many poisons are "dead biological agents"
anthrax is "dead biological agent"
many acids are "dead biological agents"
viruses are "dead biological agents"

viruses have been around for thousands of years. different viruses, or ones that mutate over the decades and change as they pass different species causing new dangers periodically

bullets are "dead", .. no heartbeat, no pulse, no moveable parts. yet they can kill too if they enter a body.
many metals can kill too.

even plastic can kill.

pretending a virus is not a threat due to being "dead" is a meaningless and ignorant mindset of how viruses work.
acid, poison, viruses dont need to be "alive". dont need a heart beat or a pulse to kill or harm.

..
as for badecker thinking virus isolation requires crispr, sorry but crispr is not part of DNA/RNA analysis, crispr is not used in forensics.
the actual isolation principles of koch, bell and rivers have been done and proved to badecker many times in last couple years. he goes silent for a few months, forgets that he has been schooled and then starts again on a new topic asking old questions forgetting his education and pretending he has not been told

he does not need to do anything.
craig the human has to pay$100m into a company W&K owned by... craig.
so its just a paper statement saying he paid himself. essentially just a W&K letter head saying to the judge that W&K accepted payment of $100m and is final and settled and wont be disputed (letter wrote by craig)

what i can see actually happening is..
craig the human.. will play that he as a human is now bankrupt. and so file bankruptcy to dissolve all his debts he has personally accumulated and make his creditors at a loss. and then pretend (on paper) that W&K is now valued at +$100m to pretend W&K has collateral

he doesnt need to pay that.
the damages are for CSW to, in practical terms pay himself.
basically human CSW has to pay $100m to corporation company name, owned by CSW $100m.

-$100m out +$100m in = $0
all he has to do is from his corporate company letterhead tell the court the payment is satisfied and settled. thats it.
after all he is not going to argue with himself that he didnt pay himself, and try to sue himself..

i bought something with fiat in a retail store that only accepts fiat.

its regular price was $400. but was $300 on black friday. and now that christmas is approaching and stock is low its priced at $450

even fiat has volatility.

ive even seen simple things like milk vary by 25% depending on which retailer you choose.
fiat is not as stable as people think. we have just got used to its change so much we have stopped noticing the change.

i have just gone on ebay and typed in "UK XBOX X series 1TB" and the prices range from £700-£760
so fiat is no different to bitcoin in terms of variable pricing

when you put the same mindset of "sales event", "discount day", "convenience premium" and £retailer competition/monopoly" of fiat, and put it to bitcoin.
you will start to see a bitcoin price dip as a discount day (good for buyer bad for seller)
and when the price is hyped up its the "convenience premium" (good for seller bad for buyer)

so buy the dip(discount) sell the hype(premium)
buy low sell high

when transacting. merchants decide their level of risk of discount/premium when they set their prices to offer products for. they assume the risk. they assume they may make a loss if they dont time their sell of goods right (much like retailers make a loss on goods passed their 'sale by date') or when next gen fresher goods come about

they price this risk into the goods offering price.

if they want to sell something at ~$500(0.01btc today) but they think that by the time they get that btc and convert it to pay their own costs the price might dip by 10%. they might price it at 0.011btc instead to factor in this risk. ensuring it covers any possible dips.

many merchants even have 'live price' monitoring, where by the btc price of a website shopping cart calculates the amount of btc only at the time of purchase or uses dynamic webpages where the day/hour the customer is browsing has the price of goods match that day/hours price. and not some fixed html text they only update every 6 months (dynamic websites are a thing)

no its not about the noob GUI..
its about that since pruning even became an thing entirely. the whole definition has changed.
take cores system requirements of versions pre prune invention date. hard drive specification for running a core full node was excess of blockchain size. now since pruning that 'min system requirement' has altered.


electrum? oh please!(facepalm). everyone refers to electrum as lite wallet/spv.
(just google 'electrum litewallet' or google 'electrum spv' and you will see millions of references)
also
other wallets and nodes that are not fully verifying or not archiving are classed as lite/spv/thin

seriously.. you really thought electrum was a full node?(facepalm)

not every wallet/node should be classed as a full just to give noobs the deceptive and false belief they are helping, when they are not fully helping. its ok to use bitcoin without being a full helper. be ok that you use bitcoin without fully helping the network if you are choosing your lifestyle doesnt require/want to help.


ok. this topic has derailed into debate that pruners and litewallet users want to call them selves full noders just to have some namebadge of importance, like they are the top guys and supporting the network... shame though that reality has shown they actually chosen not to be supporting the network.
hey its ok that you chose not to support the network. just be honest with yourself about your choice and be happy that your not.

anyways yea this topic has derailed into some social debate of redefining old terms to fit noobs sentiment of false level of network support. by trying to class bitcoins blockchain as non-important and insignificant..
such a shame that soo many people think blockchains are insignificant.

im moving on. this topic is dead.

edit:
to answer below.. as he still cant quite grasp it.
"electrum server" is not a stand alone software that works byitself. it requires also using bitcoind.

even when electrum server is running but not doing all the "backbone of the network" stuff. its not a full node
emphasis backbone of the network.
(unless you think theymos is wrong wrong too.. and you as a lite wallet user know better than theymos)

as for previous stuff about nodes that support alternative networks all in one. those are called 'master nodes'

and i never wanted or tried to claim myself as important. im just shocked that some people want to pretend there is a social hierarchy of non-devs where they deserve to be top guy amungst the dev group, while not supporting the backbone of the network.
my premiss is not to be a top guy or a 'buzzword definition election committees director'. im just calling out reality to people that are deceived or have been deceived. its called just spelling out the obvious. it requires no rank system.

maybe mentioning 'backbone of the network' 3 times isnt subtle enough hint about the wiki definition

i understand that certain self-assumed 'community' electorates who feel empowered that they are the voice of all, think that full node is an invented term after pruning became a thing and refers to nodes that only verify.. just to ego boost that their less than offering is still felt as full offering. although they lack responding by mentioning the term of what a node is called that does do all the jobs(true full).

but by the looks of their forum activity numbers they have not been around since the days of proper full nodes terminology creation.. you know the days before full nodes even had the ability to prune and where by reality was that archiving by default and un-optionable was actually part of being a full node.

i understand in recent years the paradigm has changed where pruning is now the default and archiving is now optional.. . but that does not change what full meant right from the start(when full nodes meant full job).

as for quoting wiki.. you might want to read a little more then your prefered snippet

again even the wiki is a few month out of date because now the default is that prune is ticked and to now archive, the option needs to be unticked. so as you can see things have changed where definitions have moved the goal post RECENTLY

it only became efficient to not archive SINCE pruning became an option. because full nodes before pruning was even a thing, was default store entire blockchain because there was no choice within a full node not to archive.

so yea. your basically saying the default definition of storing the blockchain has been re-defined since pruned was invented. and so you now want to say and pretend its always been a less=full scenario even when real history shows that 'full' was in its original terminology full=full

..
with all that said. if you want to be a pruned node. thats ok for you. just be honest that you are a pruned node and happy being one. no need for deception. no need to boost your level of involvement while not actually being able to perform the higher level of involvement. just be honest and happy with your choice to be limited part of the networks security and decentralisation. then be happy to learn what that limited level of network support your node is or is not helping with. and not assume you are fully supporting the network in full, by simply redefining your version of 'full'

nothing really revealing in that document that other hotels dont do..
.. however, they really have a thing for ordering alot of cheese. like 3x the amount compared to meat

ok there we have it.
it looks like tromp took a secret vote and elected bitcoin full nodes EG 'core' as just a litewallet, thats job is nothing to do with decentralising the network by offering IBD, getdata to peers.
(facepalm)

[sarcasm]
guess thats case closed then..
core devs dont need to code any parts of core relating to archiving the blockchain or providing peers with blocks older than the latest 288blocks

guess tromps community decided. bitcoin does not rely on blockchains. death to the un-needed blockchain i guess.. tromp has decided that blockchains are not important.

praise be tromp, the election committee director, the master of what core is responsible for, praise be
[/sarcasm]

ill leave tromp with one question.
if full means only certain features. then what terminology is there for a node that offers not just verification, but the full bitcoin offering of features such as verification AND archiving AND full peers services....

here is the funny thing. 'full node' was a term that existed before pruning existed. so pretending that pruning is full, is a false idea and a rewrite of history

lets await tromp to take another secret poll and come up with a new terminology
(isnt it weird that in my first post on this topic i said that too many people like to argue buzzwords, rewriting reality and thus making the buzzwords meaningless in their definition)


if you have the blockchain. (important) you can check utxo to find its block, then its blockhash, and compare against the block contents. find the transaction in question, see it exists. then check the entire chain of blockhashes match up to what they suppose to be, and yep. you can see if there were edits or not.
EG edit one transaction from 2010 edits that blocks hash and all blockhashes there after meaning the latest blocks hash wont be the same as your edited latest blocks hash

you cant do all this if you prune, unless you continually prompt a third party to re-send you all the data again
(isnt it weird that one of the first rebuttals to me was that certain things didnt need explaining because it was assumed they knew the basics already.. guess not)

anyways, seems this topic is going no where fast where buzzwords dont mean what they intend because half a job is a full job, as voted.  and blockchains are not important and not part of the protocol that fullnodes are involved in. as voted by the established community (facepalm)

bored now. moving on

a market price is decided by the coins IN THE EXCHANGE
most exchanges have like 700k coins. 3.3% of all coins.

all prices are about the 3% . the other 87% of all possible coins are hoarded in cold store by private individuals and do not affect the market price at all

saylor bought the dip??
last i checked his latest acquisition of 7000 coins was at an average of $59k each.. not really a dip.

oh well.. if a forum title says it, a meme says it and a video says it. then forget the real price. and just say he bought the dip?right?!

lets all just make new posts based on what we find on twitter without checking and without asking ourselves is it even relevant to reality or worthy of posting, all because trend following..

with 90% is mined meaning only 10% left. then 'supply/demand' basic math would be 10x of the price of when the first coin was mined.
because there is 10X less supply left to be produced.

the price however is over 400,000x the price of 2009. .. so i think the laws of supply demand are working.

i wont go into the finer details that the market price, is only established by the current price of one market order lines offering of under 1btc at any one time. and not the entire coins ever made.
nor that the supply/demand that affects the market price of the top orderline is limited to only the colection of orderlines of what exchanges have on deposit, rather than the entire coins created.
put simply market prices are established by the supply of the market(exchange) not by the entire networks coins

but just be thankful that the price is over 400,000x more then the price in 2009

its not about being forced to.

lets use a mcdonald employee analogy. maybe something more understandable for some
its about not pretending you deserve a 5star gold badge, when you only offer a 1 star service. its about being honest with yourself and others that if you choose to only offer a 1 star service, accept that fact that you are a 1 star service member. be ok that you are a one star member. and stop trying to pretend your 5star contributor.

it doesnt matter if you make 1000 more posts saying the 1star training is all that is needed to be 5star.. reality is there are more things then the 1 star offering involved to be given the 5star badge.
yes 5star contributors also do 1star tasks... along with many other tasks. but that does not make a 1 star member a 5 star member just because "but 5star guys does my job too'. the 1star member still needs to do more then a 1 star task to be promoted. ignoring all the other jobs a 5star member does, pretending they are insignificant. does not earn you a promotion
just because your a burger flipper and then you see the manager also flips burgers. does not then mean you get to call yourself a manager because you both flip burgers. the manager does other tasks too. which is why he is the manager


its about stop deceiving others that your a full service 5 star contributor. its about realising what you are not contributing to, and thus accepting that lesser position and the hazards to you and others  for not being able to do it all.

its simply that you can be a pruner. but call yourself a pruner not a 'full node'.
and no, dont demote a full node description to being 'just verification'. because a full node is not just about verification. there is alot more too it. and if you are still unsure of all the features.. learn

there are many many many things that involve being a full node. not just that at some point in time you verified something.. because months later that set cant be trusted
it has no UTXOset hash to compare to other peers UTXOset to verify the set has not been edited

nodes with nothing more then the lastest 288 blocks and a utxo set cannot in their true heart be 100% sure that their utxo set will never be compromised. they cannot also truly know for sure if it ever was. nor can they help other nodes.
maybe people need to revise and study and research what blockchains offer that spreadsheet accounting doesnt

its not about forcing people to be full nodes. its about getting pruners to accept their limited ability due to their own choice to limit what they do.

sorry but pruners do not get a 5star gold badge. they have not earned the promotion.

again to try bringing the discussion back on topic to the topic creators question
having a whole network of nodes with just 288 latest blocks and then a dataset of unspent values. puts the network at big risk. blockchains were invented for a good reason, doing something that spreadsheet balance accounting cant
it doesnt matter if at some point in the past you checked the balances were real. once verified if you are only storing a balance sheet of what you believe is still unspent. that sheet can become compromised and you have nothing on your system to check it against.
a dataset of unspents should never be used as "same security as blockchains" because it lacks the evidence of origins to ensure no compromise happened. a dataset of unspents should only be used as a quick index to find the real unspent on the actual blockchain. to then double verify the unspent is real when new transactions appear.

seems pooya is stuck on the 'only verification'=full features..


actually although you think you have a full verified UTXO set of all unspents from block 0 to say block 712k.. can you verify that today? right now! without requesting a new IBD to compare it to???
(answer is no)

heres the thing. you might have been online for 12 years and stayed synced and decided to prune say 6 months ago. you might have just come online 6 months ago and IBD and then pruned that month.
but here is the question for you.
what if your computer glitched 4 months ago or a hacker got in and added his own false utxo to your utxo set.

can you now with just your UTXO set verify today that no one slipped in a utxo into your set.
no. you cant
can you prove that a tx in your utxo set is today valid, when some chain re-org happens.. no you cant

your UTXO set is only as good as the minute you verify it. anything after that, the utxo set by itself cant be fully trusted. loss of data, virus, hacks. and boom your utxoset is compromised

yet having the blockdata to support it allows you to seek the utxo from the set(like reading an index of a book). and then compare it to the blockchain.
a utxo set is only useful to save having to find the tx via reading all blocks every time a transaction appears.

its just like an index of a book to save you having to read the whole book every time just to find a reference.
a utxo set is not good for verified accounting. its not good for security. its not good for proving the transaction has a real utxo.. because your utxo set can be compromised at any time and there is no way you can tell

again there is a reason why blockchains become popular compared to spreadsheet balance accounting

verification of transactions is only one part of what a node does.
just because its the one part you only care about or the only part you want. does not mean its the only thing a node does
a full node does many many many other things.
and needs to perform and offer ALL those MANY things to be classed as full.

assuming a node just has to verify to be "full" is not full

if you think that being "full" is only about verification. then you need to redefined your assumption of what being a full node actually involves.

the real challenge seems you be certain peoples grasp of the concept of full, as oppose to 'less than, but pretends to be full'.

getting back to a technical discussion of this topic after the myriad of social drama discussion about less=full.

having the full blockchain means you can contribute to the network to offer(along with other things) not just Initial block download to peers, not just 'getdata' of random blocks, not just ability to sync up more than the last 2 days.
also theres are things like having the blockdata distributed so there are many copies in many countries to avoid any country 'pulling the plug'. having the data distributed to allow more choice of peer connections. having the data distributed so peers dont rely on a small cluster of attackable nodes

if the whole network (as the topic creators thoughts mention) only had the last month of transactions and a (UTXOSET) list of unspent transactions. where there was no taint or proof of that values initial creation from its original coin reward. then that puts the network at risk of UTXO virus attacks to rewrite sets. it puts the whole true accountability of all true coin at risk. along with other problems.

there is a reason that blockchains have become a success compared to spreadsheet accounting of 'live balance'. no one can just slip in a transaction with an old date and pretend its valid simply because they managed to send everyone their edited utxoset

its ok you you personally want to prune for any personal reason. just dont then pretend to be a full contributor to the network and dont tell others they are fully contributing when you talk them into pruning. just be honest and tell them you and them will be offering less then full network contribution and less than fulll features for you and them you take advantage of

(my last post on this discussion of less or full, as its a shame that i even have to debate such a basic concept to people that rebutt that basics dont need to be mentioned because it should be assumed they know)

to pooya:

you are right merchants need extra code to sieve through the block data to show the taint path. but its impossible to use their extra code to read the blocks to get the taint path of new incoming transactions unless... wait for it. they have the blocks of previous transactions to check the path.
you will be surprised that any decent merchant that cares enough about taint and customer transactions will actually want to be a full node. and have extra code ontop to do more beautiful things with the block data for their own independent purposes.(emphasis fully independent)

much like any decent business will have its own spreadsheet software and tax accountant software, instead of relying on 3rd party accountants

so try not to assume that all merchants are lite wallets and use third parties

after all the whole trust a third party thing you assume all merchants do, is not what bitcoin is about.
and its a shame that you think that users should trust third parties and use them because a decision to prune means they have to use third parties.
i think you shot yourself in the foot by admitting that those that do prune should and do trust third parties. it kinda rips apart your whole argument about 'full' if you are saying pruned nodes then use third parties for things a real full node can offer within the merchants own system..
.. doesnt really sound much of a rebuttal for your version of 'full' if you admit that they need to use third parties.
...
you did indirectly say selected features. because by your own admission you are not archiving so you have selectively chosen that certain features and services and options of a node are not to be used, hense no longer full
if i was to number all the features and the total was say 1037. defining FULL node. and your node wasnt offering all of them. even say 1036. then thats not full. thats 'less than'

by your own admission you say:
"you think I disagree with "pruned nodes contribute less to the network", but I'm not"
but then you pretend pruned nodes dont offer less because you believe pruned nodes are full.
less is not full.. less is less

if you went to a bar fo a pint of beer. there are 14 barman. the first you approach poured a pint. and then spilled 95% of it, but still gave you the glass of the remaining 5% froth. he can prove he poured a full pint into the glass. but is only offering you the 5% froth. would you accept that the glass is still a full pint. would you accept the barman offered you a full pint service.

in reality, you should think that the barman is useless if everytime you ask for a pint you only get 5% froth and go find another barman that can offer a full pint service. a fully trained barman that does contribute to the bar
in reality, you might even complain to someone that the barman is not contributing to the bars success.
in reality, you would NOT go on some site and leave a 5star review for the useless barman saying he is a fully skilled barman.
what if out of the other 13 barman you had the same problem with 10more barman not being fully trained..
and its impossible to get served by the 3 fully trained barmen because they are super busy serving regulars that came before you that know which barmen are fully trained. and also the queue of customers that got a bad service and are now queuing up with what little talent remains in the bar. making your experience miserable and slow, making you not want to have a pint altogether and making you not even want to be a fully trained barman in a future career as you see the pressure the 3 fully trained guys are under

as for your last statement that you think the scenario should be 'better to have 3k full 11k pruned rather than just 3k full'
actually no. because in the 3k full 11k pruned. those 3k are under more intense data pressure contributing to leachers. meaning the other peers within the 3k full nodes are getting slower speeds amongst themselves
and those leachers are not then contributing to help new full nodes get their IBD either.
the real scenario is to grow the full node population.


because yet again it needs to be mentioned. by trying to deceive people that being a prune is the same network contribution as being full, can and has made some full noders downgrade. thus instead of having 10k full nodes. its now ~3k.. because. wait for it.. people(like yourself) think that there is no harm and no loss of contribution to the network by being a pruner

sorry to inform you again. pruned nodes dont fully contribute to the network, they actually put more pressure on the ones that do.

so lets just stop the flip floppy changing the answer just to have a reason to debate.
make the decision
a. pruners dont help contribute towards the network and being pruned lessens what you can do/offer
b. remain in the disbelief that being pruned is full ability and full service offering to the peer network

i dont need the answer. the answer is for you to settle your own mind with.
less is not full

anyways, enjoy your 5% froth. just dont tell people your drinking a full pint. your a lightweight, cheap date

the case revolves around the company W&K. created in 2013. and who are the directors/founders of the company

its not to do with satoshi proof.
the crap media of coingeek is making it sound like its to do with satoshi proof

but the actual court stuff is to do with ownership claims of a company.. a company that was not even in existance in 2008-2011

the court did not need to see proof of the collateral of the company. because the case was not about the collateral. it didnt need to legally ensure the collateral was real or that the company was legally valued at 110kcoin. because it was not what the court was judging.(both parties just said they agree thats the company value, thus no contention to need to prove)

again the verdict was not about ownership and proof of custody of the coins. it was just about the company

the whole 'one party owes 50% of XX' claim. does not mean proof that X exists within one or both parties. it just means that both parties made a verbal agreement of those terms that one needs to pay the other 50% of XX. even if XX does not exist between them.

put it this way.
lets make up an item. 'pink fluffy eggs with spikes'(something that does not exist in reality)
i can set up a company with someone and claim we have 1million P.F.E.W.S. and later we can disagree on who owns a company.
we can go to court and both make claims of ownership of the company and say that there are 1million p.f.e.w.s as collateral in a company. and whoever wins a trial about the company ownership gets to keep the p.f.e.w.s.
the trial shows i win the company name and ownership.
but the existence of the p.f.e.w.s is still not proved, nor had to be,
any payment arrangement of one side to the other is then back to me and the partner in private. whereby i can then just tell the judge without any movement of p.f.e.w.s that i am settled and received my half and happy that the trial is over.

none of this creates p.f.e.w.s nor does it prove p.f.e.w.s ever existed in the companies custody

yes blockchain data.
this is not some science website that is asking for a thesis on particle manipulation related to the suns radiation.
of course when discussing bitcoin nodes/peers and the data they receive relating to the blockchain, that data means blockchain data(whole or part is no specific).

this whole topic is about blockchain data.
it does not mean data involving the spectral range of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. or any other data imaginable. it means on this website about bitcoin. in this category of technical discussion about bitcoin. in this topic of bitcoins blockchain.. yes data=blockchain data
1+1+1=3

now stop the social drama tactics.

if you are trying to play chicken(2) and egg(1)
the answer is egg.
step 0 duck+turkey create an egg(1) egg hatches and its a chicken(2) chicken lays an egg(1) another chicken comes out.. and so on. .. egg then chicken(rinse and repeat)

so to get data(2) someone needs to have data(1)... 1 comes before 2
pools create the data(1) peers get data(2) peer stores data(1) other peers get data(2)

if your pretending to be an egg farm but none of your chickens can produce eggs to feed customers. your not an egg farm.
just because you received an egg and verified for your own purposes that it is indeed a chicken by letting it hatch in your farm. but then not allowing that chicken to then produce eggs for others. does not make you a full egg farm

ignoring your poke, very obvious

dont start poking the bear with grammar debates as that just lessens your stance and makes you look like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel of argument just to poke the bear.

if you dont understand that to get data, other people need to have the data to give. so the first important step is that people have the data.
so again "being able to get the data from other peers because they have the data to give is step one of that process"

yes pruned nodes as highlighted deceived into thinking they are full nodes, need to stop being deceived that they are full nodes helping the network..

now stop trying to make grammar/personal arguments for sole purpose causing drama.
your not the first that tried. and yes although i do usually bite. your not worth it.

..
point is archiving is important to being a full node for many reasons
archiving helps other peers:
Initial block download(IBD)
random block retrieval 'getdata'
resync more then just latest couple days
prevent easy chain re-orgs

it also helps yourself by:
being able to offer all of the above plus:
being able to follow taint of new transactions back to their original coin reward creation
any virus targetting utxoset doesnt require re-IBDing
plus more

addressing post below
when my post clearly addresses the pruners, by beginning the sentence 'if you want to prune thats your choice' then there is no argument about if i am addressing pruners in that sentence.

if i say that those needing data first, have to get data and that data can only be obtained if other users have the data. then clearly having the data is a important first step.

if however you ignore the context of whats been said and just want to knitpick HOW it was said. then you have missed the points entirely and just want to convert this topic into some social drama pretending your the victim and im the instigator. maybe next time concentrate on the context of WHAT is being said. not HOW.
this is not the first time grammar pokers try to get bit then cry victim. even when the original quotes they pretend not to understand did actually make sense. especially when they are willing to spend hours social drama arguing grammar but not spending 20 seconds just reading the context.

wright has no value.
his only earnings are from speaking jobs at conventions.
he has a sugar daddy called calvin ayre who is fronting the legal costs where wright promises ayre's returns in income from projects and books deals and movie deals.
makes me laugh how much ayre's has fronted for wright and hopes to get rich from wright.. never gonna happen

to add to this,
many businesses want to be custodial partner hubs. getting users to lock funds up into co-signed contracts where the user requires the consent and signature of their contracted partner to authorise fund movements.
one step down from that. they then want to use an alternative networks that has no blockchain or consensus to allow micropayments, which by their very nature does not have the same security as blockchains.

these naive users still want to pretend its "bitcoin" even when its a different network, a non blockchain network and where the units of measure are not even understood by the bitcoin network.

try to be very risk aware and cautious of people that promote these other networks as 'bitcoin'. and try to correct such people when they overhype their non blockchain offerings as 'bitcoin'