[i have nothing against anyone that actually wishes to proceed the entire process of actual transitioning via all the lengthy medical procedures and surguries and medications and hormone therapies, if it leads to them living a life that fulfils their life..however those just social trending a new trend of pronouns for social discourse because it sounds cool to put themselves into some label for some other reason of pretending they are a penguin, two spirit animal or helicopter or a different biology to their birth determined biology.. thats not the same thing]

And, not that it's relevant to the topic in any way, franky1 is also a massive transphobe.  Just an all-round piece of shit in general, really.

i am not anti-trans... i am anti-trends

trans is not as you think it is.. (its not about social games of discourse of mindset, bickering of mindsets)
analogy
someone deciding when they are a kid they want to be a fire officer. does not mean they get to be a fire officer just by their say so.. without training or skill or passing a test.... other people should not be forced into saying he is a fireman just on his say so.. there is actually a process involved in transitioning from one job role to another...
when kids do it, its cute, people play along(for a while) because they know its a game and a phase. but it does not make a kid a fire officer just on a kids say so

when someone is just confused about something due to some silly social media game they seen on social media.. they are not truly transgender, they are just playing childish games of wanting to be something they seen in social trends of what they seen on a screen

andrew chow is still andrew chow. even if he wants to claim he is something else. just looking at him you can tell he is still andrew.
listening to his voice is obvious he is still andrew
also it was his parents that named him andrew and doctors that had medical evidence that he is a guy(andrew) and they signed a birth certificate verifying gender and name and family members
if he wants to say andrew is dead(usual social narrative of these types of people) then his parents should file a murder investigation

if he is actually going through proper medical transition. then he should go through that process and complete it.... and not just playing social mind games to course discourse generated just to insult people that dont believe in his mindscape..

i have nothing against anyone that actually wishes to proceed the entire process of actual transitioning via all the lengthy medical procedures and surguries and medications and hormone therapies, if it leads to them living a life that fulfils their life..
however those just social trending a new trend of pronouns for social discourse because it sounds cool to put themselves into some label for some other reason of pretending they are a penguin, two spirit animal or helicopter or a different biology to their birth determined biology.. thats not the same thing

there is a process.. some people just have identity crisis. which can be worked out using therapy. EG they think they will get treated differently or get some compassion if they pretend to be something different..
however there is also others that after a process of therapy to actually diagnose them, they realise they actually are unequivocally better off as properly transitioning via hormones, medical interventions to change their gender (not just mind games/social drama trends)
if andrew does not have realistic plans of genital surgery. he is not actually wanting to transition

analogy
if you are not committed to do the processes needed to become a fire officer and be that role. you are not a fireman. you are just play acting as one

so the sentencing is in.. and it seems he is getting 25 years. good(shoulda got longer)
obviously he will try and appeal it. but atleast he isnt going to get to play CEO again any time soon (he was hoping to be allowed to be free to get back to business to 'make everyone whole' unpunished)

this might make a few other scammers realise trading in crypto does not alleviate them of the law, a scam is still a scam no matter what the asset/value/currency is

[saving vs investing]

in many economic topics of this forum i see many people have misconceptions..

saving vs investing
many quote how savings should be avoided and people should throw every penny into investing due to inflation.. where investing earns more
let me clarify

saving is not a long term thing. not a wealth creation thing.
saving is a temporary play to only save a small amount to literally SAVE people from incidents of rainy day, emergencies where they need quick access to money. to literally SAVE you from having to resort to selling investments at a loss or using debt in an emergency.
you are not suppose to put all wealth into savings,

the gameplay is simple.
if you income is say 2000units of any currency(denomination is not important its just a demo)
and say
housing was 800 (40%)
groceries was 400 (20%)
bills was 300(15%)
leaves you with 500(25%) of excess

for 3 months save the 500 to get a rainy day savings pot to cover a month of bills and essentials
then after that put 500 into investing. knowing if your salary doesnt arrive on time or you lose a job and takes you a month to find ANY other job/start getting social security(unemployment). you dont then need to extract investments or use credit cards/debt. because the savings will save you

as for the inflation concern. a 4% inflation devalue of 1500 is only 60. by which any time over the year you can add in 60 to top up savings to equate to next years rate of bills
EG
5 a month of the 500 excess goes to savings to keep savings at a rate adjacent to rising bills cost. so you can still invest 495 until you get a salary pay rise that the counters the depletion
so the fears and misquotes of people suggesting not to save at all and throw everything into investment are not as well guided as they seemed
saving will save you from investing badly and save you from panicking in dire times to not need to sell investments at a loss,
in short savings will save you

minimalism vs frugality
alot of people think to save/invest requires being super frugal, live under a rock like a hermit and never spend. this is not the case
instead develop a minimalist lifestyle.
decide what actually important to your life. what things serve a purpose/function, gives lasting memories.. and spend wisely.
do you need all the clutter of dozens of branded shoes, clothing, household luxuries/decorations.
or can you find the minimalist unbranded options that serve a regular function to only need a couple items

develop it further. do you really need the lavish new luxury car, or just a minimal model that gets you from A to B
do you really need to pay premium transport, carry 5 luggage bags charging extra at airport, containing every item of clothing and gadget your house had. and then sitting in first class on a plane... or can you just put a weeks worth of underwear and shirts/pants into one bag and sit in economy.

frugality of hermit crab living can be a short term aid. but at somepoint going super frugal fails itself because living on "survival" mode too long is a mental break that cant last. the stress of surviving and not living will become its own downfall which usually ends up with people splurging in excess to get that feel good feeling to regain sanity.
so instead be wise about your spending. note wasteful. make purposeful decisions on things that make your life have good long term feelings/memories. and cut out on the wasteful stuff you usually dont care about a week after purchase

so lets show you how people think about money
(example people are 20yo in 2020)

20yo female: "i want to have a $10k pair of high heels before im 24yo"
20yo male: "i want to have a $10k rolex before im 24yo"

20yo female: "i found a chinese knock-off heals for $2k, thats like 20% price, so i have $8k FREE money"
20yo male: "i invested $10k in crypto 2020"

21yo female: "i have $8k FREE i can get matching dress and purse and get my hair done and have a spa week(spends $5k) for FREE"
21yo male: "still hoarding crypto"

23yo female: "i have $3k FREE, oops shoes broke. oh inflation puts replacements at $3k, oh well still FREE"
23yo male: "still hoarding crypto"

24yo female: "i have $0k but i have my cheap out of fashion shoes and a smelly used dress i shouldnt wear again"
24yo male: "still hoarding crypto, i could buy 4 rolexes and still have money left"

very simple idea,
the current forum url to get to meta https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0
have
meta.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=24.0

for main bitcoin discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0
have
main.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=1.0

for for economics https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=7.0
have
economics.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=7.0

and for Development & Technical Discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0
have
ass-kiss-dev.bitcointalk.org aswell that redirects to board=6.0

last one was a sarcasm joke.
but the point is it would make things easier to link to different sections using a easy to remember addresses
im not suggesting redoing the whole set-up nor changing the board numbering system.
its not about editing or changing SMF software/database

 im suggesting adding extra url re-directs to the domain management

just a random fun fact about money/currency/economics

in old money 1bit was a single 'pieces of 8' of a dollar coin
in crypto 1bit is 100sat

when bitcoin is $125k/btc  1bit(100sat) is worth 1bit(8th of a dollar)

enjoy that thought when the time comes

so i see many people talk about their low incomes and their expenses and how to economise to either support a nice lifestyle or to maximise investments..

and so here is 2 scenarios of people on $15/hour and $20/hour and a basic breakdown of expected expense..
things like putting 15% into pension before tax.
then after tax putting ~10% into savings/personal choice investments
30% into housing. and so on



so lets see people views on how they would tweak the numbers of expenses to their personal preference to still cover essentials but maximise either a nicer lifestyle or more investing

its not a marked exam, its a fun experiment

to make it easy you can copy below to then adjust in your own post

                $15/h         total 1990                 ||                      $20/h       total 2514
                                                                 ||
            invest[$200]        housing[$600]      ||             invest[$250]        housing[$755]            
               bills[$400]      transport[$200]      ||                bills[$505]      transport[$250]
        groceries[$400]        clothing[$90 ]      ||         groceries[$504]        clothing[$125]
           repairs[$40]          hobbies[$20]       ||            repairs[$50]          hobbies[$25]
entertainment[$20]         luxuries[$20]        ||  entertainment[$25]         luxuries[$25]

maybe explain your choices too

so i have been starting to plan out some finances ready for the run upto the 2025 ATH and the correction after. so thought its time to rearrange some bank accounts

i have not visited a bank branch in 15 years so my previous experience(though great) is outdated
i decided id actually step inside a bank branch and see what advice they give(seeing if they will pitch me some investment plans that are better than standard bank interest(you know up-selling their product range))

i was expecting a greeter at the entrance asking what service ill need to work out if i need a sit down adviser, or go to the cashiers desk or book a consultation..
..upon entering. no one

i walk around the corner to see what would be the greeter hiding away to the side playing on their personal phone.

i approached and got the greeters attention and got the greeting where they asked how they can help
i told them i want to possibly close some account, open other accounts and shuffle some money around

their first response was "you can do it online"
and my first response was "but my feet are standing right infront of you"

i think they got the hint and asked me to sit down as they walked off to get their corporate tablet.
they accessed my account and i started describing how i was looking for good interest rate accounts.

they with excitement and enthusiasm told me the accounts i was interested in changing were great interest rates (under 2% and under 1%)
i informed them that its 2023 and there are interest rates on offer by their own company of 4-5% which they should be promoting to me

they informed me i could go online and see what best accounts are on offer. and i repeated i am now sitting in a bank branch which i took the effort to visit specifically for the personal service of doing it in branch.

they reluctantly started explaining the accounts. how the 5% AER(annual) was variable. and i said i dont mind about future years as long as its 5% this year. meaning 100k now= 105k this time next year.
they explained no it doesnt work like that, its variable per month. to which i explained. no the A of AER is ANNUAL.., its simple math
5% annual equivalent rate is £100k in = 105k after interest in 12 months.

they didnt want to debate, so instead told me i can go online to find out more, and then moved the conversation to discuss a 4% that was "fixed for 1 year"
i said fine ill take it... set it up for me and then we can move some money into it straight away

and here is the kicker
the bank branch adviser said they do not open accounts in branch i would have to go online..

and so i made a great suggestion. they should resign if they cant do a banking job, they should close their doors and put a sign up in the window that says "go online" as thats really all the advice they want to give/offer.

..
i think the banking sector is ready for a downsize and to go fully online soon anyways.
i couldnt believe it, 2023 and a bank branch cant even open an account for someone standing right infront of them
and in the space of 7 minutes told me to go online 4 times

(i have no problem doing it all online but i wanted to see what the personal face to face experience was)
(i wasnt actually interested in 4-5% interest as most fiat would have been pushed into investments of better interest yield/deflationary assets)

delete

[theindividuals who ultimately own or control the company. They will haveto report the information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network(FinCEN). FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.]

if you run a business which you registered to a PO Box or virtual office or accountant to hide real information.. be warned,
the Fed has made it law from january 2024 that businesses need to file real information on the business owner

www.fincen.gov/boi

In 2021, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act. This law
creates a beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part
of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or
benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque
ownership structures

Beginning on January 1, 2024, many companies in the United States
will have to report information about their beneficial owners, i.e., the
individuals who ultimately own or control the company. They will have
to report the information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN). FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

When Do I Report?
Reports will be accepted starting on January 1, 2024.
• If your company was created or registered prior to January 1, 2024,
you will have until January 1, 2025 to report BOI.
• If your company is created or registered on or after January 1,
2024, you must report BOI within 30 days of notice of creation or
registration.
• Any updates or corrections to beneficial ownership information that
you previously filed with FinCEN must be submitted within 30 days.
FinCEN cannot accept reports before January 1, 2024

this means real names of company owner and a real residency address

ok so i done some math

i done some mortgage calculators of a £100k property from 2003 to 2023(20year mortgage 6%) and also checked the average house price increase over 20 years to calculate how much a sell value for a 2003 £100k house would be today

well a £100k house mortgage ends up needing £168k of money handed over($68k interest), over 20years
the £100k in 2003 house would resell for £195k this year

leaving a £27k profit which after paying in £168k means only 16%profit over 20 years or 0.8% a year

now for inflation
2003 £168k = 840k walmart baked beans (20p each)
2023 £195k = 696k walmart baked beans (28p each)

if someone bought baked beans instead of a house in 2003 they would have bought more beans than they would if they bought a house, sold a house in 2023 and then bought beans

so yes real estate is a bad investment over the last 20 years it didnt hedge inflation

 many who follow my posts know that my opinion of the economic limits of market speculation are based on the whole planet value vs premium of mining costs.. whereby the lowest cost on planet fixes a support that no one wants to sell below because no one can acquire for less.. and sellers wont sell for a loss and shorters know they cant acquire for less. so sell orders run out below the limit..

and if everyone on the planet can mine for less then a premium then no one wants to buy, and instead people want to sell for profit causing a resistance.. basically no buyers lots of sellers, price falls again

for me this has been proven by calculating min and max mining costs over time and then looking at the market speculation price and seeing the price ALWAYS sat inbetween the value premium limits.
there was reasons it maxed out at 20k in 2017, 70k in 2021 and bottomed out at $17k in 2022 (testing the premium premium value respectively)

but here is the thing..
when a ETF is approved and a 'sponsor'(trust manager) wants to recruit new broker/agents to buy up baskets of bitcoin to use as custodianised collateral to create shares in the sponsors platform.. these ETF agent/brokers will buy and change the markets natural premium economics if they need to rush to purchase bitcoin.. or as the fiat guys would say "raise the roof" of whats deemed 'premium'/resistance of the world market of bitcoin

i was harshly denying the possibility of bitcoin raising the roof to "$1m/btc soon" due to the natural premium limits where well embedded bitcoiners would switch from buying to mining-selling once nearing the natural economic premium.. but these fiat brokers wanting to get shares priced in fiat but pegged to btc.. will break the natural paradigm(emphasis should there be a much needed ulk purchase at premium)

but i still cant see a $1m in 2024. but more than $150k premium is possible.. just how much more then $150k premium roof raise is a question for speculation board. .. its upto the market of possible ETF agents buying baskets.. and also naturally pushed up higher over the next year due to mining cost and halving.. pushing the natural premium roof higher

so a safe assumption is that if hashrate does not tank. the post halving will see a natural premium roof of $300k which could be raised higher if there are many basket purchases by fiat guys not understanding the bitcoin ecosystem of value-premium and just extreme FOMO'ing it

now with that said
if greyscale gets approved they already have many baskets(630k btc locked) and wont want to recruit extra agents to add more shares to then sell on their platform. as thats competing agaisnt the shares grayscale will be offering themselves at first, they wont want to saturate the share market, so they wont be pushing for extra baskets for months..
however if ark(share21) which only has just 150btc yep just 150. they will definitely be recruiting agents to buy baskets of btc to lock up straight away
as for the rest inbetween. well thats another speculative board type of conversation

when the rich say 'ill give 95% of my billion away over my lifetime' they do not mean if they have $1b today they will be at $50m at death. what they actually mean is:

they have $1b in a bank account at 6% interest
meaning it earns $60m a year.
they give just $50m yearly interest away for the next 19 years ... (totalling the $950m pledge)
yet keeping the $1b lump plus earning $10m of personal spending per year

also the % interest is usually more than 6% but they only give 5% to meet their humanitarian/altruistic hustle pledge

enjoy that thought next time the rich try to make it sound like they are going to give up their wealth for humanity.. because reality is they are not.

OK so over the years i have read many regulations and  CBDC whitepapers and policies where i was under the implied impression that payment services had a data protection policy and regulation, in which with regards to other regulations and policies suggested that payment services only had to report information of customers to specific authorities if customers breached certain suspicion thresholds or value thresholds. where by depending on the event only that threshold event(not all records) is forwarded on to the specific authority dealing with that particular event. EG value amount thresholds go to the tax office and suspicion of criminal behaviour goes to the financial crimes department. where those departments investigate to see if it warrants a deeper look to then get a court order to then and only then gain access to that customers full records/data held by the payment services(bank)

however many people in this forum were talking about CBDC how they will surveill and sanction people for stupid reasons.. and until this week i thought that was tin foil myth stuff.. because the whitepapers and policies WERE like the current due process mentioned first paragraph. yep even the likes of china's CBDC had payment services keeping the data and authorities only requesting full data with court order

however reading this: (about UK government and people in receipt of social security (unemployment/disability/pensions))

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-propose-investigators-look-at-where-people-spend-their-money-to-stop-benefit-fraud/ar-AA1jnkOY?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&cvid=2f3bbc2212ad4f89e9402ec193b72501&ei=11

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is looking at potential legislative measures to help reduce levels of fraud, error and debt in the benefits system, as set out in the May 2022 policy paper, 'Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System'.
The potential legislative measures include providing greater third-party access to data, which could see trained investigators collecting information from banks on where claimants are spending money. Trained investigators would also be able to execute search and seizure orders and make arrests,

this got me thinking.

UK government want full access to every spending habit of people on social security purely to find odd spending habits they can use to stop paying vulnerable claiming people

i get it there are lots of fraudsters.. but if someone is privately working but pretending to be housebound the tax authorities can simply request a report on anyone in receipt of more then just social security.



if this new access policy was to be activated and if UK were to make a CBDC giving out some "universal basic income"(replacing social security) they would want to see how people are spending it(so the tin foil hatters were not so insane after all)

for instance the easy ones, if you say you are disabled and unable to walk 100m. if they spot a "card present" transaction in a supermarket. knowing these stores are long aisle of walking and card present means its someone physically in the store. they can claim you are not disabled because you were able to go shopping.. and your social security income/CBDC universal income stops
yes i can understand that someone genuinely housebound-disabled wouldnt be able to shop around a large supermarket. but their carer could. whereby someones payments are stopped until the disabled person can (months later) defend their case to explain the carer had the card in question. to re-initialise the payments

this can also be for instance if you have an add-on payment due to level of support needed. EG pay for a carer to cook for you. but they see instead of paying a care provider you are shown to have just ordered via uber-eats. this can have implications that you do not need a carer and that add-on stops.. again your unable to cook for yourself so order ubereats as a convenience compared to hiring a personal chef.. but that can only be defended at a later date appeal
..
before this i had the (false sense of trust) mindset that payment processors only had policies/legislation to reveal vague accounting information to central authority in a SARS report IF the payment processor found possible suspicions of crimes(laundering and such). where a court order was needed for full access data..

however just being in receipt of central government social security will soon allow the social security department to read ALL of your income and spending habits to then see if they can find a crime/suspicion

so again. it seems the dystopia of CBDC conspiracy is actually a possibility

yesterday the jury decided. guilty on all 7 charges. with sentencing to be decided next march(28th) 2024

also the feds have another 5 or so other charges it didnt push this year, but may press charges against him before or after next march, to add extra possible time to his sentencing

hope this teaches other dodgy CEX's a large lesson

Sam Bankman-Fried, once hailed as a genius in cryptocurrency, was found guilty Thursday of all fraud counts against him, a year after his exchange, FTX, imploded and practically wiped out thousands of customers.

The verdict was reached around 7:40 p.m. ET, about four hours after the federal jury in Manhattan began deliberations.

Bankman-Fried “perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds in American history,” Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said after the verdict.

Bankman-Fried faces up to 110 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for March 28

which would you prefer to receive?
a. $480,000 lottery win as payments spread over 96months(8 years) of $5k a month
b. $480,000 lottery win as payment lumpsum $480k
c. $480,000 of bitcoin at(~$24k/btc buy price recent months allocated to the donator) 20btc
d. $480,000 value house
e. $480,000 value business
f. $480,000 of gold at(~$1.8k/ounce buy price recent months allocated to the donator) 266ounce

pick one and explain your rationale..
if you pick bitcoin as first choice. also pick another and explain rationale of second choice
(im mainly looking to see people opinions/rationale on choices that are made about not option C and compared to C)

after another discussion with someone when a topic came up about the super fiat rich
how do they get away with paying no taxes, but then suggest they will eventually give all their wealth away

the simple answer is this
when their business gets revenue, they invest it. and because they are not spending the money personally outside of business purposes, and because they are not selling the investment there is no tax. (investing is a pre-tax event)

then if they need some spending money, they do not sell the investment. instead they ask for a loan using the investment as collateral. and because funds from a loan are not taxable they get to use the money without paying tax

so here is a tip for us bitcoiners who ask how can governments try to tax bitcoin but yet, fiat billlionaires dont get taxed
there needs to be a bitcoin service where people who want to buy bitcoin join(lets call it a credit union or loan company). but instead of "buying" they become investors/funders of loans.
so the service offers loans to bitcoiners that want to cash out. but the bitcoiner doesnt sell the coin. but instead hands the coin over to the service as collateral.
the bitcoiner is then a non-coiner and receives cash. but has not sold the coin but instead received a 'loan' of cash for his collateral. thus no tax. yep loans are not taxable.
obviously never making any repayments the coins become the service investors property. and the deal is done.

buyers have the coin. the ex-bitcoiner gets the cash.

.. sidenote
the only time the rich sell assets is if the asset is performing below its purchase price. so they sell it. and instantly buy it back. (no loss due to sell-buy being equal price/time) but it triggers a "realised value loss" they can put on their financial statement, which they can then use the loss against any tax their main fiat business could not avoid within the business.. to not have to pay tax because the asset loss writes off any fiat business tax

i was having a discussion with someone who was talking about the pro's and cons of his minimum wage job

he told me he works for 40hours a week at ~£$10 an hour for 52 weeks. =£$20800 pretax
he then says how in some countries they do not do paid time off. and how he gets 4weeks off fully paid. and he gets into detail that if he takes his £$20.8k and divides it by 48 and then 40, he is actually earning £$10.83 an hour

and this is where i then ask him
what hours does he leave home to go to work and then get home
he tells me the store opens at 9am and closes at 6pm but he has to be there at 8:45 to brief the days needs and exits at 6:15pm once all customers have left and doors are shut officially and securely

so this is not 8 hours obviously, but instead 9 hours 30 minutes
he says the hour extra is an unpaid breaks of 1x30min and 2x 15 minutes

i say to him in those unpaid breaks does he have enough FREE time to exit the business and do some personal chores unrestricted. he says no, he has to be in the vicinity of the workplace because he will get penalised if late back from lunch and the 15min breaks are not enough time to go anywhere personally without guaranteed penalty

so i get into detail with him.
for those 48 weeks of working of 5 days of 9.5hours for $20.8k pretax = 2280 hours / £$20.8k =£$9.12 an hour

i then inform him that this amount should be for his time. where i then enquire about his other costs just to be able to work.
so he tells me he spends about £$2 in fuel per day. and the £$6 on laundry and lunch(buys instore sandwich, drink,snack deal)
so out of the £$80 a day income for 9.5 hours he is only actually paid £$72 for his time

and now he works it out. he only gets £$8.20 per hour of his time of being in the vicinity of his workplace and not at home leisurely

.. we then started to debate the details, EG saving £$4 buy prepping meals at home for £$1 instead of £$4 and doing home batched clothes washing once a week instead of £$2 a day laundry

but even with all this, the number was far far below the $10 on contract and £$10.83 he thought he was getting if he deducted vacation time from his labour time

it just goes to show how little things like a restrictive activity unpaid lunch and extra start and end unpaid time before the business opens can take money way from your real life time

imagining being told your life was only worth £$10 an hour where they will compensate you for taking time out of your life to do things for them, under their policy.. but then not even getting £$10 an hour for your actual time spent out of your life

so folks. the gist is.. if a business requires you to be away from home and performing activities that benefit them from 8:45-6:15 make sure they pay you for all of that time ESPECIALLY if its minimum wage

source: https://uk.pcmag.com/news/130187/know-your-datas-worth

so a 56+yo hispanic person earning under $20k, their general data is worth $0.09

so a 20yo middle eastern person earning $130k, their general data is worth $1.31

data can also be worth more if specific demographs also have data that relates to an industry/product interest of the data buyer. EG a SCI-FI movie fans data would be worth more to a company that sells SCI-FI merch/entertainment products

one thing i have noticed about the bitcoin community is how in recent years alot of people are not seeking decentralised independence. instead they are bowing down and kissing ass to a centralised governance of coded rule decision makers(core)..

core have become the government that no longer need general community vote of new rules and only need the vote of the influencers of economic nodes who can bribe and blackmail mining pools into compliance... where by general users have no choice to veto a rule activation(backward compatibility trick)...

its turned the whole purpose of the invention of this currency that was suppose to be different to the fiat world, into a fiat structure of governance world with all its PR campaigns and deception by the ass kissers

we should actually be questioning the authority. scrutinising them and having ways to oppose them should they abuse their position..

bitcoiners were on the right path 2009-2014 but since then its as if too many people have been duped and stroked and ass kissed into yielding into allowing the control to gain more power.

the politics of bitcoin has changed since the olden days. and we really need to be scrutinising, highlighting, reviewing the things proposed to be changed and not just bow down all the time nor get told to shut up