool

if americans are getting a 12% bonus then it brings their average 'cost' of mining of $40k/coin to now earn them more sats per block. and so they may want to sell a bit sooner as its slightly more profit.

but with that said because kazakh's are not mining and not able to access the markets to sell rewards. their lower $30k mining cost/coin means they are not going to be selling today. which will counter any sell pressure the americans might cause.

this 12% ~ 20exa change is not out of the scope of normal daily movement.. so not really a game changer to the markets.

the problem with using the coinbase transaction is that the POOL has to get a signal from an asic that it has tried every permutation of nonce  and so the pool then has to make a new blocktemplate with a new coinbase transaction and new hash and header to send back to the asic.

so its not the second 'variable' space on offer. its the THIRD. because an asic, without assistance from pool can use timestamp as an extranonce to add more entropy/permutations

an asic cannot change the coinbase transaction itself when its ran out of the nonce and extra nonce. so its not like a asic can just run through nonce and then continue with a different coinbase transaction without the pools involvement.

so what you find is that asics do go through all of nonce and then tweak the timestamp (without pools involvement) and then continue.. and only report back to the pool that they have ran out (once the nonce and extra nonce permutations have run out)

a coinbase output section or a signature area can be used as 3rd,4th,5th options.. but they are not option 2 which asics can handle without a pool.

when you actually look at how asics work and realise that an asic does not know the pools private keys to make new coinbase transaction. no ram or hard drive to store the blockdata to make new hash of the block to fill a block header. you soon realise mining hashes through different adjustable area's goes in 1.2.3 stage.. not 1.3 where 3 is declared the extra nonce but requires a pools involvement every 0.000X seconds per asic.

if you want to to mention all the different mundane, empty, changeable spaces that can be used to become variables. to create more permutations, fine..
but call them the option 3, 4, 4 and be sure to remember that it involves a pools action to re-supply new action 3 each time a 3rd permutation change is needed. where as an asic can do 1.2(nonce.timestamp) without a pools constant involvement at every round of changing 1.2 permutations

ill show you a good example
32bit nonce (4byte) = 4,294,967,296 hashes
                              =4294967khash
                              =4294mhash
                              =4.2ghash
by then using the 12 bits(1.5byte) of timestamp (is 4.2ghash⁴²⁰⁰)
                              =18,018ghash
                              =18thash

up until 2018 most asics did not go beyond 9-14thash..
meaning the pool requests for 'coinbase' re templating was once every couple seconds. at most.

but just imagine instead of 1-2 seconds due to 18thash of possibilities didnt exist and instead. asics requesting new coinbase tx output variables, (leading to new blockhashes leading to new templates) every 0.004thash

and where pools were dealing with hundreds of thousands of asics

would you want to run a pool that didnt bother using timestamp to give a 1-2 second breather between requests or do you want to remain adamant that timestamp is not part of any extra nonce thing and pools were rehashing blockheaders every 0.0002381 seconds for eash asic

because if you want to pretend that the coinbase transaction is part of an asics extra nonce(second option), requiring pools to play around with block header data and rehashing.. then you are trying to say that pools do 4195 hashs a second per asic
where a pool manages say 100,000asics meaning its doing 419mhash's just to manage the asics.

sorry but asics do use the timestamp.. thus bringing the bandwidth between asic and pool down and work load for the pool down to 0.5hash a seconds per asic in 2018(50khash for all 100,000 asics combined)

now which pool would you rather manage
where asics dont use timestamp as extra nonce but pool then has to do 419,000khash because uses coinbase as extra nonce
or
where asics do use timestamp as extra nonce, so pool then has to do  just 50,000khash when eventually using coinbase as extra-extra nonce
..

reality is pools dont do millions of hashes per second feeding each asics constantly. they do maybe a couple thousand hashes per asic in a ~10minute session

so would you rather feed an asic a new block header data every 1-2 seconds or every 0.0002 seconds

..
if you want to get more grammatically argumentative there are many ways to create new multiples of permutational variables in regards to making new hashes by the pool. even just changing the order of the transactions it has validated in mempool and recombine them same transactions in a different order will create a new blockheader id.
and you could if you argumentatively call all manner of options AN 'extra nonce' on top of other extra nonces.
but the initial extra nonce was to play with the timestamp as the most easiest most efficient way for asics to operate without pestering the pool every micro second

he said:

basically if you want to be an outlaw, be an outlaw, dont cry that you want the protection of the law while declining to follow the law

here is a question.. what fuel did they use as an accelerant.. it better not have been car fuel, especially if they have been crying and protesting that car fuel is too expensive to buy/waste

oh tash. you are a laugh. but a vaccine is not car fuel.
they are protesting about car fuel prices that have just gone up too high

you should be referencing the video with conspiracies about inflation and big bank paydays for oil tycoons.

R.malone is about as much of an inventor of medical technology as faketoshi Wright is bitcoin technology

R malone's "proof" of involvement is this
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550b0ac4e4b0c16cdea1b084/t/60b62e4f1dcb1f52ad2d4c0c/1622552143483/Jill%27s+letter+about+RNA+vaccination+generic+v5+June2021.pdf
its a letter wrote by his wife.(facepalm)

she references work done by others where she "says" that R. malone was referenced in the work
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC280161/pdf/pnas00261-0279.pdf
but the reference is a B malone(different person) who showed financial interest in the experiments not any physical involvement or insight that changed the experiments purpose.

sorry but its not the same malone. and nothing to do with the antivaxxer R.malone who is just doing a faketoshi in the medical world.

the vaccine does not mess with the menstrual cycle. please close your conspiracy bookmarked pages and remove the tin foil hat.
if it did mess with it. there would be 125million american women (women=50% of all 250mill americans vaccinated) that are having period issues for the last year.
the vaccine goes in the arm not the womb

taliban are just angry ex-homeowners with guns. angry because they lost everything by western invasion.
they have no tactical skills or training..

if you want security. anyone can hold a gun.. but try someone that knows kung-fu or kickboxing. and has tactical experience.
EG if a paparazzi was shot by a angry ex-homeowner with a vendetta. just because they were stalking you,.. well, because you hired him expect alot of legal pain in the form of lawsuits and criminal charges.
however hire a guy that can restrain and put a guy to the ground without a shot fired. alls fair, self defense.

that said.
small communities might seem good from the outside. but have you ever tried to live in these elite 'gated' communities.
they think they are the law. .. cant have lawn grass over 2 inches long. cant water sprinkler the lawn during the day. cant have music or parties after 8pm.
muslim gated communities demand women cover their skin and make other overly-obedient laws for control of woman

small communities end up knowing too much about their neighbours and find any small reason to snitch on a neighbour

having a wider community dilutes the cesspool of snitching and rule making and instead tries to limit how many laws exist because the community is more broader and not all rules can fit all the community. so there are less rules by default.

EG not everyone can afford a gardener. so in a wider community of poor and elite. there are no elitist rules
EG in a small elitist community. standards and rules are higher to fend off letting the poor in.
EG in a small poor community. rules are made to fend off elitist 'takeover' of hard earned property.

the issue with society is not that laws are too wide or too tight. its that laws need to actually be reasonable and actually have an effect on the purpose for the rules.

EG car speeding laws. instead of making it a law that a car driver will be fined $1000 for speeding over 100mph. make it a rule that no public road worthy car can actually reach 100mph, using using speed limiter devices. and another rule that the fine is more then $1000 for damaging, tampering, removing the limiter.

that way the rules actually do stop people insanely speeding to cause an accident where they are fined after the damage is already done. and actually prevents speeding to prevent damage being done in the first place

its about having laws that fit the purpose of the activity that should not be acceptable

this may become another topic of debate. but its where some argue about the 'child support' where the consent of sex also forms a agreement to provide child support by default of just the act of sex, even if the 'father' doesnt want the child but the mother decides to keep the kid. (hinting about abortion law debates also)

i believe if a woman gets pregnant. and she wishes to keep the baby. she has to file a court order to put the father on the birth certificate which involves actually informing him that she is pregnant. this way there is no nasty surprise a year later "hi, give me money you have a 3 month old son"
if both consent all well and good the man pays child support or becomes part of the childs life with custody agreements or being a partner with the mother.
however, the man can then in court decline his name being put on a birth certificate officially by declaring he doesnt want the baby. this means women are not forced into an abortion by the man. but instead the man aborts(not literally) his responsibility of supporting a baby he does not want. and the woman can continue the pregnancy as a single parent.

the same goes the other way. if the man wants to keep the baby but the woman doesnt. he has to provide payment for the "surrogate" to bring the baby to term. whereby she can agree and hand custody to the man on the babies birth. or decline and not go through with it.

then the 'weaponising' can be stopped. and no surprise shoot-outs when its too late to defend yourself
in short. if there is any dispute of responsibilities and custody. .. settle it in court before names are put on birth certificates

what you actually find is this.

the reason why there are not 250,000,000 'adverse reaction reports' for vaccines is not that doctors are 'hiding' anything. its the fact that 249,000,000 people are not cry babies that run to hospitals because they had a needle prick in the arm and it hurts. they have common sense to know to expect certain standard feelings and changes, as thats a sign that they had a vaccine and its doing its job.
these are not adverse effects/reactions. these are expected effects/reactions

also if you wish to talk about the mis-reporting by doctors. you will find that hospital doctors do report it. its pretty much automated. whats not done is the homeopathic, family doctors of private practice that are mostly pill mills and herbal witch craft.

it really is funny how the ones that pretend to not like healthcare and think that doctors are bad. happily go see the bad doctors and avoid the actually trained doctors with actual equipment and skills to diagnose and treat.
sorry but having a back massage to cure cancer or a green tea to cure aids, is not treatment, no matter what high price they charge to make it look legit

maybe flip your mindset and realise the private homeopathic doctors that charge you high sums for herbs are the ones extorting you and not putting your symptoms into a proper diagnostic report