bitcoin is not permissionless

a. firstly the consensus network is was consentual
b. secondly the public-private key signing

heres the thing
where the song sheet windy and pooya are singing get the words mixed up on

b. value ownership is where the network majority cannot move value without the individual key owners consent

a. the individual cannot couldnt(past) use new features without the network mass consent

and never should the two swap.. to become permissionless

though doomad wants the two to swap and be permissionless. and he has already got one of his idol wishes.. (a) softened
now he wants (b) broken... having people run fool nodes not checking transactions meet rules and wanting new opcodes that dont sign whole transaction lengths but only parts of data so he or others can manipulate data in a tx onroute (he loves the idea of anyonecanspend and anyonecanpay ideas)

my point was.
when people shout moores law and say we are at the end

i recall when i was last at the edges of the end of moores law in computing over 25 years ago
.. until it wasnt the end and life moved on

doomad

its time for you to grow up. make one decision and stick with it, for your benefit

A. im a totalitarian dictator that has code causing everyone to be my slave
B. im irrelevant, cant change anything myself and have not changed anything and so you are wasting your life crying about me.. so you can put me on ignore and move on with your life..

choose wisely and stick with it
and realise

my footnote that appears below my every post has not changed
its MY OPINION and people should do their own research

i am not the one telling people how to talk or about what categories of a forum they should be limited to or how they should only talk in the queens english

then think about who is showing all the dictatorial signs of control pretending they are part of some elitist monarchy that want to control and dictate what they approve of and how others should get out the community if they dont agree with ... YOU

you only think with the mindset of cult recruitment thinking if they do not meet your application standard they should get out of bitcoin

so choose:
A. im a totalitarian dictator that has code causing everyone to be my slave
B. im irrelevant and move on with your life

i on the other hand will continue to just speak like a commoner. and do as i want becasue its what i want.

just be aware that while chasing stressing and waiting for his case to go to trial
he will waste your time with "discovery" and "pre trial motions" and lots of other things like "depositions"

where by becasue he is the claimant you lot end up not being the interviewer but in the hotseat being interviewed in things like depositions

(another reason why being on the defense is bad, as CSW team control the questions and they can limit how you should answer 'just a yes or no please')
whre by your side cant really challenge his means of questioning you and limited area's where your team can question his side

this is why hodlonaut done the right things and done the counter claim so he got to say his side and question CSW

i remember the moores law of the 1990's

i had a desktop. it had 3.5gb hard drive and 256mb ram and cost $1000
techy guys were saying there was a hard limit of 4gb on hard drives
they also said processors can only do 4ghz
and floppy disks can only be 1.4mb
and cd can only be 700mb
phonelines can only go upto 56k
"coz moores law has run out"

and yet
4tb beat old harddrives 1000x
microSD beats floppy by 350,000x
blueray beats CD by 71x
i9 cpu with 64bit 24 cores and 32 threads
1gbit fibre internet

lightning has no blockchain so there is no timestamp log of ownership transfer
liquid is a federated reserve (blockstream fiduciary system) where they control the transaction formats thus unable to use their sidechain as a timestamp log of ownership for bloaty stuff

there are other subnetworks however they dont have the right opcodes to allow such mucky mess

also rootstock is ethereum based logic that just throws its latest blockheight into a bitcoin coinbase output to be used as a reference and they call it "merge mining" by giving which ever pool adds that tx a reward for doing so

bitcoin is a few years behind in the offering of side/subnetworks because devs promised everyone that the two L networks will be the utopian dreams of promise... and 7 years later we are still waiting for something that has not arrived

running a node or subnetwork app is only complicated if the dev team didnt code it to be user friendly

EG it doesnt take much to put things into a top of app menu item in the GUI. but if devs feel they should only bother leaving it as a config manual entry or a command line option of a debug window.. thats on the dev.. not on the users competence

its silly little things
like segwit has been activated for 6 years
but for many years the main segwit codes rushed to get segwit activated. but then for YEARS did not even bother to get cores "sign/verify message" GUI feature to actually be compatible with segwit.

yep YEARS
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2021/09/29/#preparing-for-taproot-15-signmessage-protocol-still-needed

its silly things like dont make things user friendly and then pretend its not needed, as the excuse not to finish the job

firstly i am not here to spoonfeed kids
i choose who i want to talk to and help
and i choose who i see screaming out mistakes which i choose to correct.

when kids start demanding i tell them things in certain ways and link them and then they tell me how i should talk and respond and what topics i should talk about and what topics ii should not
and how i shout kiss the ring and treat them like kings
.. um no thanks
and tell me to not speak native english but instead speak google translate compliant english.
.. um no thanks

i am not their employee or slave
all their cries says more about them than me

their goal is that they want to shut me up. and they do it by annoying me and insulting me then spinning around afterwards and turning themselves into victims so they can cry to moderators

maybe they should get on with their lives and do their own research and just stop being idiots that cry when they dont get their feed

yes i am not mr nice guy(i used to be). but when there are a dozen idiots playing cry baby screaming my name. im not going to be mr happy

so maybe they should just stop poking the bear and then crying to mommy when they get bit

oh and one last thing
if they dont understand consensus (consent) where they think bitcoin should be permissionless..
and i then use an adult analogy.. that:
suggesting when a group of girls practising non-consent=NO . yet a group of guys want the girls to live under a softer regime where abstinence is YES by default(facepalm) and pretend there is no consent system(facepalm).. and should allow some guy to slip in his co** whether they abstain or dont give consent..
(co**=code)

should have been a big enough nudge for their minds to interpret how their mindset is wrong by their (wrong)thinking that non-consent, no permission, abstinence is not a good way to live life in a community that actually did and should use principles of unity of following principles of consent..

instead of taking that life lesson.. they went screaming on a rampage of crying to moderators and also putting negative feedback on the trust rating. that i used an adult concept they still failed to understand.

its time they grew up

get on with your lives
i am not interested in joining your religion which requires me to be a boyscout choir boy that has to get on my knees and ass-kiss

i am independent and will say whats on my mind, my opinions and stuff i have researched
its a discussion forum not a bible, not a scholars white paper, not a legal document

oh and if people have more browser bookmarks/favourites related to forum statistics like DT rating and who deleted whos posts and merit awards, and gets alerts/notifications/alamr bells ringing about posts deleted.. and such.. but you dont have bookmarks about block explorers and tx mempool stats.. utxo data and such..

then that shows you are more interested in the social drama than bitcoin(you know who you are)

current side-subnetworks are not the best,, by a long shot, in many many ways not. thats why not many are using them after 7 years of the waiting for promises to flourish

im not saying saying side/subnetworks as a concept are useless.. but the current options dont meet their promises nor have the security policies needed for people to want to trust them

new side and subnetworks will come about offering different niche use cases in the future. but thinking we should wait around for a few years on current side/sub networks dreams and hopes wont help

for now bitcoin devs should work on hardening bitcoin consensus (network security)
because things are going backwards (softrules causing less tx count and more expense)

and then expand utility for funky features for other networks

---

one major flaw of both side and sub networks both beginning with L
by processing payments via "federated managers" or "routers"
those entities are classing themselves as fiduciaries(money service businesses)
offering the management and handling of payments for a third party for a fee

(google:"expensive licence and regulatory compliance please because im a fiduciary")
and enjoy the hole you dug yourselves into legally
..
so yea sidechains and subnetworks that are not silly schemes like that will come about in the future to escape things like regulations.. but just not those ones

miners are the ones putting them into blocks mostly
their money into tx =their money into coinreward = their money back to themselves
no cost to them

they are the block template data collators. they can accept a 3.99mb tx with a fee of 0
because consensus is gone too soft and allows such

---

those saying not to use code to create rules .. but instead make everyone pay more.. is not the solution
code can make rules and fees are not rules nor solutions (as shown in first statement of this post)

when core has a milestone in the code that before X blockheight, blocks are treated as (assumevalid)

many many users 'could' compress up a chainfile or a utxoset state of that milestone height. get the file hash for integrity check and sign that they have verified the integrity (much like they sign for a hash of compiled core exe)

where people can then check the hash of a compressed file matches to know the content matches. which then people can download milestoned (assumevalid) blocks in a lump
and then build ontop of from said blockheight the natural peer way
(as long as there are alot of independant* reviewers signing the same hash for integrity)(*not the same social/cult-ural group)

ok lets first define 3 types of transactions (attacks) because your making 3 arguments about 3 different attacks types of people bloating and spamming and your using those types against the wrong solutions

1. multi-ouput batchers = the CEX withdrawals (over chargers)
2. bloat witness opcodes = meme ordinal bloaters
3. spending young utxo = spammers

lets say all examples in this post are based on a 1sat per byte(for normal utility)

using a business mind (1)
when you deposit into a CEX it costs you 1 tx fee (2in 2out lean = ~374byte)
374sat
when they then move from their hot to cold and then cold to hot and then hot you your withdrawal address
thats
sweep deposit | colt to hot  | hot to your address
500in 1out      1in 2out        1in 500out
0.2% of tx       0,2% of tx    0.2% of tx   should be your "fair cost"

74044             226             17158     (per cex session)
148                 -                 35          (per customer)
(based on a 500 user batch)
binance should at a 1sat per byte be charging a user 183sats
so yes 50000 is extreme as thats pretending its
274 sats per byte per user
but thats their internal business decision and not the bitcoin
so simply dont use binance

---

ok now lets deal with the bitcoin network stuff

ok so code can create magnificent things called rules and policies the network agree to collectively verify the network

so
1. a rule can be made if a tx has too many outputs. then a fee multiplayer is in place EG under 4 outputs=min sat/byte.. 4-100output =4-100x min sat per byte.. and so on 101-500output =400-2000x sat per byte

2 define byte length per opcode. where no one needs thus gets to use an opcode where they can have 10kb per use or able to use the whole 3.999mb

3. if utxo is under 288confirms. then use multiplier
EG a spammer spamming every block pays 288x min fee

this means not everyone is fined or pressured to pay more.
but if some individual wanted to for instance create a tx where:
an opcode allowed more then 80bytes. lets say 10kb
and they had 399 outputs
and spent it every block (a 3.99mb block of 1tx)

that one person. would need to pay (if min sat/byte was 1sat/byte)
1596sat perbyte for the opcode(1)
x288 for the age = 459648sat per byte for which being 3.99mb tx
18381,3235,2000sats (18,381btc per tx)
so yea they can pay the fine. but then they would run out of funds before the day ends

where as someone spending once every 2 days with a 2in 2out
would need to spend ~226byte = 226sat in the very same block

---

as for the highlight about lukes Bip
isny it funny that luke and sipa were the main segwit promoters.. yet
even now they were using legacy
(sipa's legacy vanity address(his site) and lukes legacy (stolen at christmas))

hardening consensus is not a fork creating event

if current rules are "we dont care"
then any new rule that says "only 80bytes on opcodeXX".  is within that "we dont care" range of 'upto 3.99mb amount thus wont cause any disruption

all it means is anyone after activation. that then tried to make a tx. will get their tx rejected if that individual made a bloaty tx
thus punishing the spammer alone not the network

it wont cause any block issues by refining and defining opcode byte limits because any new byte limits will be under the current lax rules thus not cause issues to current rules

the only time there would be a fork risking event is the opposite
if there was a rule of 80bytes in an opcode that someone wanted a new rule of XXXXkb

the reason why they say the price is possible is:
because my math of just 50% hashrate rises per year are reasonable amounts not extremes
so the possibility is maybe with other factors(10% efficiency per year)
~$800k-$5m without extremes

the reason said about sidechains by blockstream(obvious common sense):
a. blockstream ceo does not make money from people moving coin p2p on the bitcoin network
b. he owns liquid and also has major stake in (core-lightning) which he can if his employees and his businesses are the federations and payment routers/hubs respectively he can make profits on fees their subnetworks
c thats the whole game going on.. its why blockstream employees, sponsored influncers, fans, affiliates,  were pushing to get everyone over to subnetworks while hyping up things that restrict and expense BITCOIN utility)

b. also if 1btc was $10m then 10sat would be $1
(1btc=100000000sat
 1btc=$10000000
10sat=$1)
meaning onchain fees of lean tx 250bytes(1sat per byte) 250sats =$25 which no one wants to pay as a minimum fee(1sat/byte) to make payments

so he thinks people will want/need to use sidechains (locked to only function and service bitcoin as a sole bitcoin feature network(no cross boarder)
would be the only way to offer people "cheap fees"

the "non standard" is they use an opcode that is once its in a block its treated as (default:isvalid) where it just is passed/accepted without validation rules
so that nodes can be told they dont need to upgrade, and being a fool node is acceptable

its the same as the "anyonecanspend" debate in 2016 before segwit, about using it to allow segwit.. but where there was a limit
(they eventually didnt go soft in nov 2016(as i said they shouldnt as was dangerous) and instead they hoped for hard consensus upto may2017 which didnt flourish. then they mandated hard via a MAHF in june/july. to force it so they can then use the soft opcode in august)

and now soft options are allowable since then
then after segwit,, segwit had a sub opcode for its own "anyonecanspend" but this had a semi limit on it
and with taproot sub-opcodes have their own "anyonecanspend" thing

these opcodes and sub opcodes that allow soft things have each also relaxed the limits per time
taproots subopcode of the same thing is no limit apart from the blockweights own limit

if your doing initial block download via TOR
expect it to be SUPER slow download (tor bottleneck)

bitcoins bottom line value was about $15k in 2022 (based on most efficient mining(acquisition method) on the planet causing a non zero bottom (no one wants to sell at a loss below worlds lowest acquisition cost
and was about $99k max range of possibility based on most expensive on planet for same time period

so imagine mining stayed at the same $15k per btc (240exahsah at $0.04 per kwh)

now: ($15k/btc)
2024: halvening  ($30k/btc)
2028: halvening ($60k/btc <-non zero bottom limit)
2029=same

now lets say no new efficient upgrades of hardware, no electric hikes. but where there was a change per year of hashrate was +50%
(last year was 26 diff to 39diff )(26 X 1.5x=39)

using excel for range of possibility for market per 1btc
          hashrate  min             max
2022   240exa   $14,994       $99,474
2023   360exa   $22,491       $149,211
2024   540exa   $33,737       $223,817
2024   540exa   $67,474       $447,634 half coin
2025   810exa   $101,211     $671,451
2026   1215 ex  $151,817     $1,007,177
2027   1822 ex  $227,726     $1,510,766
2028   2734 ex  $341,589     $2,266,149
2028   2734 ex  $683,177     $4,532,297 half coin
2029   4101 ex  $1,024,766  $6,798,446

note this is if there was no efficiency gain of hardware and no higher electric cost
so ill leave you to factor in asic gains and electric  losses that can also change the min max regions of possibility

i might post later an update with more details included
but have fun with the possible realms of trade window.. (these are no expectations of price per year , just a possible window the market moves within

the rumour:

its not to ban PoS coins in america
its not to ban PoS coins from solo staking on a PoS network in america
its not to ban PoS coins from being traded on regulated exchanges
its not to ban PoS coins from pool/syndicate/custodian staking in america on regulated exchanges

it is  that UNregulated exchanges/businesses in america cannot offer a staking service held by the UNregulated exchange/bunsiness,

and its became less than a rumour now with how kraken got hit with not registering to be allowed to offer staking for US customer
where as coinbase which is regulated can stake PoS

there is a massive difference between softening consensus to let lame stuff in quick. vs when a need emerges that benefits ever user of the network the network should shift

the second part is true hard consensus. the network upgrades their nodes to be ready to verify the new need that benefits everyone. vs the soft consensus where any whim core wants is thrown in even without nodes being ready for it
the importance of network security is having mass nodes ready to verify a ruleset. not abstain and just let things pass without seeing if it complies to a ruleset

60mill people of coinbase.com 25mill people of binance use them as custodians because of the tx restrictions and cost of using the p2p BITCOIN NETWORK

if binance alone can cause a week of congestion and fee excess on the bitcoin network. then bitcoin has been held back at limits that should have moved years ago
14 years and we are still at the <7tx/s (its about 3.5tx/s)
this is not about leaping to 100mb blocks like someone who inspires you thinks is the only opposite option to the current situation. its about removing the cludge of current situation to allow lean utility of upto 6000tx/s of current average tx size., then lean up the tx to be more so to get to about 10,000tx a block
AND
making fee penalties for those that spam their value more then X times aday rather then penalising everyone for those spammers abuse
for now
and then move up progressively(not leaping) the block size from 4mb to the next level
AND (as a sub service a new (fully working/unflawed) sub/side networks for niche utility where there is a monetary policy and security to protect users. (not blame users for flaws/loopholes)


you do know whats junk. bitcoin is a payment network not a meme network.
consensus is code. code makes rules to understand what is deemed a purpose of a tx
im not saying no to taproot for instance. but taproot promised its purpose was lean signatures of 1 signature length. and so the opcode for taproot can have a limit of 1 signature length to ensure it meets its promise of purpose, thus removes the edge cases of abusing taproot for junk purposes

op return only allows enough space to put a couple 256bit hashs as 'outputs'. where those hashes represent something off-network

the opreturn outputs are given 0sat thus its UTXO does not get added to the UTXOset, thus unspendable thus locking the hash reference to the blockchain database file (.blk) thus becomes a time stamp reference of a hashs creation.
(a date of birth registry system)
and being in a transaction means that it shows a spenders address which created the TX as the proof of who the parent was of that childs birth
....
taproot should be as promised "one signature length"
as that was the promise of why its different than older p2sh multisig



a low quality image is usually 30kb+ (vs equivalent to ~46tx average payment space)
the most is <3.99mb (vs equivalent to ~6000tx average payment space)
a 'not bothered' 200k (vs equivalent to ~300tx average payment space)

when a block currently averages only 2000tx and there are silly cludy miscounting of bytes and other things imposing the 2000 to not be 6000
and where people are saying we are not bothered with delaying 46-300 payments of this imposed ~2000 average payment expectation.

it shows people dont care about a payment systems leanness nor utility optimised space.
not wanting to optimise but then saying it needs to impose restrictions on lean legacy payments and premium those simple payment formats.

doesnt seem like policy makers have the heart of the purpose of bitcoin in mind

they are more appealing to corporate sponsors desires of special bloat at the cost of normal users of simple payments

imagine if visa (usually a 2second approval tap and pay) sudden shown a message
we dont mind making you wait a further 8 seconds(4 more taptimes(blocktimes))
however if you pay us more in fees you can maybe get a taptime of 2seconds

is that really a great advert for visa payment system
yea some wont care about 8 seconds. but when that is for bitcoin a 40minute difference.. well.

the amount of people that i see say "just be patient" "just pay more" "just wait until midnight/the weekend when its less congested"
imagine if visa said the same things

visa: pay us 4x in fees for fast payment and acceptance in 2 seconds
visa: come back & buy goods at midnight you might get acceptance in 2 seconds

is that really a great advert for visa payment system

also thing like
visa: we imposed a limit to only allow 2million payments per 2seconds instead of our capability of 6million per 2 seconds. however if you use a international pisa card that allows payments in multiple currencies,
but only for amounts of:
value:a bottle of pepsi 99.999% success
value: a couple pizza's 97% successful
value:  a grocery shop 50% successful
value: a Us/UK months salary 5% success

oh and it needs 1-20 different middlemen to give permission to make the payment.
oh and if 4 million people were to be on the network the liquidity will bottleneck even more and the success rate would be less
please use that pisa network instead.

is that a great advert?