to explain loyces thing in detail
its not about market custody/reserves. its about the amount of coin on offer on a market orderbook listing thats being processed that second.

it doesnt matter how many coins are in circulation or custodianised on a market..
the price is not linked to coins in circulation/custody

it only matters what amount of coin is offered to the present buyer for the present buyers amount of fiat
and that does not have to be whole coins. it can be decimal amounts

thus its nothing like the nasdaq "shares" economics of needing to sell whole shares
..
how much is offered on a current orderbook listing being processed that second is also a decision where

its the underlying cheapest cost of acquisition(mining cost of most efficient miners. that set a bench underlying value no one wants to sell below)

and then on the market even if a market only has 200k btc or 575k btc custodianised people speculate above that underlying value..
...


EG
2012 had 10.5m coins in circulation
               mtgox had 200k coins
              
2023 has 19m coins in circulation
               binance has 575k coins

yet this (high school 'nasdaq' economics(facepalm)) would suggest more supply = lower price

but no. because miners costs per coin is the main underlying decider of a non zero bottom, the price went up on the market that speculate above the non zero bottom

EG if buyer in 2012 only offered $500 they would get~100btc
EG if buyer in 2023 only offered $500 they would get~0.02btc

because the cheapest bitcoin mining is X means everyone refuses to sell below X
and its this X that has increased in cost over the years due to more difficult hash cost requirement and also less reward offered for that hashing cost

it doesnt matter how long devs "work on it"
the activations are "fly by nights" as they now use the soft bypass mechanisms to activate without requiring nodes to upgrade

to stop it, just requires doing a 2017
mandate that merchant and miner nodes use bitcoin node v.X(old version with edit*) or else, by certain date

*to reject blocks that contain transactions that have certain opcode in blocks after blockheight 7XX,XXX

thus only take a few lines of code edit to a pre-taproot codebase

obviously to do this on the outputs(receiver) not the input(spenders) so that those with funds on existing TR utxo can put funds back to native or legacy tx formats without harm or lock-in

---

what this actually does reveal is that now that "backward compatible" is a mechanism* to soft introduce new tx formats**.. also has the flaw of easy adoption without consensus (need of activation broadly by mass adoption) to activate..
but to then roll back becomes something that does need contentious MAHF to undo***

*done in (june-july)2017 via mandated contentious MAHF
**subsequently in (aug)2017 forward
*** like the (june-july)2017 event

---

as for LN
who gives a crap
LN is not a bitcoin later(skin) that only fits around bitcoin
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN:
a. a cross border subnetwork bridge
b. for those acting as routes. a money service business/payment service provider (use of routes facilitating the movement of value for a third party for a commission)

LN is a flawed and failed to launch subnetwork bridge where by in 7 years it has not gained the same liquidity cap and usage as other subnetwork bridges have in 2 years

anyone can create a new subnetwork that is locked to only use bitcoin referenced locks without a crossborder facility to be a subnetwork with unique functionality and solely tethered to bitcoin.. but LN is not it

---

its not really a TR flaw.. its more of a flaw noticed due to TR not caused by TR.. because it was used in taproot.. people realised there is a pre-TRexisting flaw that can be abused
its actually a soft backward comparability flaw
by being able to treat a certain output to be treated 'as valid' without checking/validating data after a certain opcode means people can then put in whatever junk they like without nodes rejecting it.
this is a flaw that has existed for many many years. a flaw that has been treated as a feature

every needs to realise

there is a corporate sponsorship happening where they have funded a PR firm to try to get the idea of breaking bitcoin to go viral
this is done by trying to convince idiots that breaking the units of bitcoin measure is harmless but needed..
trying to rally the community to to appear to want if via multiple newbie alt accounts..
and try to stroke idiots to sleep pretending its no harm..

they create new alt accounts to hide who is trying it but they keep trying it when their last topic of same ploy fails

..
here is the thing. we do not need to have more units of account on the blockchain.
creating more sharable units is the same as increasing the supply
also to give "more decimals" is not a simple task

in REAL  data hard fact code

everything on the blockchain is measured in satoshi's

EG block reward is actually
625000000 units
NOT
6.25 units

if they want 11 decimals

it requires changing the reward from
625000000  where 6.25btc is then math done at user display level of
units / 100,000,000
where it changes to
625000000000  where 6.25btc then math done at user display level of
units / 100,000,000,000

which means breaking the binary math of not just the supply but the halving cycle amounts and also the historic value vs future value of units

EG if a future 0.05btc in a 11 decimal system is
0.05000000000
satoshis immutable block reward of old stash of 50btc is 5000000000

which at data level old satoshi stash of 50btc
5000000000 units
is the same data length as 'new 11 decimal bitcoin" of 0.05btc
5000000000 units

originating from colored coin concepts we seen NFT go viral
but seeing as NFT is now just a buzzword associated with over priced no function meme jokes on a ethereum tokened subnetwork

i guess the similar (original colored coin) concept of things like "ordinals" which would/should avoid being identifiers of meme junk could "if" made on a new good subnetwork of bitcoin and have good coding policy could have real utility of registering property, thus providing a secure system of new utility

but WHY need bloat of ordinals on the mainnet?

what does it do that it couldnt do on a subchain.
after all if your locking up a few sats to use as a reference for something
lock it up. end of
then have a set subchain network that uses that reference but adds on the extra block metadata which can allow other functions and features

its not about saying no to ordinals. its saying without coding anything new. you can have ordinals.. just be clever and do it on a subnetwork
that way you dont have t plead to core gods for permission of proposal and activation.. yep you can have ordinals right now that only function via a bitcoin network by only TRULY(unlike other subnetwork bridges) operate using only bitcoin references

bitcoin already has a locking mechanism for sats.
so nothing stopping you starting a ordinal subnetwork this second to add utility which needs people to buy some bitcoin to then lock to then use in the subchain.

but also we should not use a proposal for ordinals to then further delay onchain scaling by promoting a subnetwork as something everyone needs to move down to to escape the congestion of bitcoin or premium fee of bitcoin

firstly many people keep playing the fungible card. waving it around

but fungibility is not a 2 option: yes or no
its a scale
    a scale of suspicion/uniqueness

nothing is 100% fungible nor "fungible: yes"
everything is a scale. even paper cash

heck for 14 years now we have ALL treated 'satoshis stash' coins as different to our own.
where if his stash even moves, it would send many people into some social drama craze.
other stashes get different treatment
the mtgox stash, the bitfinex 2019 theft stash. many examples of showing that bitcoin is not 'fungible:yes'. but instead where some coins are 100% and some are 50% and some are 1%

where after so many taints, people care less about their "dirtyness" or origins. where by if a CEX has vetted them and let them be withdrawn showing good taint of not being recently mixed or from a known stolen stash. people give them a higher fungibility rating

and yes people can 'color' some sats to be identifiable as a function/property/reference. where their fungibility is locked to 0% because the lock is used as a reference point for some property/item/known purpose or entity or identity or value to be ported to a subnetwork

---

secondly bitcoin doesnt need to be an 'all-in' thing offering every utility under the sun with hundreds of bloaty options to hold weird funky metadata thats got nothing to do with moving simple satoshi units from one address to another.. on the mainnet

the problem so far is the only promoted subnetworks are overly promised, under-committed, half assed shoddy badly programmed subnetworks that dont really have good monetary policies or network protocol of accounting and verification to be deemed viable networks for majority use or even minority use
(but thats a problem for those subnetwork devs)

however trying to remove normal peoples transaction utility off bitcoin main net and then bloat bitcoin blocks up with just elitist batch reserve swaps in bloaty scripts and output listings is not the purpose of bitcoin either. nor is delaying onchain scaling by years to instead over promise some other subnetwork phished as bitcoin2.0 will do the job that then doesnt require bitcoin to scale.. but then has not succeeded in doing the job its promises. but still wants people to be patient and not scale bitcoin while we wait years for fake promise subnetworks to flourish

bitcoin should allow people to move bitcoin easily and cheaply on the mainnet AND then have choice to lock coins as a reference , to a secure, functional and non-flawed/non buggy subnetworks that actually do provide real utility for niche purposes.. and not some fluffy snake oil promises

bitcoin can lock value easily without code modification.. it should then be upto a sub network to then do the dynamic stuff it wants to add extra functionality of some weird service option not native to bitcoin
but where the pegging is actually strong,secure and non buggy on the subnetwork side

basically, short and for emphasis:
.. anyone can lock 1sat now with no need for extra metadata/coding needed on the bitcoin network side
then using that lock as reference. have a subnetwork that only serves bitcoin(no crossborder bridge) to then do the funky stuff with that reference in subnetwork data thus no need to bloat or change bitcoin
but it requires better pool of devs than the current lame teams playing games with current shoddy subnetworks

a lil bit of research reveals
students get a college-uni email address
then
when signing up to google they have to give them their college-uni address and an email confirmation is sent to students uni-college email

..

anyways this topic had started with the OP saying he had a 10 terrabyte hard drive and wondering why it was taking 3 days to sync

its been noted several times its not due to the hard drive. with multiple examples why..
. and that includes that a ~774,000 blockheight of ~450gb would be even at 10 blocks per second only be 24 hours and thats on a slow day. but where even generic hard drives can handle way way more then that.

thus debunking the hard drive being bottleneck theory
thus not a storage amount problem or a write-read speed problem

even 6-13mb a second is way less than the limits of even old hard drives
(plus all the other blk rev file stuff ontop still doesnt exceed hard drive tolerances)

.. all that said i do find it funny how people went into a whole tangent to try to get someone to buy some majorly expensive new server-grade hard drive and pretend bitcoin wont be good unless large server cost investment went into it (facepalm)

however its more likely a bandwidth (intermittent internet) issue

ram, also deals in GB amounts not megabyte amounts
also even if ram is over utilised the pc can use hard drive as virtual memory (page file swap files) but again they are dealing with GB amount of data store/processing but only need a few mb per second utility.

the silly delays in syncing i see today happen more often by people using slow network protocols like Tor and VPN that have the worse ping rates and bandwidth speeds even if your device is linking to an ISP at highspeed
its the propagation/relay between nodes that slow the momentum down

i say this because
if hard drives can tolerate terrabytes of data
hundreds of mb of read-write speeds

ram deals in gbs of data and even using virtual memory hundreds of mb of read-write speeds per second

the only low baring fruit that is probably going to be only a few mb/s would be the internet. especially if using tor-vpn bad ping rate utilities

and searching OP post history, they like to talk about utilising tor alot. thus i feel that is their actual issue

but i still find it funny how people are trying to make it look like bitcoin cant function on hard drives bought circa 2018-2023 and pretending everyone needs to by some high spec hard drive that only servers use

going around in circles again

first it was coloured coins,, resulting in(circa 2013-15) dev conflict and moderation causing people to create ethereum and develop subnetworks for colour coins over there(now branded erc tokens and then NFT)

now its re-spinning again. .. ordinals.. poking at the same debates again. where its obviously not going end the debate with the result being to be a onchain(mainnet) accepted proposal

the best play is not bloat bitcoin blockchain with metadata per tx for every business, IP registry on the planet.
but to have a subnetwork thats actually a subnetwork of bitcoin but for only bitcoin.
thus making bitcoin the go to first network to be able to access the subnetwork (no side-bridging)

thus becomes a sub feature for only bitcoin.
(unlike a certain subnetwork that phishes its a bitcoin subnet but is actually a crossborder bridge subnet)
so not those silly subnetwork bridges of cross borders existing today, but a new one.. not one that just pretend to be bitcoin subnetworks and abuse bitcoin co-branding while offering nothing to benefit bitcoin solely/usefully/securely

where by bitcoin if having a true sub feature subnetwork offers a NFT proposition, where its not for meme crap.. but for actual business registration and IP right. which as a sub of the sub then can be used as company shares, stocks, bonds, land(physical and server virtual land(web3)) shares/allocations

thus having an actual purpose and real tradable utility and ownership rights of property law without bloating bitcoins mainnet

but these subnetworks better be designed with better security, accounting and policy, rather than the crappy subnetworks currently being made with wishful over promised propositions that have for 7 years not met any expectations and people know they couldnt, yet left people waiting years and even now still told to wait for them to (facepalm) flourish

bitcoins network doesnt need to "be-all" but it needs to scale onchain to not be expensive to transact nor be congested as soon as one business needs to sweep deposits. and no i dont mean throw everyone off the mainnet like other fools suggest. or suggest "just pay more or wait a week"
bitcoins onchain scaling need to finally get into action again. and also have subnetworks(with real integrity and validation and security) as a sub mission. not the main mission of bitcoin devs

so subnetworks do have a niche and utility. they just have to be good and actually solve something and actually do as promised.
rather than just brand steal "bitcoin" but offer nothing apart from stalling bitcoin growth

NFT as the silly identifier of monkey/cat memes is a waste of time. waste of resource

and sure let that waste its time and resource on ethereums subnetwork bridges

however the initial utility of NFT was not monkey/cat memes

NFT that represent a key identity to property has utility.. just not meme property.
keys that are used as gateways for server access/ownership claims and account management. reputations and business.. you know things like IP rights, brand copyright, patent claims,
time stamping your business brand registration and then using that NFT to peg out and create more shareable units to be the businesses official company shares. that was the initial premiss of some of the benefits of NFT

selling ownership shares in a brands identity, a companies stock, collateral in a immutable timestamped way that holds up in court should there be dispute of ownership

that is where NFT can explore and have usefulness. and thats the ones that should be utilised on a bitcoin subnetwork bridge

TV series Wil Trent
about a detective solving murders and such

Wil trent Season 1 episode 5
15:35 "guy suspect: sean controlled payroll, personally"
15:39 "guy suspect: he paid our salaries in bitcoin"
15:43 "guy suspect: and kept everything in an escrow wallet on the blockchain"
15:45 "female cop: im not a crypto girl, but what im gathering is
15:47 "female cop: your all real state agents working for bitcoin
15:49 "female cop: and your worried you might not get paid"
15:53 "guy suspect: theres no 'might', if seans dead"
15:55 "guy suspect: all the bitcoin he owes us is frozen

a retailer does not need to decline accepting bitcoin simply because its no legal tender. they are just not pushed to accept it by default due to it not being legal tender

and for the opposite..
if its not formally banned a business can choose to accept it. if its banned they cannot accept it.

in short there is a middle ground where countries just dont care and have not declared either way. a business can choose whatever way the business wants

its ok to ask questions. but without you knowing the basics its not as helpful to then help you

EG if u knew the site she used. we could have looked up the glossary of terms page of terms of service to help work out what "margin" meant

on balance of utility.. there are many websites that just use the word as a estimator of profit or loss if the user was to sell at that moment comparing to their purchase price

where as the so called "buying on margin"(loan) they prefer to use "leverage" or "shorting" as the term

so odds are its just a profit estimator if that person was to sell today and nothing to worry about

but without knowing the site you speak of we cant be sure (as a very few silly sites are badly translated or coded by someone that doesnt know the best economic words to use)

its about "intention to spend"

EG you dont declare your debit bank card because no one intends to spend their entire life savings in 2 weeks. but if you were going to do a YOLO in las vegas with life savings then yes THEN you should also declare your bank account as YOLO vacation money

when taking physical share certificates, gold bars, if you dont intend to spend them theres no reason to take them. and as such finding them on you is then questioning why you needed to take such an amount

so unless you intend to spend E10k  worth of crypto then there is nothing to declare.. but dont then use that as an excuse not to declare it and maybe get caught on the way back where they may find evidence you did spend more then e10k but not declare it

most of the time just declaring it is meaningless. its just paperwork (unless your on some watchlist).. you simply carry on with your journey
however caught not declaring but then spending raises a red flag

i went from UK, through europe, to asia a few times(and back)
they only cared about my physical value. not any digital(bank/crypto) however they did ask how much i spent a few odd times on the return

if it were a problem then dang elon must never be able to go abroad as his bank account has way more then e10k in bank account share portfolio apps, etc (same as all middle/upperclass people)

i never intend to sell anytime soon so i dont care about market ATH

i value my coins by looking at the periodic BOTTOMS which go up per cycle. meaning more value is protected over time. as thats roughly the underlying store of value (non zero bottom)

find the lowest low of a 2-4 year period and compare it to previous 2-4 year low
and that 'bottom', is always bull

(my actual math for "value" and judgement is a more refined number under the market using offmarket data but you can without math, observe a similar thinking by just chart plotting each cycles bottom on a chart)
dont get into the minutia of daily price whims if you are not interested in selling daily

maybe its as you said

it might also be that the site logged her purchase. and is comparing the purchase price to the price today and is displaying the +/- profit or loss of that purchase

where its just an indicator of if she is at a gain or loss if selling today. and not an account balance or anything to worry about if not interested in selling today

only way to know for sure is ask your friend to(which the should have done before purchase) research the site they use and find out what they are using the term margin in regards with

if your paying premium for a used hard drive(sub 1tb).. at a higher price than a new hard drive with more capacity(retail 2tb) and where if on the same site you admire... then find a 1-2tb USED which is also bigbucks..  your searching the wrong listings

maybe its time you stop using ebay,  searching for particular models, as the models you see on ebay are premium

its much the same as a games consoles
people can buy new games consoles at retail stores cheaper then some ebay listings..
the fault lays in people search ebay for games consoles

the main ones i remember was

"email wont catch on" - postal service
"digital photos wont catch on" - kodak film

lets assume that (unlike a certain groups desires) that we do not grow the blockchain by just 60gb a year
nor wait 30 years before chaing parameters of the dev politic code cludge preventing scaling

lets assume we finally convince devs to remove some code cludge and have full utility of the 4mb space per block, (they have said for YEARS is network safe way way way before certain peoples desires of a "wait patiently" for 30 years(facepalm))
(full utility of 4m safe space is not a big ask)

1mb=52.5gb so 4mb is 210gb

lets say we round of the year being patient and get to about 500gb by year end 2023
and start afresh uncludgy in 2024 with better transaction count capability in 2024

december 2024 =710gb
december 2025 =920gb
december 2026 =1.13tb
december 2027 =1.34tb
december 2028 =1.55tb
december 2029 =1.76tb
december 2030 =1.97tb

by 2030 people will be wanting to upgrade their computer again anyway.. obviously owning a 2020 computer that has 2tb(average expectation) and having it already for a couple years and still good until 2030 it would be about time to upgrade anyway

at first i seen this and though oh no blackhat wants to be another achowe wannabe clone moderating with personal bias.
but then i thought maybe a little responsibility might snap blackhat out of his personal prospectives, to think outside the box, outside the social club houses he belongs to. to keep moderation responsibility separate from his personal ideals

maybe if blackhat can moderate without a slant leaning of favouring certain topics over others or users over others due to some social drama he has occupied. he might learn what responsibility is. plus maybe challenge himself to not fall into the social club biases he fell into before.

EG will he be a moderator that deletes posts because someone is just stating the obvious which goes against his personal beliefs, thus retaining confirmation bias by deleting anything that goes against his beliefs. or because he is sticking to what the forum rules say is allowable or not. because the 2 concepts are very different things

i do hope blackhat does not go the achowe route
and instead accepts the challenge to take on some responsibility, which may help him grow and be inspired to see things from a broader landscape.

so because that subcategory is already set to have moderator, yet lacks an active one. maybe give blackhatcoiner a chance and see if he can moderate respectfully rather than with bias.
we might even see a better blackhat come out from the experience

your reading too much into it in regards to omitting "electronic"

bitcoin is not suppose to be paper. its code. thus by default is electronic

when mentioning online, e-commerce, digital ledger you do not need to then subsequently define "electronic" because its already implied by "online" "e-" and "digital"
we are in 2023, people know that the internet and apps run on electric. it doesnt need to be emphasised

however the "cash for the unbanked" (whether paper or electronic) has been dampened down
heck they are dampening down the "crypto currency" and now calling it crypto assets by trying to shy away from treating bitcoin "as money/cash" and instead treating it as investment

they have further tried defining bitcoin
used as a mainnet lock of value for a subnetwork bridge/sidechain = crypto asset(commodity)
(commodity is a raw product produced or used to create other products)

bitcoin sold on a market=crypto asset(property)
subnetwork bridge/sidechain unit/token = crypto asset(security if under a niche brand/enterprise profit sharing from enterprises activities(corporate tokens like GBTC))

subnetwork bridge/sidechain unit/token = crypto asset(property if decentralised with no defined niche brand/enterprise)

there are then terms of crypto asset(utility) and other terms. all designed to shy away from terms of "currency" "money" "cash"