@GazetaBitcoin

heres the thing.
he was not just "running a website"

it wasnt like craigs list where anything was just randomly sold
it was a website geared for the illicit content. advertised for illicit content.
he cant play ignorant pretending he didnt know what was on it. when the design of the website he made was designed for illicit stuff to be categorised.

oh and. you made alot of waffle trying to pretend he didnt run the website.. and then ended your last post saying he was arrested for.. running the website

so even you deep down know he was running the website and just are trying to promote lame and debunked claims he was a patsy blamed for something he was uninvolved in

reality check the FBI were for months pre-catching him. watching him and linking him to events and stuff he was involved in

and it was not just the website content. it was the illegal deals and the hitman stuff too, thus he is not innocent

..
now here is the thing.
if he stuck to just weed. and he didnt go vengeance hitman hiring. he might have cause and claim to get his sentence reduced now weed is legal.

but because his crimes were more then "just weed" he has to serve a large sentence

..
i know people think. "if i use bitcoin it makes me immune from normal crimes.. sorry but no. if you intend to murder someone murder is murder no matter the payment method

if you want to broker cocaine deals its not the currency type that decides guilt or innocence
its how involved you are in brokering cocaine deals

he was the drug den.where he had a big sign saying get your cocaine here
and taking a cut for that
 not a vacant street corner

what people are calling "bidens law"
is not about "banning bitcoin"

its about businesses operating as financial services without registering they are:
a business
  -this affects the personal bank account holders that do too many wire transfers on
   localbitcoins and de-fi, breaching their personal banking terms&conditions
   - yep processing say 100k a year for random strangers has been a personal bank
     account red flag for many many years before bitcoin even existed

a financial business
  - this affects both personal and business accounts where they dont have a
    MSB/PSP/PF licence to operate as a financial service. again a rule that predates bitcoin

the detail people forget is that bitcoin became a currency in 2013 thus standard banking policy
began applying to bitcoin businesses after 2013

which isnt about biden/obama. it was the "mainstreaming" of being defined as a currency

yep it was the "bitcoin got allowed" celebrations by many that caused the jurisdictions to then get their fingers into deciding what certain entities can do in crypto

---

as daveF said. if your just doing $100(small amounts) to friends or strangers infrequently. its not going to hit thresholds of red flags

doing the banking limits thresholds of $1k+ $10k+ $xxk+ expect questions
wire transfer thresholds existed pre-bitcoin
but became applicable for bitcoins doing wire transfer. when bitcoin became a currency

nutildah..
we all know you have done these crappy memes yourself.
and you are now trying your damned hardest to promote them and make the popular and not want them to stop

we get it your one of caseys gang or casey himself

but no pool has a precedent of being arrested for putting porn on bitcoin because.. there was no illicit porn on bitcoin before. because its just been links and quotes. not actual illicit porn

however it is a crime to distribute illicit porn and mining pools do validate and verifies and makes a choice of what they collate into a block more so than what a user ends up getting
user nodes dont choose what they end up getting in a block.

there is a big difference between a user node and a mining node

EG
an anyonecanspend being relayed unconfirmed by nodes is treated differently than what is same byte for byte lump is treated as by a mining pool owner collating that lump
vs what user nodes treat same said lump once in a block

users didnt ask for said lump in a block
but a pool chose said lump to be in a block

meaning they purposefully chose said lump of data to be added which they have a responsibility to verify and a opportunity to verify what they chose to go into THEIR block template
meaning they had means and opportunity

there is no precedent because ordinal s is a young thing only recently been allowed and so far (luck) there has been no porn to set precedent

but lets not even pretend "no harm no foul" to even suggest someone should try
instead we should prevent before it happens

sorry your side hustle project you love is not admired and does have legal consequence which you want to deny and pretend doesnt exist. but there is legal risk.
so lets not chance it.

and by the way..
its you that want things more so then me.
its you that want things that are making bitcoin seem less appealing.
so its you and doomad types that sound more like CSW

but nice try
yep you want to make bitcoin be less of a currency network and more of a meme network
basically you want people to treat bitcoin like dogecoin. a laughing stock.

firstly the mining pool owner would get arrested for distributing nasty stuff..

secondly. users have the defence that they were not personally motivated to seek and acquire such nasty material it was handed to them without their consent due to a system that just allows things to download onto their device without verifying content
(no motive or intent=accident)

.. because consensus has been softened to not do such security checks
(but yea. if police were to raid every node users house to charge them with storing it.. still get a good lawyer to make a good argument dont depend on justice to sort itself out and realise what was intentional vs accidental/unconsentual)

but yea mining pools need to be very very careful what they add to their blocks

but we should harden consensus to not allow such things through and reject blocks that try in the future becasue a malicious pool does do a stupid thing

i dont mind speaking to people as if the are 5 year old ELI-5
but when they act like 5 years old that when they earn the descriptions i give them

at the millenium min wage was about £$5
and bought 4 loaves of bread

now its $15(3x) for the same work time.. BUT NOT 12(3x) loaves of bread.. instead its far less bread than the 3x multiple of dollar

..
yes hard drive data gets cheaper per GB so yes it deflationary
you get more data per dollar

..
bitcoin
as the value* goes up. you get less bitcoin per dollar(more goods per bitcoin)

and you again wanting to go extreme of total supply or other extreme of temporary price of 1 day shows you have not learned anything

inflation announcements are not daily or millenia
inflation/recession official announcements are for fiat, a 6 month call not a daily or a century

*also bitcoin value is not found at the top of a daily market. its based at the bottom of a period

value is the opposite of premium
and not evaluated on a spot market

i would say more but i think i should give you a few days to work out a few things and let your thoughts settle

---

one little hint
PRICE is speculative and moves at the whim short term.
it can inflate and deflate

but dont confuse that with value
not confuse inflate deflate vs inflationary deflationary

the 'ate' is temporary the 'tionary' is periodic

as for value.. value is the opposite of premium. so value is found at the bottom. not the top
so looking to find if bitcoin is deflationary you have to look over a period of time of the periodic lows
not the silly things you look at

you do not have to go extreme in teaching every one that you want to sign a petition to understand bitcoin

you can have simple petitions like
"we the citizens, names and signatures listed below, will not vote for any candidate that does not pledge to overhaul the financial restrictions that limit our access to the international financial systems.
we wish to see our next chosen representative to allow citizens better access to international currencies both fiat and crypto, and restructure regulations to be less about policing and limiting citizens access, and instead more geared toward consumer protection and financial freedoms.
any candidate or currently running politician who vows to go against citizens financial freedoms will not get our vote"

see you dont have to explain bitcoin. you just have to show signatures of enough people that want restrictions lifted where by its in candidates best interest to pander to those wishes and be pro freedom

---

also
trying to organise a "1million person march" protest in one city to just shout "we want financial freedom" is just noise outside a window, on the street, to a politician.. he can just turn his radio up louder and ignore it
but
being handed a petition of 100k people(legally cant be ignored) saying they wont vote for that city/regions politician if he doesnt go pro-financial freedom. will hurt him more and is more of a sway

so for 6 millenia gold has been inflationary hmm

so that means selling an ounce of gold in the 1970s would have got me more loaves of bread then .. than it does now

ok
well in 2012($4) if i sold 1 btc i would have only got 3 loaves of bread
well in 2022($17k) if i sold 1 btc i would have only got 2?1? loaves of bread
or.. what really happened is i would have got 10,000 loaves of bread

yep bitcoin gained value in 10 years. which is deflation

because mining cost only $600 an hour for 150 coins in 2012 (best rates)
because mining cost only $560k an hour for 37.5 coins in 2022 (best rates)

once things are in a block. censoring it (removing it is not a thing bitcoin does)

however hardening consensus back to some parameter of common sense utility is not censoring
also it doesnt cause a re-org/fork

if all nodes alive today say anything below 3.99 is acceptable.. then something thats 90byte is also acceptable

..
pretending that transactions are not rejected, ignored at pre-confirm is silly notion. transactions are rejected for many reasons.
EG trying to broadcast a litecoin tx in the bitcoin network.. rejected
tx below satoshi dust rejected
transactions trying to use 8mb of bloat rejected
i can give soo many more examples

bitcoin is not permissionless
its a consent network
even requires people to sign their own utxo to show consent to have their spends be added to a block. meaning the network  needs a utxo owners consent
and yes 2009-2016 users proposing new rule needed the majority to upgrade their nodes to be ready to verify a tx meets the new rules before the new rule activated is the network consent

those shouting censorship resistance and permissionless have no clue about consensus(consent)
they just want to make the bitcoin have no rules so that it loses its integrity. becasue they are too hyped up on sales pitching alternative networks people should use instead

its funny how they dont want more transactions on bitcoin but happy for wasteful bloat on bitcoin. the reason is obvious and said in last paragraph

look at your last elections. of your own local representative. what was the vote count of your local regions election..
if it was say a difference of 50k that could have swung the vote. then target a petition of getting enough votes to 'scare' a candidate into thinking he wont win unless he mentions positively a pledge that XXk petitioners desire
carrot and stick
pledge you are pro bitcoin and get XXk more voters.. say your anti-bitcoin and lose xxk voters

it doesnt have to be a pledge of one topic requiring a high community of that one topic. think of similar things the community in your area want that will get many to sign
(its like how US congress bills get passed by dropping in several laws into 1 bill that sway the majority of congress into agreeing to. just to get the small law they actually want passed)

so think smart about the wording of what you/your local community want from a representative and make it read worthy of signing a petition to get more numbers
to sway your candidates into agreeing to pledge to

find other like minded people in your nation to do the same for their regional candidates

i know the UK doesnt..

but SLAPPERs know all the tricks to prolong a case,
change of venue, change of jurisdiction
so just be prepared for him to waste years on all these games

if he does a change of jurisdiction by saying most of his opposition is in america or what ever blah he comes up with next. then be prepared for more time wasting

gotta laugh

doomad has no concept of consensus

you dont just turn up with waffle cones and think only franky thinks thats odd.. the whole group thinks its odd and throws the waffles in the trash

.. well that was consensus 2009-2016 when waffles would only become new consensus when majority decides waffles look good to want them on the table..  and the majority get to decide that from now on everyone thinks waffles are acceptable and they all have the choice of waffles not just bob
but it requires the consensus decision.. and not just bob eating waffles while everyone else  has no way to get waffles or check the waffles are not stale or no way to reject waffles or accept waffles themselves

if you think bob can just do as he pleases and everyone else ignores bob. unable to check the quality of waffles.  then you have no clue

doomad forgot the main thing..
in his own story he said the table decided on icecream
thats why they were eating icecream and not [insert random thing doomad wants to bring to the table]

bob broke the rules by bringing waffles(under 2009-2016 consensus).. but since 2017 with consensus being softened. bob NOW can because there is no true consensus anymore. its been softened to let [insert anything] without being treated as odd

doomad falsely thinks there never was consensus. in other words there was never a icecream agreement

consensus needs to re-hardened so that bob cant just bring along his dozen bloated monkeys next time to steal peoples seats at the table

---

extending doomads story starting from 2017
doomad is part of a few monkey brains.. that love bananas not coffee flavoured icecream

doomad wants to bring bananas to have icecream sundae splits, you know. sliding in a change without it feeling like its a change/new rule but just a soft addition

then bring his 12 bloated monkeys that dont like icecream but just want the banana's . then he wants to say icecream is not allowed at the table because its coffee flavoured

something doomad hates coffee flavour being on the table. he wants coffee pushed off the edge and put on his favoured LiNoleum floor (LN flaw) where he can make money from the coffee icecream, by making people lick the drips off the floor

having each tx format have consensus policy for byte usage rules.. filters out a tx being used as a meme.
(unless you are talking about a monochrome thumbnail of 7pixels by 8pixels)
so saying silly things like "but if we increase the blocksize we let in risk of memes returning
no, just no.
read first line of this post for solution.


as for blocksize
there can be rules for that too
if every 52500 blocks the majority of blocks are 95% at 3.99mb then new blocksize
and before blackhat sings the stupid song of "100megabites by midnight" song his buddy screams for years. no
scaling is not leaping
scaling can be progressive growth over time

as for saying "but computers cannot handle more then Xmb of data per 10 minutes"
um
bog-standard pc's download process and display 50GB in 2 hours. (HD movies)
bitcoin nodes handle 300mb of transactions at any given time (mempool)

by the way, lets go low
5mb/s internet
300mb per minute

firstly some clarity
its not governments watching citizens. you wont see a politician sat at a computer looking at citizens daily activity

secondly
50-100-200year ago (country dependant, dates are different)

banks set up their business (property laws) allowed them to self regulate

when people handed over gold to banks the banks internal rules over its property was gold became the banks property and the bank made private property contracts with depositors to "promise them" a redemption rate if they handed back the contract.. (bearer bonds(first promissory notes) aka bank notes)

then banks had other people wanting to become banks. so the establishment set minimum standards for its competitors. and that started the bank standards charters (policies and requirements to be a bank)

such as having to use the established bank promissory notes and need to pay the established banks a licence fee. and so on
all of this lead up many things we still see now

over the years bad banks done bad things. which is where governments set up independant regulators. not a government, not a bank. but independant auditors..

banks then lobbied to get a bit of sway in what they can do with a regulator
and slowly banks became secretly the regulators
(again reminder, its not politicians sat at computers in regulator offices, its banks(well exbankers)

banks then had secret meetings with polititicians to change other laws. and eventually banks did not have to even honour its promises (gold/sterling silver de-peg)

few decades later we had the work around #disruptbanking "payment services" like paypal and venmo and union pay where they didnt need to have the minimum requirements banks set as policy/charter.
this then soon changed where payment services then too needed to meet standards, but not enough to earn a bank charter. so they became just "payment services"/"money service businesses" thus not competing with banks, but an underclass custodians

now we have alternative currencies like crypto. trying to disrupt banking again

banks dont want to give crypto exchanges a "bank charter" but dont want crypto exchanges to have less rules then payment services/money service businesses. and so bank regulators latched onto crypto by defining it as a currency so they then can declare businesses doing certain functions are defined as MSB


what you find in the middle of this century ago
banks wanted a bit more control. so they lobbied government to set up some middle man supervisor where banks can report on customers and competitors.
which is where these middlemen regulators were run by ex-bankers. not auditors nor politicians
these regulators favoured the banks not the citizen
and no they are not government politician managed.  they are endorsed by government but ran like a business with ex bankers as ceo

---

now for those wondering how to change this
well most countries have an election each year.
maybe form an idea of saying "we wont vote for you unless your election pledge includes:...."

and then do petitions for your local candidates. to let them know without a doubt what policies citizens want to see

so start with "regulation overhaul to be less business sheriff gold badge policing.. and more consumer protection related"

if you can get a large local population demanding that their representative does things in a certain way. and enough regions do the same thus making majority of representatives/candidates of next election are singing the same songsheet. then thats the way most political laws move towards what citizens want

private property (as bitcoin was pre 2014) had human rights to privacy by default
(property law)

by being currency(2013+) its now part of "bank secrecy act" rules which is different to human rights. where financial data is not treated the same as private property

yep i said it you have no rights to privacy when using currency
and thats been the law since way before the most people were born(1970)

so its not a new thing that was invented by obama after bitcoin was invented and used to fight bitcoin. its something thats always been in play for 50 years. which bitcoiners think they are not part of because they still think its still the ethos of bitcoin 2009-2013.. even though they accept the "mainstream free publicity" benefits of bitcoin categorisation 2013+. they just didnt read the downside of accepting the categorisation of bitcoin 2013+

oh by the way..
china that banned treating bitcoin as currency. this stops regulated businesses from exchanging bitcoin. (and if a business is offering exchanges it should be regulated)

but bitcoin is actually protected in china as private property.. allowing people to privately trade and own it(p2p). and they cant do anything about it
yep a chinese person can still own bitcoin and privately trade it p2p. they just cant find a regulated centralised exchange in china to exchange it

usually in discussing when there is a reply. its replying to the last thing said (hispo was posting previous to mine)

however to reply to an earlier conversation. thats where you would need to break the current conversation to respond to earlier conversation by quoting earlier conversation

EG if i wanted to respond to the OP topic post i would quote the op topic post because there are too many other conversations afterwards.  

fastest way is the prefix.
bc1q=segwit
bc1p=taproot

a UTXO put into a transactions input to spend it does not actually show the "address" in raw blockchain data
it just shows the txid of previous tx and the output position it wants to spend

so you would have to look up the spending txid and find the output anyway

so the fastest way if your looking for an individual tx "type" is to just paste the spending txid into a blockexplorer and use eyes at the prefix
or you could try grabbing the input txid search block data for its output and do things the slower way

it wasnt a political thing it was a middle man service

just like CEX that offer virtual visa cards do not need endorsement of visa CEO
they just use a virtual visa PSP(payment service provider)

the reason it stopped is the usual flaw. liquidity bottlenecks between LN hubs
.. its also the reason why el salvador chivo wallet dropped lightning too and instead went for a CEX backbone for chivo to manage payments

the trick is

Legacy had a opcode byte, where certain operations with certain rules were formatted depending on the opcode used.

one of those was a "anyonecanspend" opcode, which was a "default: isvalid" AKA backward compatibility bypass

when segwit was activated it allowed segwit to then have some sub list of its own opcodes, after the legacy opcode byte
where segwit has its own "anyonecanspend" sub-opcode byte which is now used as a "isvalid" to allow taproot to have its own sub-sub opcode list

by the taproot activation happening it activated the "isvalid" which.. had no byte limit of witness junk after the opcode byte

legacy had limit bytes of (from memory) 80
segwit had limit bytes of (from memory) upto 10,000
taproot opcodes have under the certain code upto blockweight

someones been on the weed and has the tin foil at on

by being a currency. you join the competition of the banks.
bitcoin could have continued as-is, being defined as private property and not need compliance of businesses to be the same as banks compliance

we could have developed our own security/insurance things to keep businesses honourable.. but instead we just got too happy that governments wanted to step in
and "legitimise bitcoin" (endorse) without thinking of the negatives of such act

to me regulations should not be about delegating money service businesses to police the customers. regulations should be regulators auditing the businesses and taking businesses to court quickly when they screw customers over

..
yes i dislike the hypocrisy of "licencing"
where by there are MORAL businesses not screwing over customers who are not "legit" because they didnt "just register" now being easily slammed by their banks
and how those that do register get a free pass on certain immoral acts and given weak penalties for doing so simply because they did "just register"

yep daveF said it better

but still worth adding in. that the real cause of the requirement of licencing for the big players above X threshold.. was defining bitcoin as a currency rather than its original 2009-2014 category, which was private property

becasue its the "defined as currency" part that allowed the regulators to step in..
..
pre 2014 people could trade as much as they liked without regulation/licencing because bitcoin was treated the same as trading pokemon cards and artwork back then