the exchanges only play with a couple hundred coins (not 17mill) so adding up all the public exchanges is only a few thousand coins in "public market". as for the private OTC. well no one knows the extent of that statistically. but knowing over the last few months only under 2mill coins move a day and this can be due to the same few hundred thousand coins moving more then once a day to be double-quadrupple+ counted..
take for instance january 2016. output movements were 45mill coins in a day. which was the highest movement ever made. but knowing at the time there was only 16mill coins. that means the SAME coins were moved multiple times in the same day, so even at todays sub 2mill daily movements. its going to be far less than 2mill individual coins actually moved a day


so far far less then 1mill coins are moving. and out of those moving not all of them are for OTC trading. but for retail spending.
so my point still remains its not 17mill coins on markets but a much much lower number, much below 1 mill that are part of the "request and offer" conversation of public/private markets

if it doesnt contain bitcoins genesis block and doesnt contain some historic transactions belonging to satoshi then its got no part of being "bitcoin"

anyone can start an altcoin that begins again.. there are already probably 2000+ in existance right now. the issue is not re-creating a coin. the issues is user adoption and more specifically merchant adoption which then causes a reaction to make users adopt it.

relying on just the mass of voices to validate something by seing more than one person saying it DOES NOT WORK on social platforms.
EG just having blocks of data relayed by users is not validation. its just duplicate data store. look for real validation of source

thats why blochchains were invented. self validation. not just trust what you received is valid because more than one source says so.
blockchains would not work if it was just a database that everyone copies

there are many shills that all repeat the same script.


its best to look for the source. chck if it meets basic rules of validation.. if the source is a media report. look for the media reports source. and if a media cant cite its source. treat it with a pinch of salt.
in short do some validation and proof of work dont just read and relay data

if its a opiinion of a forum poster. look for stats/links/data to back up what they say. if all they can quote is reddit nonsense then treat it with a pinch of salt

RSK is not using actual bitcoins. its using a separate token that represents a 1 for 1 peg against a bitcoin.. and then that token is used offchain.
thus its not adding any smart contract features into bitcoin protocol. its getting people to swap thir bitcoin for RSK token and then having RSK network

though rsk is trying to be another "choice" of another second layer service thats not LN. both LN and RSK are trying to ppretend they are part of the bitcoin protocol, but in reality both not using bitcoins original peer-to-peer onchain, immutible permissionless ethos.

so treat it as a side service for niche usage. and not a thing you want to lock your funds into forever as a solution to bitcoin scaling

coindesk sponsored..
AKA barry silbert of DCG who also funds blockstream and bloq to have caused the drama of the bilateral split contntion to force segwit into activation. and the drama of pointing fingers at personalities to try doing a brand grab via a lawsuit to then own "bitcoin"

P.S bitcoin cash and bitcoin core are 2 teams of the same puppet masters funding portfolio. its al about finger pointing social drama to tempt people to think thir is freedom of choice, purely to subject people into choosing 1 team to own a brand that no one .. yes no one should own

(my post requires alot of out of the box thinking and alot of rsearch. do not rply with typical cor defense /ver/wu debate.. think beyond the band camp kardashian drama)

and you too may see reason to boycott barry silbert who should not have any control over bitcoins "consensus" / decisions

you probably are using a wallet(software) that isnt synced.  so its showing out of date info

best way to check if the balance of ADDRESSES is real by taking the ADDRESS and using a block explorer to check the balance.. or the longr route. let the wallet(software) update and sync

botcoin core and bitcoin cash did bilateral split. even the actual devs of core/cash admit this. and so do the actual devs of bitcoin cash.

as for the fanboys/mouthpieces of both sides that have not even coded a line of code. they are just causing drama and distraction.
this also includes this new "clashic" attempt

anyway windfury. it seems you have taken a edited image from somewhere.. and the use of an edited image is obvious propaganda and misdirection.

you have really lowered yourself into the propaganda rabbit hole with such edits and manipulation just to cause more distraction about social drama events rather then let the community understand the important things about decentralisation/protocol/network changes that really matter

---

---

so to clarify the actual events

BOTH bitcoin core and bitcoin cash, bilaterally split. core side set up the bip 9, bip 148 processes to allow it and they got their partner at bloq to cause it. all to avoid a real consensus event because from a consensus point of view core only had on average 35% of the vote from january to august. and they were hating that fact.
they needed to deport the opposition because they didnt see it as a fair community consensus competition, whereby core would need to compromise later on to give then give the community something that could get majority vote. they seen it as an attack against the core roadmap and thus needed to get rid of the votes abstaining/rejecting the core roadmap. (its called tyranny/oppression)

148

---

---

as for this new clashic propaganda. and the newest social drama distraction.. it reaks of false and obvious agenda from the core fanboys trying to introduce more confusion.

when will the core fanboys wake up and stop fanboying over core team. and instead think about the decentralised bitcoin ecosystem that sits beyond their core mindsets.

P.S
i detest core. but that does not mean i should get pigeon holed into another team. if your mindset is that if someone detests A they must be team B. you really have missed the whole point of decentralisation and independance. i am neither team.

my mindset is in the decentralised peer-to-peer currency that has no authoritarian/monarch/tyranic controlling team. but it seems too many people are trying real hard to make core be king ruler

theymos and ver are the same drama. promoting their sites as the portal to make people think that their team owns bitcoin
adam back and craig are the same drama. promoting they were involved in inventing bitcoin with satoshi, yet neither wrote any bitcoin code during satoshis era

gmaxwell/pwuille and jgarzic/gavin are the same drama coding the nodes to cause the split all to cause segwit to activate and later use to try brand grabbing

..
no one should own the brand.
no one
ill make it clear. NO ONE!!!

the solution is simple. think of it the same way as the dollar. which is another financial brand not ownd by a community
if someone asks for a dollar. you respond: " is that american dollar(USD) or canadian dollar(CAD)
if someone asks for a bitcoin. you respond: " is that bitcoin core(btc) or bitcoin cash(bch)

then the confusion is lifted
have a nice day

i told you before craig is a scammer.

do you not actually read. seems not instead you turn into a reddit sheep to repeat core support statements along with thier well known buzzwords.
i have repeatedly said this. at first i thought that you wre new, and just niave to the state of the community. but your over use of knwn buzzwords and you constant band camp drama concentration is not making m think you are indocrinated into core

so lets make it clear. i said:

NO ONE...
NO ONE..
NO ONE
should own the brand

this whole pointing the finger at ver is just drama to get sheep to vote core as king.
(point your finger at khloe so kim can be queen kardashian)
yes i detest core. but that does not meam anyone that detests core should be automatically shoved into another camp/fanclub.

you really do need to learn about decentralisation and independance because its becoming obvious all you can see is camps that people need to be put in. meaning its starting to become obvious that any discussion on decentralisation/independance will be lost on you

as for the turning into a sheep to read out a core script. well when i see you use the core invented buzzwords "bigblockers" and you only attack ver/wu but you have refused to add jgarzic(who actually made bitcoin cash)  into your attack. its obvious your repeating something you read on reddit and had no independant thought or research

i bet you didnt even know about jgarzics involvement because the core reddit scripts never mentioned it.

anyway when you use well known buzzwords, it reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PStpvviPgxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

it even gets worse when your repeating the same statement years after that script began, its like your stuck a few years behind
let me guess you were dying to find an oppertunity to say core are "conservative" as a reason you defend core.. yea yea yea we all heard that script its not unique or original

so you might want to take a few days to reset yourself. take a few steps back and stop just repeating the reddit mindset

have a good few days off restting yourself. i hope one day shep wake up and start having an original thought, as its becoming too obvious that core seem to be forming a centralist group

this is not a citizen /private business ban.. calm down

this is a standard memo to BANKS. that BANKS(financial institutions) continue to only handle FIAT and not other things like toilet roll beanie baies, or crypto.
banks have rules and regulations to only handle fiat. these rules have been around for decades. way way way before bitcoin was even a thing. so this memo is just a reminder to banks to not directly handle crypto.

this does not mean citizens/private businesses are banned. it jsut means that banks will not let you get toilet roll, teddybears, crypto or baked beans from a bank branch. all a bank branch can offer is FIAT services


it is not a new LAW. its a reminder/memo(circular)
for banks to only offer only fiat services direct
you cannot buy a iphone in a bank branch. but that does not mean you cant buy a iphone/toilet roll/ baked beans.
nor does it mean that private citizens/businesses should have accounts shut down for offering things that a bank cant offer

there actually is a market for baby brains. (dont hit the keyboard in shock and anger.. read on)

some parents when their baby dies can donate their childs organs to help others, and part of this can include donating the deceased to medical science and research. many new therapies/ research developments, understandings of diseases have come about through research using this.

so lets not think of the negative connotations of "baby brains" but lets instead flip the debate around. think of all the good new therapies, medications and diagnoses that have been invented from it. and simply say this.

bitcoin is a market many people dont want to admit they are part of, but they understand the benefits of these market. so although the general public may frown at anyone admitting they are in this market, once they understand the benefits the market actually brings, it is jaw dropping and eye opening about how positive people get and at some point people decide when its their time, they want to be part of it too

lesson 1. never buy high sell low. (never sell at a loss, ever)

lesson 2 dont ever throw your whole funds on one order.
say you have $10k. split it into 10x $1000 baskets and then buy coin when you see a low using one of them baskets. if the price goes up great your in profit. if the price goes down, dont worry about it leave it as is and know you still have 9x $1000 to take 9 more chances to make orders

lesson 3. dont hold long term hoping for 50%+
instead aim to buy at price X. and sell at X+1% at the moment the price has not risen by 50% in 4 months. but with the daily changes.of 5%-10% there are MANY more chances per day to make 1%.. and all them 1%'s add up.
EG if you can do 20 trades of 1% using all your 10xbaskets twice over)(=2% a day) you can get 60%($6000+ profit) in one month..

yep without risking much and taking little profits often and repeating it often gets you more profit faster

blockchain does not need to store data (health records)

a block can just contain just a hash for a health record and not the patient data itself.
and separately the health record has all the patient data in a standard database. but requires a hash to be confirmed into a blockchain before the patient data in a separate database is classed as verified.


for instance. imagine side chains imagine there were 2000 bank branches with their own chains/databases for their own local customers of the town that bank branch represents
but then there is a master blockchain/DLT that just holds the hashes(block header ID) of the 2000 bank branches most up to date instance


the other thing is the over use of "blockchain"
blockchain should be used for open public use (eg internet)
distributed ledger tech(DLT) should be used for closed privat use (eg intranet)

these days i have seen many business try to say their private security models will be blockchain. and then also say the public networks are DLT

facebook have not changed quickly. the banning of adverts were about preventing their customers from seeing scam coins begging for investors using deceipt. they do not want to be seen as endorcing a scam.. facebook was avoiding lawsuits by preventing its users from being scammed by ICO's
however facebook does not ban discussion/groups talking about crypto.
its not banning crypto its banning scammy ICO's.

facebook is NOT making a crypto currency

facebooks "facebook credit" is not a currency that can be redeemed for cash. its a one way purchase and consume token. meaning that users cannot buy facebook credits to then pass to a friend and the friend cash out.
facebook do not want to get into the industry of competing against western union. and other money transmitter businesses. because the licencing costs of such would raid their advertising profits.

instead facebook want to utilise the blockchain (data security) concepts.
yes they want to utility th data security of their facebook credit. but its not going to be a fiat enter&exit coin for its users. its going to be the same as its facebook credit, but secured on their servrs usin blockchain tech as oppose to standard database security. thus saving them costs on security/auditing and preventing internal malicious actors

there wont be an ICO, wont be an airdrop. wont be a market. it will be done as a retail product. you buy it and use it.

in short. facebook is not treated as a money transmitter business becuse it does not let FBcredit holders sell their coin publicly. facebook have their FBcredit as a retail product. all that will change is facebooks background/security of their data/credit. nothing will change on the users front end/public side

flaws
also the coins circulating are not all on the market. check out an exchanges depth chart there are only a few hundred coins played on the market, not millions
most people are hoarding

ebay/paypal made no agreement to use bitcoin in 2009.. there was som rumours and discussions a couple years ago but nothing as far back as 2009

to be on TV then the advert must adhere to some guidelines, and also have some legitimacy (no hiding bhind proxies/ fake addresses) the tv company would have been in contact with the business to set up a deal for airtime

so reporting it to the better business bureau that "meant" to deal with consumer protection would be a first goal. and then once the ball starts rolling lawsuits can begin and having the better busines bureau involved helps the case move along.

if you are a lawyer it might be worth checking out the tv channels best practices policy about what type of adverts it allows because you might also have a case against the tv channel itself. and thus get them on your side if you do a deal not to file against the tv company if they aid the case against the scammer.
but usually if its just about the scam itself it would involve having a "victim" who has actually received financial loss. so until you can find customers of that scammy investment, you should start by concentrating on if the scam has followed the policies of full disclosure of risk and advertising policies that are meant to protect viewers from even seeing such a advert in the first place.

for instance, in the UK a financial firm advertising invstments and savings HAS TO publicise its company registration numbers, of its registration to the government database for just being a company and its financial numbers of being a financial business which would also includ its insurance policy numbers

if a scammer does not have thes registrations. then they would get slapped by a court ordered wet fish. as for america. i believe its state by state stuff involved so if its a national tv station. then the scammy business would have to show its complient in the multiple states the national channel broadcasts across.

but i aint no expert so its worth checking the policies ofthe state, the tv channel and also enquire into the better business bureau

im dumbing this down and using average joe wording. so all you techno buzzword lovers. chill

lets imagine there are 4 computers. 2 of which are just users and 2 are block creators(mining pools)

when a user makes a transaction it sends the transaction to all (3 other) computers. those 3 other computers validate the transactions and hold them.
for instance if user 1 sent a tx to user 2 and user 2 found the tx funky. user 2 wont send the funky tx to the other 2 computers. this helps reduce wasting bandwidth by only letting valid transactions relay around.

the block creating(mining pools) computers validates the transactions for themselves too, just incase any invalid transactions slipped through the relay network. and then the mining pool makes a list.. basically a batch of transactions it wants to group together into a block of data that does not exceed the rules of maximum size block of data a block can have.
the block of data gets the valid hash of the previous block added to it. to chain the blocks together

that newly created block of data is then hashed to form its own hash identity.. lets call it for average joe sake a batch id. (block hash)

now these mining pool computers because things have moved on since 2009. they create the block. but do not mine the block hash(batch id) itself. instead it sends the hash(batch id) to a special device called an ASIC. and its this devide that does the mining of the hash.
an asic has been specially designed to do only one task and do that task very well.. mine the block hash

the end goal of mining is to get another hash that has done some work, in basic terms it has hashed the blockhash(batch id) along with a numeric number that increments until the secondary hash can be found that has a certain amount of zeros at the start that meet a difficulty target
this secondary has with zeros at the start is the proof of work

once this is found the blockdata along with the blockhash and the proof of work. is then put together and that block is relayed back out to the other miner pc and the 2 users.

this block is then validated to ensure the data is validated (it can skip re-validating the tx's inside a block if that pc already validated the tx). it validates the hash(batch id) corresponds to the batch of transactions. and it validates the secondary hash(proof of work) corrsponds to the hash and the difficulty rules.

if it all validates then this block is added onto the pile of other blocks. as long as no other mining pool has made a competing block with the same previous block hash in its data, and wasnt found/validated first.

then it all begins again of building another batch of tx's blah blah blah

the difference between binary vs quantum. is not about folding space or entring extra multiverses.. its simply to go from 2dimenion(options) to 4dimension(options)

so when you heard them talking about extra dimensions. they were not talking about a multi verse. they were talking about
binary 0 . 1
quandum 0 . 1. 2, 3

imagine it this way
before 0 meant 0volts and 1 meant 1 volt. and by using the patern of voltage /lack of voltage peopl could create messages.. (like morse code) which is where binary first developed from.

with quantum its
0 volts, 0.33volts  0.66volts 1 volt which is is less like pulses of electric/noise/data.. but more like waves/sound pitches/data

so instead of just having 0 meaning stand still and 1 being move forward. now using quantum you can have 0.33 as left and 0.66 as right.. or even 0.33 move back and 0.66 as move forward and stand still.

it opens up new possibilities of options within a same transister holding the same maximum voltage as before. but now with a 'dimmer' switch to have different levels that can mean different things.

...
with that said . when trying to solve a binary problem you cannot just use a quantum qbyte to give out a qbyte solution.. because a binary system would not understand that.
and as such a quantum system is limited to its multi option approach to brute forcing because the end goal has to be binary acceptable

so for a binary logic problem it works out that quantum is only 2x faster at solving (sha256 hash)
as for vector problems(ecdsa), well they can be solved faster.
but knowing the maths of how many possible combinations there are. and how many millenia it would take.. even with a quantum computer, its still going to be beyond your great great great grand childs life before an address is bruteforced.

firstly bitcoin cash was created by jgarzic and gavin A.. (they made bitcoinABC node)

ver is just a mouth piece and not a dev. much like theymos is not a dev of bitcoin core but is a mouthpiece
both theymos and ver have their own domains bitcoin.org and bitcoin.com

in august 2017 consensus did NOT upgrade the network. instead a bilateral split event occured that cause 2 rivals to split in different directions.

however. the bitcoin brand is and should remain owned by no one. this does not mean campaign for cash to get it. or campaign for core to get it. neither side should

the best analogy is the dollar analogy.
dollar is owned by no country. but many countries that can show historic links to the british empire can use the dollar. when when someone asks about wanting the dollar its best to simply ask is that amreican dollar(USD) or is that canadian dollar(CAD)
trying to fight that only america own the dollar and cadada is a fraud or arguing canada own the dollar and america are the fraud. are just playing drama games of something that should not be owned by one centralist party. and should not end up as lawsuits to determin a central controller

bitcoin is owned by no team. but many teams that can show historic chain history to satoshis genesis block, can use "bitcoin". when when someone asks about wanting bitcoin its best to simply ask is that bitcoin core(btc) or is that bitcoin cash(bch)
trying to fight that only core own bitcoin and  cash is a fraud or arguing cash own bitcoin and core are the fraud. are jsut playing drama games of something that should not be owned by one centralist party. and should not end up as lawsuits to determin a central controller

as for pointing this whole drama at ver. the very same argumnts can be pointed at theymos.
after all if your true belief is decentralised bitcoin you would understand this.
but if you ar a staunch supporter of core being the king monarchy of bitcoin. then decentralisation concepts are lost to you so there need not be a reply from core defenders

i personally am not a team player of either side. because both sides are actually the same side. both playing this point the finger attempt to hop that they can convince the community that decentralisation doesnt work and the only option is centralisation to avoid future drama(f their own causing)

both bitcoin core paid devs and the paid devs that made bitcoin cash are financed through the same company.

jgarzig, gavin A (BLOQ) financed by DCG
P.wuiile, gmaxwell, luke jr (blockstram/core) financed by DCG

its all a get 2 brothers to fight until people beg the parents to choose their favourite child.

do not let yourself get dragged into the drama of having to choose one or the other.. man up and say hell no.. no one gets to own bitcoin
you might read some core fans want core to centralise the branding and hand it all over to theymos at bitcoin.org. but thats just the centralising plan DCG want. fake choice of freedom/fake division purely to grab a brand name

but when the main paid core devs actually admit to bilateral splits of both sides going in different directions to avoid consensus.. instead of unilateral forks where only one side diverts. it becomes clear that neither side deserves sole control, especially if both sides are secretly part of the same financial portfolio.

out of box thinking

2010 mindset:- theres only 18million coins left, at current prices ($0.01) thats only $180,000 of value left
2018 mindset:- theres only 400 trillion satoshis left, at current prices thats only $34,000,000,000 of value left