the bitcoin network WAS NOT actually designed like that
before core. there were fee formulas("priority" threshold) where:
50kb of a block was for 0 fee high priority based on a few factors
250kb of a block was for high fee low priority based on a few factors
700kb of a block was for low fee but above min relay fee
simplified

buy spending in a leaner tx makes number bigger. by having more confirms makes the number bigger, by keeping more sats to spend instead of declare as fee makes the number bigger.. in essense by not spamming every block, by not spending just a few sats, by having a lean tx you can get away with not paying a fee at all and have more priority then a bloaty tx that has a large fee


its not always been the "fee open market" your forum-daddy mentor has told you. its become the way he likes since core removed these things... because dev politics want bitcoin to be expensive and headachy to use.. to promote that people should move over to their commercial middlemen service proposition of subnetworks where they can take a cut of commission from middlemen fees.. they can only charge sustainable middlemen fee's IF using bitcoin direct is not cheap

causing a fee war and fee market is not about "miner" economics. core devs are not tweaking fee calculation junk for some altruistic cause to help miners. its all dev politics to appease their corporate sponsors

bitcoin WAS NOT designed to appease corporate sponsors feature that aid corporate ROI.. but it has become it.. and bitcoin is not AI that changed itself. core devs did.

but you REKT proposals by you scripting to your flock silly exagerations.. not real technical reasons

but you dont beleive in the PEOPLE. you dont like consensus, you beleive there should be no consent of the people, you love the "backward compatibility" that bypasses the requirement of a consensus vote. you hate anyone not core adoring/affiliated. you love only core having the decision and development power.. so why pretend that its "people" trying to rush it.. rather than admit its core avoiding for unreasonable reasons

applications are not a "first-in" "first-accepted" policy.. some applications can get filed years ago and go for years being delayed, declined, appealed, re-filed, delayed, denied, appealed, refilled. (repeat repeat repeat) whilst others can be fast tracked and just tick all SEC boxes and get approved before the "first-in"

looking at all applications.. blackrock ticks more boxes then greyscale.
im not saying SEC will accept blackrock before THEIR deadline.. but im saying its more then likely the SEC will delay, deny-appeal,re-file process all the others

the SEC knows whomever gets accepted forms the precedence of criteria which other companies can then emulate/copy as a template to fast track their attempts for second, third place acceptance.. so the first acceptance needs to truly tick all boxes

there are other details like wallstreet/regulators want to have a high barrier of entry. its to prevent cheap competition offering similar services. so companies want to follow regulations to a point where its difficult for other companies to emulate.

i wouldnt call it favouritism for the SEC to pick blackrock first. id call it blackrock know how to do ETF applications, know what the SEC needs. and has experience in operating ETF.
its kind of like a job interview. would you recruit low barrier of entry inexperienced person with no skills with some legal trouble.. or a skilled/experienced recruit..

im playing the odds that 2024 WILL see a ETF operating.. but no announcement as soon as december.. and definitely not some unpopular untested brand like the one applying that wants self custody and share redeems 'in-kind' direct to crypto to avoid cash settlement (gain triggers)

my personal belief on favouritism would be if SEC was waiting for "roth", JPmorgan or Chasebank or some other commercial bank to apply

taint is a term even early adopter/dev bitcoiners use for the UTXO path back to its proven creation (coin-reward).. its a real thing.
even back then discussions were said about "blacklisting" "colouring" "tracing" coins

its actually part of the audibility of bitcoins open ledger, that each bitcoin has a origin/spending path

taint existed before mixer/obfuscation services existed
taint existed before any chain analysis company started operating
taint existed before any government cared about bitcoin

yep "taint" has been a buzzword in bitcoin for 12+years.. is not something the government invented

however if dex/de-fi traders use bankwires for fiat trades, they are not immune.

one persons turmoil is another persons profit

when people scream "bitcoin crash" like it is some devastation/apocalypse, i hear "discount"
when news reports "cost of living increase" businesses see "increased price, increase profit"
when tenants see news of "rental cost increase" landlords see "increase rent increased income profit"

exchanges most of the time batch lots of peoples withdrawals as multiple outputs of one transaction, making assumptions that it will save the user fee's this way

exchanges however deduct an amount from withdrawal balance when you press the button

exchanges can say they deduct 0.00003-0.003 as a fee.. but when you get the coin. you can run some math on it to see if they fairly charged you inside the exchange

find the tx of the btc you got paid to your self custody. look at the number of outputs(destinations)
minus one of the outputs(destination) count to work out how many users they facilitated (minus the one 'change address' back to service)

take the total fee for the transaction and divide it by the count of destinations.. and you get a rough per user cost of that transaction..
see how it compared to how much the exchange deducted from your balance at withdrawal, to see how fair it is and see if the exchange fully paid your deduction along with the other users deduction as a tx-fee.. or if the exchange kept some of your withdrawal deduction

SEC have never shown any evidence of announcing early. they have always waited out deadlines or extended deadlines
i doubt they would wait out a year and then suddenly decide before the next set of deadlines in january that december will suddenly be magically a eventful time to break the cycle and announce before year end.

plus this weeks deadlines on the applications that are propositioning "in-kind" transfers frm shares to btc direct,  has nothing to do with any "final" decision. much like greyscale  last year when SEC asked them to list coinbase as third party. it wasnt a final deadline that demanded a final decision/acceptance event

im thinking jan-march something will happen. but it would more then likely be blackrock as my odds, compared to grayscale.
grayscale dont have ETF experience nor proof of money management for pension funds.. plus alot of legal battles with grayscales sister companies.. so blackrock has better positives than grayscale

here is what i think of genslers mindset
saying no/declining/delaying does not affect gensler personally.. he does not go out of pocket for objecting.. the lawsuits are paid via our tax money not his salary
infact the longer he can delay or say he is working on things the more grants/budget/expenses he can claim to cover 'costs' of evaluation.

however if he just blindly accepted all ETF as written. and one of them go wrong and cause millions of pensioners to lose their pensions.. his personal head would be on the chopping block. he would be answerable for his actions for letting a ETF start without oversight,due diligence

so dont expect a rush. there is no benefit to sec/gensler, in gensler rushing things

"backward compatibility" means there is no way for a USER assisted fork.. users have become crippled
the 2017 was never a UASF

the process would actually be to use what actually happened in 2017 but mirror-reversed
ECONOMIC NODE operators to instigate/lobby NYA mandated threat to set their services to reject/not see mining pool rewards(blocks) that did not concede to show alignment to the NEW core roadmap that will fix their exploit..

where core would need to code the ruleset..  because any other brand would get REKT

i do laugh how HmmMAA formed an opinion based on the same debunked crapscripts that the other objectors have been falsely spouting
yet fo 6 years the blockdata of flag events, code and evidence of the economic node strategy has been available in just a few minutes of research
just requires looking at the data, not the social aligned blogs

not a accurate vote of community
the "against" are obvious alligned to ass kissery without actually using real data, statistics and reasoning. instead full of narratives that have been debunked but stil repeated.

the 'neither' are just too scared to form an opinion or use real data, logic to decide

the "for" actually use better rationale. but we are still fighting the whole core is god crowd so any discussion will just remain discussion, the best we can hope for is to educate the exaggerators and scripters to realise how their objections are foolish, maybe then as friends to core devs can be the soldiers that plot to get core to act from the inside

---

here is the thing..
the amount of topics promoting subnetworks as solutions is a smaller community of promoters(mostly trolls repeating the same publicity promises and utopia narratives).. but the ample examples of topics about scaling bitcoin shows that more people from a wider variety of mindsets want bitcoin scaling. not sold some 6yo unmet promise

the particular ETF applications involed in the link, dealing with the "cash creation" detail.. are applications that are not even insync with grayscale a couple years ago. though their consultation period may be a couple weeks for this detail. they are still a far behind grayscales progress..
the company you linked is not going to get an approval in december. they just have a deadline to sort themselves out to re apply with an application that sounds more closer to what grayscale was offering 2 years ago.


its mostly the SEC doesnt want to see actual real BTC assets on the nasdaq. for many reasons.. but yea i can and most can see that the 'in-kind' (shares-btc direct 'liek for like') would be a tax avoidance method.. they want to prevent, by forcing nasdaq traders to be forced to cash out at each trade to trigger cap-gains

well when you look at how relaxed regulators are with auditing any employers pension reserves for their employees. and how many companies syphon their employees pension pots.. its obvious that things like coinbase could just ruin things not just from their own customers but from their corporate clients using coinbase as a custodian..
the SEC is attempting to mitigate risk. but its still mostly asking these companies to do self-review have policies internally to self regulate so that the SEC doesnt have to send in personel every month to audit reserves..

i too find it strange they would rather have one coinbase custodianise 3 main ETF institutions rather then suggest independent key holders(multisig) not all affiliated with coinbase(and thus DCG)

when poor. many people WISH they could save. they always feel the stress of the next bill coming in
when they get to a level to save. they should

there is nothing wrong with saving to prevent you dropping back to poverty..

however some people
feel guilty for wasteful spending even if they can afford it
avoid wasteful spending even if they can afford it
convince themselves most spending is wasteful
[list goes on]

my advice is budget.
actually get out a spreadsheet and put down all income, expenses. and a separate list of a budgeted spend of meaningful experiences. and a smaller amount for allowed wastefulness..  if you set it in the budget and the amounts fit totals. you no longer feel guilty for spending money because its in the budget so falls within your economic plan allowance to not cause problems

dont rule out or avoid spending, just to save. but actually put a guilt free allowance to ease any stress or emotion knowing you are also saving too

once ou put it on a spread sheet it can focus your thoughts and emotions to do the math logically to show that its actually risk free to spend some[/list]

math:    doing nothing= delaying * (avoiding problem * causing more problems)


a. miners(asics) dont verify transactions/blocks... you mean POOLS
b. POOLS verify transactions pre-confirm. and you as a LN nutcase know nodes can validate "millions of payments a second"
c. POOLS verify a hash matches header.. header has transaction merkle root. root matches leafs.. and leafs are known/checked TXID
at point C competing pools and nodes are not again validating all transactions..
d. at most if a merkle leaf does not correspond to a TXID in a nodes mempool of unconfirms, they ask their peer for that TX.
e. the amount of tx they need to call and validate due to not already having in mempool is a small % of a block

the whole "verification time" is not as big of an assault on nodes as you think it is

mempools are already validating 300mb-500mb of transactions all the time right now.. stop pretending that nodes cant handle 100mb-500mb+ when all evidence shows the opposite

funny part is you are part of the crew that doesnt want to stop !ONE! transaction being 4mb yet you then say nodes cant handle a few dozen mb of transactions.. even when mempool and subnetwork "state" validtion prove nodes can handle ALOT more then your imaginary barriers


but your crew is happy that fee's are(time of posting)
341.23 sat/vB ≤ 20 min. (LEAN 226sat tx = 77,066sat = $28.23)

but you want to say a 2012 $150 hard drive for the historic and next 5 years (17 years = $10 a year) is a problem

if paying $10 a year is a concern.. then the tx fee means you want people to only use bitcoin once every 3 years??

sorry but the reality is its the tx fee thats the concern. not the hardware cost..
tx fee is making people not want to transact/run nodes daily..

any "cheap" mixer with small commissions are already a bad thing.. because their internal middlemen systems of shuffling coins(hops) are not much hense why they are not charging much commission(they dont have many self transfer fee's when shuffling internally).. thus the chain analysis companies can easily link inflows and outflows. especially ones advertised as "fast" too (less possibilities)

but yes any service.. mixers included, that do many spam hops of 1-confirms to shuffle coins will see costs multiply making it expensive to use a service, so people will stop using services.. as seen and pointed out by yourself
..

however you will see the mixers that do SOME middle-man shuffling do LESS of it to cut their costs.. so many "good" mixers with better pattern obfuscation will do less spam hopping of shuffling coins of their internal custody/reserves.. to save cost but to try to stay in operation. so expect this to happen

bad obfuscation ("cheap" "fast" mixers) go out of business because they cant afford to run while still "cheap commission"
bad obfuscation ("cheap" "fast" mixers) change their commission to try to survive

good obfuscation ("commission is x# multiple fee" mixers) go out of business because they cant afford to run while still "x# multiple fee"
good obfuscation ("commission is x# multiple fee" mixers) turn to bad obfuscation by cutting down on the middleman processes

in a bitcoin spot ETF .. they do not trade in bitcoin... they trade in shares for fiat..
the idea actually is the brokerdealers  manage, as agents of the ETF... a basket of SHARES which are sold for fiat

its already been known that the SEC wants to know which btc exchanges will secure, audit and transfer the actual bitcoin (EG  coinbase for greyscale/blackrock)

so lets say broker-dealer "ABC investments" wanted to be spot ETF agents..
they would with fiat, go to coinbase. pay $XXXXX fiat for a basket worths of BTC and coinbase would custody it and register the basket with greyscale. making it part of greyscales trust.. not ABC investments property/custody/ownership..
grayscale will then give ABC investments a lump of GBTC shares. where the GTBC shares are ABC investments property/customer/ownership.. which ABC investments can sell shares to its customers

ABC investments would not be trading bitcoin with its customers

im sure the link your wrote got details in wrong order/misunderstood. but im thinking the SEC is talking to coinbase to ensure coinbases systems are ready to register the baskets with blackrock, greyscale, ark.. so that agents can hand fiat over and the ETF hand shares back in a secure audited way via coinbase ratifying, securing and registering the custody of coins to allow ETF to create the shares to give agents access to

it a known think that dealers cant do bitcoin direct with their customers... its kinda the whole entire point of this whole 10 year saga of trying to get an ETF that shadows the spot price. rather than direct trade bitcoin itself.

its just that some applications are not doing what greyscale, blackrock and ark are doing.. some smaller applications have wanted to self custody actual btc and allow direct btc redemptions, which the SEC doesnt want and are saying no to.

---

the reasons the SEC want it the greyscale,blackrock,ark way.. of a middleman between agent and etf doing the custody. is this:

by a agent not doing "in-kind" share->btc redemption.. and instead SEC wanting just share->cash trading.. is that the trades trigger cap-gains

IF a broker/agent were to take a customers cash. give them shares then later at sell redeem to btc for the customer.. the customer is not then triggering cap-gains because they fiat-share-btc has not looped back to fiat to trigger gains.. its a "in-kind" non taxable swap to not see gains

so yes the sec wants the dealer-agent not to self custody, offer btc, do share->btc redemptions. its for tax reasons

they are not pro-active. they are reactive/retroactive

they wait for reports to come to them. and have other departments or private business to collect data for them. and only IF a report raises to a risk standard do they then react to get court orders to retroactively audit/investigate old historic data for a crime.

i would love it if regulators actually audited custodians pro-actively and also ensured custodians has some bankruptcy protection/hacker insurance to protect users funds where the insurer just pays out should the business go bad. whereby with audits and compliance the business can just start-up and operate knowing there is some "security" in its exchange..

this whole setting a deadline and on last minute moving goalposts shows they are not actually doing any active work
when the grayscale vs sec deadline came for sec to appeal. they didnt make a decision to not appeal and announce it early to start the next period. they waited to the last day, said nothing and just let the deadline passing be their answer to if they would appeal or not

there was another deadline on nov 17th to possibly give a ETF announcement.. again no response just let the deadline pass. now most people are waiting until january for next deadline..

the SEC is not fit for purpose and act like they dont even know their own role. they cant even categorise what is a commodity or asset properly to decide if its their jurisdiction or not to act on..

the SEC needs an overhaul. and the replacement should be more prioritising consumer protection not consumer policing via their businesses they regulate

great thing about code is there are many ways to do thing
however fees recently were 5sat/byte.. now 200sat/byte.. meaning 40x.. so you only wanting to penalise them by 10x is low
also them taking up 10kb with lean tx being 0.25kb is again a 40x space steal.. so penalty should be way more then 10x. more so a minimum multiplier of 40x.. id prefer 200x



i was thinking back to the days when there was a fee formulae that created a 'priority' score. where by first 50,000bytes had 'priority' of 0 fee(lean tx, old utxo age). then there was 250,000byte of high fee space and then 700,000byte of low priority low fee..
but modernising it by using a priority space based on opcodes.. where there were 2 separate "fee estimation" where nodes would default to 200x fee for the 10% space of junk.. that junk can only go in that 10% space. and mining pools would only put junk in if they are paying the 200x fee rate estimate..
this too would make the scam junkers think again if its costing them 200x * X% of blockspace for 1 tx.. and instead they become leaner to fit in more brc creations per block in that 10% allotment. but yes paying 200x for lean junk

i already explained in many topics and this one about conditioning the opcodes(looking for certain details). so the "penalise only junk" was related to that, having conditions and fees and penalties for just a subgroup of transactions.. much like is done by making legacy * 4 but in a more detailed and enforced way

i was trying to keep it short (avoid "wall of text") as it appears some other people dont read more then a couple lines before they get on the defensive

and yet the certain people that dont want anything done to bitcoin.. because they dont think transactions should be rejected... are strangely happy that transactions get rejected(pruned)

a LEAN tx of 226byte. paying rejectable amount of 21sat/b is 0.00004746 = $1.76

and so minimum fee of $1.76 is being rejected.. for being too low..(facepalm)

heres another idea
(if they fix the current byte count code cludge)
have a 2 tier system.. (there used to be one years ago)

90% of block base 1mb blockspace, standard tx(normal legacy, normal multisig, normal segwit not using opcodes of 'assumevalid' bypass)..
10% block this junk using certain opcode and or their utxos are less than 144confirm age

where by those in the 10% category are paying a fee rate for that space of 200x of base rate. and the usual normal standard 90% pay base rate fees from 10sat per kb  (lean 226byte=3sat fee total)

atleast that would appease the contradictory morons that want the junk to continue

windfury
none of your replies are about REAL data, code, opcodes, limits.
none of your replies are about REAL maths related to the data/limits
none of your replies are even about technology limitations IN REALITY

try for once to make an ontopic reply that show some thinking about the subject, outside of idolising certain people and insulting others.

when even your idol god devs say nodes can handle the creating, signing, relaying co-signing and relaying again and then verifying "a million payments a second" pre confirm.. it shows nodes have no issues with just a few thousand transactions. especially if mempools of nods can verify and maintain 300mb-500mb pre confirm  transactions without blowing up

when 4mb blocks are 6kb/s internet speed
when 10mb blocks(your groups suggestion) are 15kb/s internet speed
when 100mb blocks(your groups exaggeration) are 150kb/s internet speed

so please tell me the real defined reason your against it... apart from dev god cult following and wanting to appease your mentor

over a decade ago. (pre bitcoin) i was frugal but my mindset was that my "wants" were NEEDS. like i needed certain entertainment TV packages for movies and tv series. i needed to enjoy fast food as its more convenient then self cooking, i needed to go to the gym, sports clubs and night time activities, i needed X time off for vacations.. nothing was a want, everything felt as a need

then i got into bitcoin, and decade later im set, retired early and have no money worries

that said, im still frugal. where i dont see "needs" i just see wants. and now i question those wants and realise i dont need.

it can feel good to walk into a restaurant and know you can afford anything on the menu but buy the basic meal..
it can feel good to walk into thrift/charity store knowing you could afford the whole stores produce at their original unused retail rate, but you are buying the same thing second hand (i also do new retail price.. but i do enjoy frugalness too)
it can feel good to walk into a car dealership knowing you can buy their newest model full price, but then asking about their ex-display/ex-owned/trade-ins

just knowing i can doesnt mean i should

i still travel and enjoy experiences but i just dont have the "need" weight on my shoulder. and i realise how wasteful my "wants" were

some times the knowing i can but not needing too is a positive experience more so then going ahead and buying the luxury to fill a emotional hole some people have

i still spend, dont get me wrong. but my habits remain frugal and i still invest, and i do question my purchases even if i dont have to

best advice is.
look for things in life that make you happy. then do them. knowing your investments are also happening side by side so you get to look after yourself now and in the future

there is nothing wrong with being frugal about wasteful spending,, if you then spend on the things you really enjoy too