no one will pass the test as the questions are flawed and are not based on the maths of bitcoin.

if its answers they are looking for based on the statements people will write one number, but if the examiner is looking for an answer based on the reality of bitcoin, it would be another number.

th questions are not hard, they are flawed. theres a difference

the pump groups are there only for the organiser to buy coin first and then get sheep to move the price up. so the organiser can sell. and then get the sheep to sell after.

in short only the organiser wins.. so there is no point joining.
if you are going to join and the organiser says its aiming for a 15% hike.. dont be a fool and go with what he says. be there right at the point the coin is mentioned and just grab 2-5%. dont be greedy and wait for 10% because although the organiser wishes and announces 15% it may not even get to 10%. so be smart. aim for 2-5% and get out

think about it. if you can make 2% a week thats doubling your funds in a year. much better interest than any bank would give. so be happy with 2% a week

never let greed or emotion control your funds. be like a robot. set yourself a rule and stick to it. dont let any pump organiser tell you any different. if they say 15%, grab 5% if they say 10% grab 3%

or be smarter and just dont join these groups and dont be a sheep

LOL
so when you set up a channel with starbucks and you deposit $60 to cover $2 coffee for a month. do you really expect starbucks to deposit $60 also??
imagine a starbucks hub(local town branch) with 8000 customers. do you really think that starbucks is going to stake $480,000.
no its going to be more like
customer[$60 - $0]starbucks
starbucks will have nothing to lose. so it is NOT a "mutual destruction" scenario

and it will be starbucks that will set up the channel and offer the initial deposit rules, fee's and punishments. and its starbucks that can. du to nothing to lose refuse to sign their half. forcing a customer to broadcast an older tx. so that then starbucks can then sign the refuted tx to then use as a rvocation(chargeback) to punish the customer.

i think you need to run more scenarios based on a "can i break it" mindset. not a "utopia, it works" mindset.

there are other things starbucks can do too. i can think upp multiple blackmail extortion methods. and also due to not involving community validation(blockchain). ways a LN hub can tweak its code to have the upper hand. such as being best frinds with the DNS seed nodes so that their hub is part of the initial list fresh nodes see. and thus grabs as many users as possible. and becomes the hanshaker not the handshakee. to ensure the hub gets the customer to sign first. to ensur the customer is on the losing side and makes the hub th real controller of funds

again run some scenarios. it will shock you.
but even th devs have been public to say that you should not use LN unless prepared to lose because they know there are many flaws. they are still only tsting the handshaking to make a payment. they ar still not at the test it to break it until it doesnt break no more stage

PoS is not safer

there are ways to play around with the "validator pool" so that on person with 20 addresses (if the pool requires minimum 20 validators) could slf 'mine' blocks forever

PoS is cheaper to mine.. again making it easier to attack
PoS is more energy efficient as it doesnt require special equipment. but with that said instead of buying millions of $$ of equipment you can spend a smaller amount on staking a validator pool you game the PoS system

flaws in their plan
*their original fundraiser was to get millions of people to invest just a little bit of money to start their 'planning stage' which was to waste $10m-$20m on a boat that can only bed 30 people so that they have a base of operations to 'plan'.
this was a money waste because they could lease an office somewhere for only a couple hundred thousand for a few years. or ven just have group chat on skype from their homes and start it as a 'garage startup' which is virtually free

*they spent thousands of dollars on graphic designers (not architects) to draw up their utopian dream in colour. problem is they could not even talk about how big a bedroom or bathroom would be. and thus. if you cant calculated the dimensions of a housing unit, you cant calculate the "island" size. and thus you cant calculate how many people could live on the "island" .. so you cant calculate the cost per square foot per person to live there. you cant calculate the amount of supplies needed to feed and clothe the residents. you cant calculate how often re-supply ships will be needed and cant calculate how big/often the disposable of waste would be, or the ecological impact of the island on the ocean would be.
so the thousands of dollars wasted on pretty images didnt even have any architectual or planning input to its design. and there has been no fundemental planing of the basics of supplies, waste disposable, sustainability(farming food space required/how many ships they need to rent/buy for resupply)

*i would reveal many other flaws, but i dont want them doing a rush job of buzzwording some statement of fake numbers to pretend they have done all this planning to scam people into investing into something that actually is unplanned.
this is because last time they ran this promotion, i reverse psych'd them by throwing out a number and funnily enough they ran with that number and made a statement about my mythical number i came up with. and they buzzworded it and made it look like it had substance. but i ripped them apart when i revealed my number had no substance so them using that exact same number had no substance too.

funny part is i brought up these flaws probably 2 years ago maybe.. and they are still not one step forward than then. its like they just want a grab money scheme befor they even do anything.. which to me translates to they are not bothered about doing anything. apart from covering the costs of their own vacations on a pacific island

lol
you make me laugh
so if your dad has custody of you. your mom cant have custody of you. and you cant do your own thing because only one person has custody??
and as a offspring of parents you have no responsibility to maintain and keep yourslf safe too?

so if you were evr arrested and in police custody. there is only one police officer in the world with the handcuff keys? and you no longer have rights to your own self preservation?

a apartment custodian has a key to the apartments to secure and maintain an apartment. so you cant have a key to your apartment anad your not responsible for also maintaining and securing your apartment

a custodian is not a sole controller. so dont even think that something like coinbase can avoid being a custodian by simply implementing multisig vaults. sorry to burst your bubble but coinbase would still be a custodian.

maybe you need to revisit the definition of custodian


actually it doesnt. though i am not sure why you are endlessly bringing BCH up. seems you are stuck in the reddit mindset of there only being 2 camps
which seems a narrowminded point of view to have in a decentralised ecosystem

anyway, using a legacy native tx i can make more payments faster than LN can.
ill give you a few days to think about that. have a nice time thinking about that


you said earlier a person has full control of their funds. and could not control the other persons funds, there would be no need for revocations.
again have a long think about that.
use your own scenario and alpha test your own scenario against yourself. dont run utopian scenarios of perfect condition 'does it work' tests. but be a debugger/bruteforcer/blackhat and run 'does it break' tests. make yourself go into the mindset of how you could steal from your wife if you had a joint bank account with her. run scenarios of if you were both sides of a mutlisig how you could gain the edge and blackmail, extort, steal from yourself.  you will be surprised.
ill give you a hint. due to a varience of onchain fee's at different times. a hub would like to adjust the fee when it broadcasts and would prefer to be the broadcaster because your payment affets other people the hub is linked to. so the hub would like the upper hand.
ill mention one such upperhand.. sighash_none.. but be warned there are many more things a hub will have, to have the upper hand.
but enjoy playing a blackhat of 'will it break' instead of asskissing 'utopia works'.. you will surprise yourself


dont assume utopia
dont assume because someone renames a chargeback as being called "revocation" that its not a chargeback
dont assume because someone names a bank branch a hub that its not a bank branch
dont assume because someone names a bank HQ a 'factory' that its not a HQ for hubs(bank branches)
dont assume because maths theory says a tx can be validated in 0.002 seconds, that 0.002 seconds is what real people using the system in real life will experience.

once you get out of your wood cabin named the core retreat. and started to test the walls instead of hugging the people in it. you will see the termites fall out the holes in the wall, when you hit it.
but although i dont live in a glass house. id prefer to live in a glass house than a wood cabin. due to being able to see beyond the wood. and yes i would not fear throwing stones.. no one should fear throwing stones. its the best way to find out whats easy to break and whats bulletproof

but id be the person that throws stones when the glass is being made. not wait until the house is built. but anyway go watch let them build your wood cabin and invite your core friends. live in cabin fever. and only notice th holes once the termites have already invaded

you said your browser is doing 4.5H/s
. firstly its impossible to do half a hash. and a normal PC can handle atleast 4.5 MH/s (4,500,000 hashes)
so lets say your computer is doing 4.5Mh/s (a million times more then you suggested in your first post)

you would earn 9 satoshi's a year

in short
to get the smallest decimal of bitcoin, which is called a satoshi (0.00000001btc)
would take you 1 month and 10 days at the current level

lets interject my thoughts on that debate you two are having.
did you just say that? i am so facepalming that

onchain sole privkey control is a step towards the death of custodial bankers.
LN uses multisig. its literally the definition of custodial so multiig is a step towards custodial bankers
LN cannot scale as a hop and spoke model. and will requre hubs (bank branches) so LN hubs are another step towards custodial banking
LN has fund locks, revocations. so CLTV/CSV/revokes are a step towards custodial banking

LN features are multiple steps towards custodial banking.

one thing you need to learn about banking is this. dont think of american banks as one computer holding 300million accounts.
think of it as 95,000 bank branches DISTRIBUTED in different towns. with an average 3,200 accounts per branch

now
swap "hub" for "bank branch"
swap "channel" for "account"
swap multisig countrpart for authoriser
swap hub authoriser for bank manager
swap "route" for "wire transer"
swap "LN" for "swift network"

any system that has a punishment for moving funds without someone elses consent is a banking system.. and is not what bitcoin was originally built for

browser mining BTC? dang thats like 2011 out of date tech.. be careful you probably might have downloaded a trojan as there is no reason to make such an out dated broswer extention these days, unles for naferious reasons

but lets put things into numbers
for a 1% chance of mining a block you need 20,000 ASICS. an asic is a special machine that processes 14,000,000,000,000 hashes/s. and yes you need 20,000+ of these devices just for 1% chance

so with a block being 14btc(with fees)
280,000,000,000,000,000 hashs earns you 14btc a day
20,000,000,000,000,000 hashs earns you 1btc a day
200,000,000 hashs earns you 1sat a day (0.00000001btc a day)
547,945 hashes earns you 1 sat a year

the internet can handle 32mb
users nodes can handle 32mb (its not raspberry pi v1 days of 2009. nor is it basic ADSL of 2009 either) people are living in the fibre/5g era of duelcore multigigbyte ram with terrabyte hard drives

(just for laughs: 1995: floppy disk "no do not release digital camera's there is no way a piece of portable plastic can hold a 2mb image" we should remain with kodak film and get people to not print their own photo's but lock their photo's into a walmart photo printing service hub, where they decide which photos should be printed )

anyway
32mb every ~10mins is 200mb an hour.

netflix/livestream/youtube use more than that.
yep millions of people livestream(liveupload) their gameplay while also using bandwidth for the game play. so if your against 32mb.. go complain to
google that google+ videocalls wont work
vimeo that livestream wont work
apple that facetime wont work
amazon that twitch.tv wont work
microsoft that skype wont work
google that youtube uploads wont work

... oh wait they do work...... shocker

oh.. to add to that although a block may have a 32mb limit. that does not mean pools ar forced to make 32mb blocks.
take the old bitcoin legacy mainnet of 2009-2013
1mb block consensus rule - under0.25mb mining policy
then upto 2013: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.5mb mining policy
then upto 2015: 1mb block consensus rule - 0.75mb mining policy

meaning a consensus HARD 1mb limit was in place with also a stepped increment soft policy limit growing at 0.25mb evry couple years.

if you ar going to rebut about the validation time and that laughable rebuttable of linear quatratics..
a smart contract(ln channel for instance) is usually a 2in 2 out tx.. it does not need a tx to have the ability of 20,000 sigops
so the solution is to limit the signops per tx so that no one can even make a delay causing validation event by abusing max sigops


anyway
my community?
damn dude you really are stuck in the band camp wars.
i am not pidgeon holed in any band camp. nver have been. again just because i detest core does not mean i must belong to some other team.. take a few steps back and move away from the core cabin. and you will see a wider world. gt out of the echo chamber you are stuck in, its not healthy for you

..
as for utilising new OPcodes.. great. more functionality.. but only if that functionality does not open trojan horse back doors for abuse.
EG
one opcode proposal is to have a TX just sign an input thus allow
(il explain the utopia false pretense first)
the ability to alter how much a tx fee is needed without needing to re-sign a tx
(now for the reality)
alter the values of output without needing to re-sign. and thus if there were 2 outputs
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.1btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0995btc
(fee:0.0005)

could be altered to
in
bc1qLNfactory 0.2btc
out
bc1qFranky 0.199btc
bc1qwindfu 0.0005btc
(fee:0.0005)
https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/sighash-none
many users of smart contracts do not have technical scope to check if a tx is a sighash-none before signing. yep do not expect LN users to request a clartext rawtx version of the contract before signing. which means the system can be abused by counterparts that create such so that they can then alter the output and broadcast a tx where they get most value back to them.

this is why i detest LN because there is loop holes of moving value around after signing and without a blockchain auditing it while in channel. most users are stuck with autopilot and trusting theeir counterparty. even when the counterparty can compile their own LN node to produce such nasty tx types

my hate of the LN is also that it does not scale to a reliable system of random payments to random people for a billion people.
also the features of locking in funds, requiring co-signing and then having delayed maturity and revokes. and other bugs, trojans and backdoors just turns it into somthing worse than fiat2.0

theymos does the same thing about bitcoin core.

check out the days of bitcoin Xt, bitcoin classic, bitcoin unlimited. these were software that did not want to be altcoins but wanted to be on the old mainnet and continue on the old mainnet. but just not want to sheep follow core.. and theymos REKT, censored and abused them, by saying that they were not bitcoin and only core was bitcoin.

theymos and ver are 2 sides of the same coin (excuse the pun)
so while attacking ver, atleast drop the hypocrisy and attack theymos aswell.. if not then simply accept bitcoin core is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash is bitcoin cash and neither get to own just "bitcoin" brand

bitcoin cash was not invented by ver.
much like bitcoin core was not invented by theymos

theymos is just the social drama leader of core by owning the forums and bitcoin.org
ver is just the social drama leader of cash by owning the forums and bitcoin.com

when it comes to development.
bitcoin core has the blockstream paid devs
bitcoin cash has the bloq paid devs

and it makes me laugh how all the finger pointing is directed at mouthpieces and not the code controllers.
bitcoin ecosystem is about code and rules followed using code. not social drama. so once you look passed the social drama of mouth pieces and concentrate on who is doing the coding. things become clearer

in the future we may well see that the bitcoin core network become part of a master chain for USA customers. we may see bitcoin cash as a masterchain of asia. that way its not a whole world population on one network but a multichain/sidechain style vision of co-operation.

and yes even visa do this. they have a USA network and a Euro network and another network for each major continent.

but what needs to happen first is for the community to stop with the social drama that does not impact the code, people need to stop ignoring the code changes that can adversely hinder/delay/cause friction to the community.

this does includ having the courage to step up and voice your concerns when devs are going the wrong path or a path that takes the longest route.
becasue if you do not challenge the devs, they wil just do what they want because they do not hear objections and thus treat it as community desiring what they do (to them ignorance is bliss)

so speak up against code changes for purposes that seem less about meeting community concerns and seems more about corporate adoption. do not be afraid of devs. do not let them control the code just because they have done the job forever.
after all some devs may retire, some may get bored and move onto other projects. so dont blindly idolise them and let them do as they please because they may not be around in a few years to undo any work they created now

in short
adam back did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period
craig wright did not code anything related to bitcoin in its 2008-2010 inception period

theymos has not wrote code in a couple years
ver has not wrote code in a couple years

so dont start arguing about mouthpieces and concentrat on the code

were people moaning about the majority of green days in 2017. nope
well take the balance. if there was a huge period of green in the past you have to accept that there will be a point when there will be more reds...

but over all. if people stop giving a crap about an all time high point that only lasts for 10 minutes every few years. and instead look at the periodic LOWS then you will se that the price is actually healthy and on a rise
so ignore the highs, ignore the speculation and concentrate on the base value which is wher the lowest prices are found. the point were people refuse to sell below
this is the base value line in green

bitcoin prices moves by upto 10% daily
others called bitcoin rat poison even as far back as 2013..
the two events are not linked.


the interview with warren buffet was the interviewer using the term "rat poison" by mentioning the charlie munger refernce and warren bufft with a smile saying "probably rat poison squared"

the thing is..
once you know the RATS = bankers. then i probably would agree that bitcoin should be rat poison. but right now, bitcoin is turning into cheese and they are eating it all up

for a reliable use without needing multiple channels all prefunded and without neding mutiple hops of many middlemen agreements. people will use the banker hubs (custodials) which will end up being AMLKYC

the creator, using the pseudonym was one person. although he did patch multiple idea's from many people (using their own names/pseudonyms) there was only one person using the pseudonym satoshi nakamoko

every day there are 1800 new bitcoins

from 2009-2012 it was 50 coins per block, with ~144 blocks per day (7200btc/day)
2013-2016 it was 25 coins per block with ~144 blocks a day (3600btc/day)
2016- it is currently 12.5 per block with ~144 blocks a day (1800btc/day)
satoshi nakamoto was NOT the only person mining in 2009. the amount of coins mined by satoshi by the time he stepped back is calculated to be less than 1million coins
this date keeps getting revised. as the maths was meant to be that 210,000 blocks the reward halves. but due to the variance of difficulty and the mining competition of increasing hashrates. 210,000 blocks are not solved to schedule. the block halvings have been occuring earlier than predicted and thus the final event will happen sooner than 2140
the mining proces halves the coins per block produced every 210,000 blocks which is suppose to be roughly every 4 years but due to the mining competition this schedule is not exact
of amounts being re-binded to new/updated publickeys. whereby the history is locked into a chain of blocks of data
in bitcoin cores code there are 77thousand lines . but bitcoin clients can be wrote in multiple languages. only those who want core to be "bitcoin" make the mistake of only concentrating on core as the only codebase/project. but many beleive core is THE project and so its just been deemed that bitcoin core is the project everyone should follow. hypocritically though. if you highlight their desire for centralism of bitcoin core by calling it bitcoin core they then pretend they are not bitcoin core fans

you do know segwit+LN was never about malleability... but was about BC1q addresses and multisig features. so that bankers can be our co-signer(owner of funds) and so that.. (yes yes i know many will orgasm at this rvelation) so that U.S banks can have USD1q addresses and UK banks can have GBP1q addresses so that banks can then do currency swaps on their hubs(bank branches) within LN

yes LN is not the solution to bitcoin decentralisation. its the pathway to non immutible banker co-signed offchain fund management.

but hey i bet most are just salivating at the prospect of people having their funds locked into bankers "factory" UTXO's and having to endlessly user bankers hubs, just for the ability of jumping in and out of fiat.

lol
here we go again. the over promised hyped up LN utopia. and the many sheep thinking its the end goal solution to bitcoins woe's

i really hate it when people say theoretical because they have not ben bothered to do the physical act of using it in real scenarios of real bruteforce testing the system.
the 0.002 is based on a over promised statistic of a rout with minimal hops thats pre setup the route, the hops(channels) in the route are all fully funded and have the minimal fee set up and agreed on. everyone is online and then bam its then timed... in actual fact i dont think even that its 0.002seconds. decker probably just done some maths on validation of signature times to treat payment is accepted, rather than real scenario time

1. it cant do 500 tx a second regularly/everytime guaranteed. that 0.002 is only possible AFTER it has found its routes and only transacts through those routes theirafter.
yet to find a route and make a payment takes longer, because with each hop (channel) it has to pass through causes a payment to take longer. and finding a route that has funds available and an acceptable fee. takes longer

2. emphasis the theoretics are of if you had a active connection to a very nearby channel that is online and active and accepting payments

so imagine you set up a route to buy starbucks coffee. once that route is set up. then yes theoretically you can pay starbucks in 0.002 using an existing route(deckers 500/sec stat). but imagine one of the hops in the route does not have the funding reserve to hotpotato your payment through. you then have to find a new route. which means it wont be 0.002seconds. also this 0.002sconds is for a theoretical route with very minimal hops. as i said the more hops the longer it takes.

also imagine instead of wannting to buy coffee from starbucks you then want to buy groceries at walmart. this is not a 0.002second payment because you have not pre-setup the route and also its harder to find hops(channels) with more than $2 to guarantee payment flow.

3. because not all channels will have say $100 per participant/per channel to hot potato your walmart grocery payment. EG to be a reliable participant in a network of say 5000 users either requires a node to have 8 channels for it to take 5 hops to get end to end
in short to allow everyone just 1 payment. each node has to have $800($100 per channel) on reserve MINIMUM just to allow a few people to make that 1 payment. before some routes have to close

X[$100 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$100 - $100]C   C[$100 - $100]D   D[$100 - $100]WALMART
imagine X wants to buy $100 of groceries. above shows A xinging a healthy route. now each HOP(a,b,c,d) has just 2 channels for easy display
lets see what happens when the payment is made

X[$0 - $200]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $200]C   C[$0 - $200]D   D[$0 - $200]WALMART
X has now paid walmart. problem now is (a,b,c,d) dont have $100 on their side to make another X-> walmart payment.
infact A cant buy anything from walmart because (b,c,d) are empty
infact B cant buy anything from walmart because (c,d) are empty
infact C cant buy anything from walmart because (d) is empty

all that is able to be done is a refund backwards

this is why nodes end up needing more than a couple channels and needing even more funding than $200($100 per channel)
take D for instance if D wants to be a reliable route for walmart just for 4 participants D would need $500 just to allow each participant to buy their weekly shop once each. C would need $400 Bwould need $300 A would need $200 and X would need $100.. and thats without preloading the reverse channels

by reverse channels i mean both directions are not loaded and its treated as a one direction payment x->walmart.. as shown here
X[$100 - $0]A   A[$200 - $0]B   B[$300 - $0]C   C[$400 - $0]D   D[$500 - $0]WALMART
at this point walmart cant pay D anything. D cant pay C any thing. and so on. its not a walmart -> x direction route

anyway lets allow X to buy walmart groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$100 - $100]B   B[$200 - $100]C   C[$300 - $100]D   D[$400 - $100]WALMART
now A can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$100 - $200]C   C[$200 - $200]D   D[$300 - $200]WALMART
now B can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$100 - $300]D   D[$200 - $300]WALMART
now C can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$100 - $400]WALMART
now D can buy groceries
X[$0 - $100]A   A[$0 - $200]B   B[$0 - $300]C   C[$0 - $400]D   D[$0 - $500]WALMART

ok so now all 5 users have bought 1 week of groceries. but now they cant buy next weeks groceries

hopefully this shows that with just being a route of 2 channels would mean that you would have to in a 5 hop system hold $500 to be able to be a route of 4 others and yourself for just 1 payment each.

now imagine having 4 channels, = more funds needed and pre participants routing through you... if everyone were only 4-5 hops away walmart .. then D would need $12100 just for him and 120 others to buy just 1 week of groceries

as this shows.


take a good look at that image.. imagine that after the first week D done the groceries. now everyone needs to refill (close open channels) all over again and the main route A,b,C,D would need to have the big extra buffer reserves for all the connections.. ABCD cant just have $100 in the route reserve. even if they only personally spend $100 on themselves
and this is only amounts for 120 users only wanting to spend $100 a week..
i dare anyone to start running scenarios of a decentralised (non factory hub/node) where by it doesnt require people to have more than 8 connections and doesnt need to be more than 8 hops away.. where by everyone can be connected up to 1 billion people.

do the maths people how many hubs/hops/channels and funding pr channel would be needed for a reliable network of
20,000 people
100,000 people
1million people
100million people
1billion people

you will be shocked at how a decentralised system wont work.

take banks. in america there are 95,000 banks serving 300mill people. imagiine that like each bank branch having 3157 channels (customer accounts)
and each bank has to communicate. there would need to also have
~95000 connections to be 1 hop from another hub(bank)
~308 connections to be 2 hop from another hub(bank)
~46 connections to be 3 hop from another hub(bank)

so work out how many channels each individual person would need to not be in a bank branch hub situation
and how much funding per channel that individual would need.
and how many hops away (degrees of separation) to be connected to everyone

then look at the banker branch situation of hubs with ~4000 channels where each individual is only atmost 4 hops away

youll soon se a decentralised hop model does not work, due to reliance of multiple hops all bing online funded. by the cost to each individual to be funded and the time to route and make payment.

LN's utopia only works in a bank branch (hub) model where your multisig counterpart has authorisation over thousands of users

LN's model/niche/ appeal is not as a scaling solution for everyones needs. it should be treated as a 3rd party srvice managed by hubs(paypal2.0) and used for those making regular paypnts to a regular end recipient..
not a pay anyone anywhere anytime instantly..
but a pay regularly to known recipients service

banks dont hate crypto

banks themselves are actually making their own cryptocurrencies (research hyperledger). this will reduce their maintenance/auditing and scurity  internal costs.

for a bank. all they see is a crypto buyer has fiat. and transfers fiat into someone elses account so that the buyer can get crypto.
no fiat is destroyed/taken out of circulation. its just fiat movements between one account to another much like buying an apple iphone or doing grocery shopping. so it does not affect FIAT

banks are still covered by legal tender, minimum wage and tax laws and so fiat will still circulate. so again banks dont care about crypto being a threat.

the majority of "bans" are not about stopping banking customers. but are REMINDER memo''s from government for a bank themselves to not offer a in bankbranch teller counter for crypto, not offer a BTM in a bank branch. and to continue to just handle fiat. this is the same laws that have been around for decades and why you dont see a bank selling baked beans, teddybears and toilet role. because a banks job is fiat. a banks 'product' is fiat.

but this does not mean citizens cannot hold or use currencies from different countries/colonies/communities.

though my research was more about their prospect of actually making the village.
when it comes to the currency. i seen it as a commune/cult coin only used by 300 people daily. whos gonna pay billions needed to make the floating village just for (deducting staff) 100 residents/guests

they have wasted years of planning and researching and spent too much time on mney grabbing promotions