i laugh
funny part is everything i say can be backed up by solid blockchain data

unlike larry who has not read any code and keeps refusing to read code but pretends he knows the code although keeps saying how he shouldnt have to read code to know how bitcoin works. thus defeating his own defence by admitting he doesnt read the code to know how things work. instead he relies on trusting the name i mentioned not realising why i mentioned them because its them that are the broken record of idiots lacking research who never back up their statements with code.

but hey, larry has fallen into the cult. been suckered into the ass kissery and so he has made his bed.

ill give him pfft 7 years before he realises its time to escape the cult and think for himself for once

as for nutildah.. even he pretends to have never used lightning or ordinals but promotes the hell out of them even when they have been proven to be broke.. instead he wants to promote that they (falsely) work and its bitcoin that people should remain annoyed with and use less.. yep nutildah has shown many times in this very topic that he adores ordinals and doesnt want them to stp, even when he has been show that ordinals is broke and doesnt work as described.. so it makes me laugh when he pretend he wants it "patched" yet has been hell bent on (falsely)proving that ordinals has utility, even when it doesnt

again even nutildah should take some time to learn how the things he promotes work. rather then just blind trust his promotions by trusting the project managers empty promises..

---

as for the "i dont like someone limiting me to 520 bytes. maybe my redeem script needs to be larger"
here is the thing. if a code for a redeem script knows what to expect for a redeem script to work..  then it knows what to expect.. thus can have expectation rules of what to expect thus able to validate whats expected.

thus if the maximum redeem script for a 15 of 15 multisig is 520bytes then you can put an expectation that the most you need is 520bytes
if bitcoin then invents a new format that has say schnorr signature which promised to only be one signature length. and had an expectation of one signature length.. then the most that new feature would have an expectation of, is one signature length.. so would have an expectation rule to expect one signature length

..
but if you prefer a system that does not know what to expect, inspect or validate. then that is where rules can be broken and things allowed into a block that have not been validated/expected/inspected.

..
as for the rationale which blackhatcoiner quotes for the reason to remove expectation rules of data..
they say its not needed because the expectation is that the script is only one signature length so why waste time checking for length if there is an expectation that its always going to be only one length

the flaw in that theory is that taproot has proven to not be one signature length.. so it broke expectation they presumed..  so a rule would have been great to ensure that only a signature length was used.. instead of this junk data being allowed due to lack of checks

in short. they presumed and assumed without checking... which is the main flaw of lack of review, testing and scrutiny.. and its the main flaw of idiots that kiss ass.. they presume and assume without checking too

if you put say $8 into bitcoin in 2012 instead of buying a pizza
right now your would have $27k meaning 1500 pizza's in todays value

SEC now going after coinbase too

its not "some hacker" nor "some whale"

its one of bitfinex's hotwallet addresses it uses to perform withdrawals for many users

in short many many many taints ago the hacker moved hacked coins around and it ended up in bitfinex.. either directly from the hacker depositing into bitfinex or the hacker moving funds between users using other services during the 5 years, and its then random innocent recipient users of that taint that then used bitfinex.. either way, that taint is now sat in a bitfinex hotwallet.

it might be worth the victim(s) that has taint now moved to that address to contact bitfinex. show bitfinex their address they lost funds off of from years ago to show the taint path to bitfinex.
probably worth signing a message with that old key to prove you did have control of funds pre-theft

 and then have bitfinex do an investigation on the history of the utxo spends backwards from todays claim back to victims claim.  to see which user deposited those funds in the middle.

then if other victims of same scam come forward and bitfinex sees a pattern of the same user depositing same funds into bitfinex then bitfinex can report that user..

bitfinex obviously wont just 'out' the depositor publicly, because it might be just be some random guy that accidentality received some tainted coins between 2018-2023

however if alot of victims funds result in going to the same user. then thats less of a random act/random coincidence. to which they can report such a user

edit:
quick search
it seems alot of the electrum phish scam of 2018 has been moving through bitfinex several times and ended up in bitfinexes hotwallet address
even as early as 2019 https://twitter.com/JohnCon54897907/status/1111279898260312066
and it seems again this month.

so it seems too coincidental to be just a random fluke. so bitfinex could do some investigating into this

more efficiency doesnt rebalance profitability equally

it just makes everyone xx% more then they sell bringing market price down thus corrects back to same situation
the disparity of mining cost is not due to the asics but the electric rate of different locations
the solution is to move location to get the best electric rate to compete with those already in the best electric rate but that too was another "centralisation threat" of hashpower

..
however what you do notice is that when there is a disparity of mining cost. this allows for speculation of the market

take for instance hawaii and japan. their mining cost is $140k per coin. so they dont mine. however they are happy to buy bitcoin at anything less. because that market price is a bargain compared to mining. thus allows for market speculation to creep upto $140k right now if theire was alot of butyers in that region pushing the price up

if everyone was mining at the most efficient mining cost of ~$23k right now, then no one would want to buy bitcoin for say $28k-$140k if everyone could just mine it for $23k

thus the mining cost disparity due to international electric price disparity allows for market speculation

becasue mining is random number finding. even if you change difficulty every block you cant exactly control it to be a precise 10 minute interval

you will end up getting alot more blocks being less than 10 minutes as soon as you drop difficulty if something marginally went over 10 minutes. thus end up having to offset that next quick block by making the next block alot more then 10 minutes..

sometimes the simple fix is the one that works best. as the result of over complicating things doesnt make much of a difference

as for efficiency.. hardware already does this. thats what asics are already doing

as for geo location latency. the ping rate of international data is in milliseconds so already not a problem.. afterall once the pool broadcasts to 7 main continents of the first distrbution hop/relay of a solved block its then in enough 'local' regions and there in milliseconds..

the issue is that non mining nodes dont connect to other local nodes to only collect block broadcasts locally.. . so less about mining or needing to change mining algo..  and more about geo locating all full nodes to make the peer connect regionally rather than random connects around the world.. problem with this is that it then centralises the network where shutting off some super node connected to pool from america then would lock out all american nodes that connect to that super node.

this causes some centralisation issues, identity issues, and also only results in a few millisecond differences per relay.. which if you knew of the "8 degree of separation"( 8 nodes distribute to 8 nodes distribute to 8 nodes) 8⁸
you would only need a few hops to get the block to be seen by the entire network. so not really a big deal over all

it was one of the debunks against blockstream fibre which wanted to organise the distribution of block solves... becasue the risk was if governments were to take out fibre and it would cause node access chaos if nodes relied on fibre too much as the first source of block distribution internationally. so people didnt rely on blockstream fibre for block sources. so it didnt really get adoption.. because the benefits were marginal (milliseconds)

most established asic farms factor in a 2 year investment period
they pre-buy electric contracts in 6-24 month contracts at a discounted rate of electric cost. and they buy hardware upfront. thus they mine continuously for that 2 year lifecycle of hardware no matter what.
because not mining loses them time of their ROI of hardware.. and also they dont gain anything by switching off.. they actually lose by not using their allotted electric for that period(lose it if you dont use it)

its only at the end of the 2 years do they then assess their rewards total against their initial cost to set their cost per coin amount to then set their minimum sell amount..
.. this is the reason why the "ATH" occurs 1 year after a halving and not at the precise day of a halving.. because they do not work on a day-to-day assessment of cost.


however hobby miners just pool jump between bitcoin and altcoins depending on which is currently in a pump mania/ath

high usage does not cause fee mania

the highest fee mania was caused by a couple idiots making only a couple transactions per block where everyone was left out of being accepted into the next block.. thus low usage caused people to pay more to try and get usage

also back in the era of the fee formulaes existence. the blocks were only 25% full.
yep you can actually check.. (average block size) . heck there was even a bug where when block finally reached 50% full in 2013 it hit a DB bug that caused a fork. so yea blocks were never full back then. they didnt even get to 0.5mb until 2013... have a nice day learning.. (something you fail at and yet block data can show what actually happened, unlike YOU)

so that was another practical reason not to need it. even though it would have been more useful now blocks are now more full (whether full due to large tx count or low txcount but bloated junk)..

doomad

here is the thing
back in the days when "priority" was a thing. it was a consensus thing because those were the days of using the bitcoin node software to mine. thus the miner was also the bitcoin node software. thus miners did comply to priority policy

it was only when stratum software and CG miner and other software took over the block template creation + mining (pool mining began instead of solo) the process did become a separation of what rules a node had vs what a pool could mess around with

this THEN became the reason to remove it because there become a diversity between what was followed or not

however even with all that said.. core played politics (with sipa the reigning leader back then) that rewrote alot of code .. sipa was the main instigator that wanted it removed the most, pretending "the community"(pretending all the other big contributors wanted it removed and saying that no miner even uses the priority any more.. ) wanted it removed

but guess what. luke JR a big contributor to core AND also a mining pool owner didnt want it removed and did use priority in his mining pool(yep luke was a core contributor and a mining pool manager)

here read their debate
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9601
over all sipa ignored lukes request and just removed it anyway.. ignoring that luke was a miner that wanted it to remain(debunking sipas claims about miners) and also ignoring contributors objections (debunking sipas claims about core contributors)
yep sipa as the main coder of core in that era over rules what miners actually wanted and over ruled contributors objections and just decided to be an authoritarian and remove things using ignorance

..
yet again i see you are trying to say that bitcoin never had strict rules and people never followed things and everything was always broken or had bypasses.. rather than noting how things actually changed over the years.. and yet again you dont want to talk about who caused what and when..

return a petrol lawnmower + a full tank of petrol would be the court order(extra petrol being the interest)..
rather than converting the loss as a euro amount of how much the lawnmower was worth at the time of the swap

many court cases have seen the scammer/thief have to give back exactly what was taken.
its only in things like bankruptcy/tax evasion where most assets are converted to a fiat value and needed to be repaid in fiat. or where the thief that took an item, sold the item, no longer has the item and unable to return the item. are they then made to compensate in fiat.
but if they still have the item or can buy back the item from where they sold it. then that item can be returned in as best complete condition or better than when they took it

on the flip side there have been cases that did not even make it into a court room becasue some judges in different countries in the past just dismissed the case as wasting the courts time by thinking the case was about some silly game that should be resolved amungst themselves and not worth the courts time arbitraging the disagreement(the judge didnt believe the claimed loss was of real value to meet the standard of minimum loss value to proceed in court)

nope it was actually $41 total worth of pizza.

fiat came from a latin word meaning "let it be done" which refers to a government order/rule
however i prefer to make it refer to Federally Insured And Taxed as a laymans way to explain it..
my way is not the official reason for the term. but its the easy way to remember it

.. as for other names..
many people for years hated the buzzword "wallet"..
real world "wallets" store banknotes and coins and ID. but the bitcoin network wallet does not store coins in the wallet. it stores keys. (the coins never leave the blockchain)
people have preferred to think of the buzzword "wallet" to actually be a "keyring"(where keys are secured).. but it never caught on.

not really a precedent

its much the same as
"this guy stole my lawnmower"
judge: "give him back his lawnmower"

not all compensations/debts/thefts/frauds or orders to honour loans/agreements/returns need to be honoured in fiat

but still. atleast it shows that spanish judges accept bitcoin as a item of value that needs to be returned as is in the same condition as it was taken(plus extra for inconvenience caused). rather than some judges just dismissing cases thinking its two kids fighting over monopoly money

he hoards bitcoin. but he wants everyone to stop using bitcoin and instead deposit their bitcoin into his custodianed "factories" of another network to get "inbound balance" of a different unit of measure to be locked into playing with on this other network.. (i would mention the other network by name*(triggering their bots) but the usual 'other network' lemmings usually crawl into the discussion and spout their broken promises of why people should ignore me and instead use their network.

if saylor cared about bitcoin he would be sponsoring devs to fix bitcoin exploits. not sponsor the creation of exploits just to annoy bitcoiners in the hopes they shift over to his prefered other network he pretends is bitcoin

*it begin with L and is the flashy zap of electric in the sky that causes thunder sounds

the standard fee rate has not always been sats per byte
there was a min fee rate of 0.001 no matter the bytes used. so it never "always" started at 1sat.byte

also there was later introduced a fee formulae that had a score rating where the age of the coin and the amount spent rated at a score and if you had a good score you had priority witohut paying a fee. if you had a bad score you had to pay a fee to multiply the score to reach that score..

that fee formulae was later removed

it was only after the "core take over" that things changed again.

and for your information core did not do the miscounting of byte to make fees cheaper.. if you read the code its actually made the original formats(legacy) 4x more expensive. yep was a X4 not a /4

the measurement not actually sat/1kvb or plain 1kb.. the cludge of miscounting bytes is where legacy gets a x4 rating of weight units
yep when a block of pure legacy transactions, which only take up 1mb of REAL blockspace of REAL bytes stored in blockdata and hard drive. they are treated as 4mb of weight and given a fee price 4x more

have a nice day checking out block data to see segwit does not get a discount. but its that legacy that gets the premium.. there is a difference

fees have not become cheaper since 2016. they are actually more expensive as you have learned this year with blocks spending over $1 per tx and even upto $70 per tx.. yet the fees in 2023 have been the highest fee's ever paid in the whole history of bitcoin.. thanks to taproot

yep a exploit of taproot allowed fee mania to cause bloat and misuse of the network to make fees the highest fiat cost EVER.. so try not to pretend that taproot caused fees to be cheaper than history

and try to remember taproot was meant to be invented with the pretend promise of a new scripting standard of one signature length.. but again as we all know taproot actually allowed longer scripts.. and junk data be added.. not less

code is great because.. guess what its code.
core actually can write code that looks for rules/formatting requirements of tx/blockdata,, as it should do.

EG if something is in a witness it can actually be set to actually need to meet a specification/format/structure, where the witness has to serve a purpose such as proving the spend of a utxo (its purpose)

its not about "just cut off a witnesses head" its actually to make sure the witness has a proper recognisable head rather than a dead weight corpse with a monkeys face stitched on.
speaking of cutting off witnesses heads. you were the one advocating for prunning data.. which in of itself is centralising the blockchain by having less nodes collating and keeping full bloackchain data to serve out to other peers.


just letting junk in is not helpful to the bitcoin network. and again code can be made to actually do things. stop pretending its impossible to use code in a digital network.

but i do have to laugh that you want people to continue to be able to spend 1sat plus a monkey meme to not be examined for formatting standards, nor rejected..  and just allowed to proceed into a block..
..yet you dont want actual bitcoins wanting to spend less than 100000sat($27) on a pizza or 10000sat($2.70) on a coffee to use bitcoin, you want those people to be rejected and not seen in the blockchain..

but here is the funny part.. you pretend its about byte bloat of too many people transacting $27 or $2.70 values
but guess what

someone spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 10000sat
                                    outchange 99990000sat
vs spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 99990000sat
                                    outchange 10000sat

is the same number of bytes
yep each value is the same number of bytespace no matter how much value is in those bytes

so when you are the one trying to censor someones "small payment" pretending its about "conserving" blockspace. you have no clue about the bytes used per output value

you also seemto go against your own pervceived conservatism by not caring if a 1in 2 out tx with the "small value spend" then attached 3.96mb of bloated meme. so that debunks your whole byte conservativism game.. when you then flip your narrative your your dumb and illinformed version of "censorship resistance"


so here is a game for you to play..

look at any transaction whether its as far back as satoshis spend to hal(10btc). or more recently someone buying a pizza..
look at a Vout payment and take the "value" amount and look at it in byte form

all values are the same length of bytes used no matter how much sats/fiat value it is in human readable display format
yep the bytes of units in a tx is the same..
so stop with your mantra of wanting to censor pizza/coffee spends and yet be anti-censor about 3.95mb junk memes. because it makes you look dumb

then realise code actually can check and validate tx data meets specifications/format where witness space is to be used for proving a spend of a utxo.
stop pretending bitcoin does not need code to run. and realise bitcoin should use code to run. to keep it clean and efficient

..
i know you want to argue that it will make future features not be able to just trojan in .. but that too is a good thing. we need to get back to having nodes ready to validate new features BEFORE new features activate so that the network stays secure with node readiness to validate the data.. as that is how the network stays secure. by having nodes fully ready to validate active rules
not some hodge podge network where that are a dozen different tx formats hardly any nodes understand but just let through as "is valid" without any format/specification/validity checks, or even not knowing if they have proved they have spent the value they were meant to(being treated as anyone can spend)

back in the days of the NY bitlicence. many businesses done all they could to stop operating in NY and stop servicing NY citizens(banning access of users whos IP geo location showed as NY).. however the NY authorities set up honeypot traps of them themselves(ny authorities residing in ny) registering with non NY licenced exchanges using proxies to by pass the IP bans.. registering as customer and then making a complaint that they were able to register with the exchange.. this was back in the days where KYC was not really a thing so the exchanges did not really know who their customers were. but suddenly became required to KYC their customers to then ban those revealing they were NY residents

things like this also happened to seller on localbitcoins. if they were found selling coin to NY residents they got slammed too with not being licenced to serve NY residents

1.3eh/s
using for instance the asic rating of efficiency of 140thash for 3kw
30kw=1.4peta
30,000kw(30mw)=1.4exa

so 30mw of the 240mw may not seem much usage going towards hashing..
but.. that 240mw is not based on the power produced 24/7 its actually more like 240 in a 8 hour daytime which is stored and then consumed through the day. to be a ~70mw constant if you follow the logic of solar limitations and window variability

this 1.3 exa at the moment is about 0.3% of hashrate. or
if a block is 6.25btc reward with ~144 blocks(900btc) a day= 3btc a day income (~$80k a day before cost deductions)

what its more about is creating rules that make it easy for US domestic institutions to jump over the barriers of entry for operating a business in crypto but making it a pain for non US companies or small scale businesses to be US approved.
this is their meaning of "US crypto friendly"

they want to set the barriers of entry so that little guys or guys not in the US, to have a bigger ordeal to be legitimate businesses in america. trying to get international companies to move their HQ into america so they can then tax the hell out of those businesses and then be in the jurisdiction for other legal compliance stuff like tax reporting on their customers.

its also why the US is stalling for as long as possible any regulatory template for a ETF. because they do not like the current line up of candidates wanting to operate an ETF. so they are hoping one of the well known top wall street institutions offer to propose to be a ETF service so they can set the barriers of entry to that level to ensure little guys and international guys cant offer ETF cheaply

you have been around long enough to know this stuff

firstly never measure your "SAVINGS" based on the volatility of the market price because the market price is indeed controlled by exchanges..

instead if your a long term holder stop caring about the market price. and just remember its volatile..
instead remember this simple fact
there is always a periodic BOTTOM that the markets refuse to sell below. set that as your "savings value" per coin per 6 month period

the bottomline value is almost like the guarantee minimum return.
yes the speculative market can swing up above this and you can get temporary opportunities to sell higher then the periodic bottom. but if you are not in a selling mood dont care about the temporary prices

for instance late 2022 saw the bottom at $15k
early 2023 saw it at $17k (even when temporary market prices were over $20k)
now the bottomline value is over $20k (even when the market prices are over $25k)

knowing you would get a minimum of $15k late 2022 and now $20k in 2023 is much more relaxing though then daily worrying about the daily speculation and volatility of the markets that sit above the bottomline value

if you want to calculate the bottomline value.. take about 6 months of average network hashrate.
calculate the cheapest most efficient asic to work out how many asics are needed, how much electric and the cheapest effective electric of prominent mining farms. to then calculate the cost to mine most efficiently on the planet per btc

that there is the effective bottomline cheapest way to acquire bitcoin on the planet(below market rate) meaning no one wants to sell below that amount because no one on the planet can acquire bitcoin via mining, otc trading or CEX trading to get bitcoin any cheaper. so no one on planet will sell below that. which is where the bottomline support steps in to re-inforce that cex markets never correct all the way down to that level

once you know the number. you can then be rest assured that unless bitcoin really breaks you have a minimum value for your "savings" and anything else the speculative market wants to sell for is a bonus above the savings