the way the visualised network topology plays out recently

majority of "always on" fullnodes* belong to the economic nodes crowd(merchants and services), compared to where many usernodes just drop in-out once a week-month to re-sync and then move some main stash funds to daily-spend wallets(mobile/lite wallets)

this is why some people think usernodes are unimportant to the network security and IBD seeding, thus they make features of "backward compatible" and pruning. where user nodes dont have to upgrade node often nor need to store all data 24/7
or thats how they want to promote it

not saying its right or wrong or making any social drama. its just how the network and dev/peer politics plays out

* yes fullnodes = full validation of latest ruleset, full archiving and full broadcasting
not "fool nodes" =pruned enabled, listen only enabled and out of date to ruleset

---

if your not in need of moving large sums or not receiving multiple payments where you just instead want to be able to play around with small amounts daily. then using a cell phone wallet of small daily spend amounts whilst then having a full node* separate for weekly-updates sync session(when stable electric is available) for your main bigger stash of coins would be your best case scenario of utility

but each person is different, you might(unknown to us) be a business getting alot of payments and wanting to pay alot off suppliers so may need a full node* more. where as after work just spending personal smaller amounts you use a cell phone app

the actual effects are delayed by upto a year due to how the big industrial miners operate their accounting/costbase

they dont pander to daily price whims nor react to social drama's they have hardware lifecycles of 2+ years and electric contracts of 6month-2 years so they mine no matter what. and when its time to upgrade hardware/renew electric contracts (periodically) they look at how much coin accumulation vs cost. to then set their sell rates of previous periods accumulation
selling previous period accumulation while building up current/next period accumulation

(unlike home/hobby miners that can save money by just switching off asics as they pay monthly and so can save on electric bills and be on the market buy sentiment when prices are low)

the ATH have had more links correlation to mining activity than to social drama
EG
2011 was GPU pooling ramp up of costs compared to previous years solo CPU costs
2013 was first asic ramp up of costs compared to previous years of GPU costs
2016 was next gen asics (from ghash to thash)
2020 was next gen asics (over 100thash on small nm chips of only a could kwh)

those things changed the dynamics of how profitable/costly it was to mine meaning changing mindsets if people should mine to sell, vs market-buy low to sell high

changing the market sentiment

thers some economics dynamics at play
EG first release of next gen mining hardware only benefits the first delivery recipients with better efficiencies where they dont get hit by halving cost changes(lower cost plus more hashpower gives them best overall position). and it takes months-year for majority of network to upgrade to gain efficiency. by which time the hashrate has then climbed which then outpasses that initial efficiency gain of that first delivery recipient so then everyones costs go up due to the higher hash competition thus its about a year later before the true extent of the halving has settled into the new higher cost brackets

---

EG
if it costs say industrial iceland $16k to mine..
if it costs say industrial america $19.5k to mine..
if it costs say residential iceland $26.5k to mine..
if it costs say residential america $29.5k to mine..
if it costs say industrial europe $32.5k to mine..
.. and so on
if it costs say residential hawaii $90k to mine..

you can then start to see the sentiment zones of bitcoiners "switch" from hobby miner to personal buyer
(in industrial miners case they still mine. but if they have excess cash they buy while cheap too(when its cheap))

you can see that hawaii(germany/japan near that top too), if they have a good bitcoin community(population count) they are always going to be on the market buy sentiment as its always cheaper to buy rather than mine
so they are the ones remaining in the markets willing to buy even when the market is high. where as iceland are on a mega selling experience at that same high

alot of people think that "cracking" cryptography means its deemed a success when they can manage to crack a key in seconds
this is not the case

even cracking a millenia length normal attempt in just one year is treated as success
(many crpytography cracking competitions win the award if they can crack a millenia+ normal pc effort cryptography in a year or less)

where by to then bring that year length down to 6month, 3 month, 45 days 3 weeks 1.5 weeks 5 days, 2.5days, 30 hours 15 hours 7.5 hours and so on down to being just a few seconds.. actually requires multiplying the system of the year long success by many multiples

its not a case of if they can break it in a year with XXXXqubits they just need to add a couple more qubits.

its actually to have hundreds of QC computers of XXXX qubits each
which if it costs $1b for one QC then it costs hundreds of billions for hundreds of QC systems

yes bringing the efficiency down from millions of years down to 1 year is an achievement. but then that method is tapped out and becomes a multiplier game. equipment and of cost.

so if your fearing a QC will reverse engineer a public key in seconds when they announce they broke ECDSA to compute a key in a year.
calm yourselves

thats the thing though. people can lock btc up and peg it to a subnetwork bridge offering capacity and capability to transact millions of peoples value

But lightning had 7 years of failed launches and bottlenecks and broken protocol that allowed fractional reserving, fake balancing, and just didnt meet any of its promises..

as a mainnet bitcoin is top(im a bitcoin maximalist and proud of it. but i am a realist too and not afraid to be frank about details others want swept under the rug)

but bitcoins 2015 promises of functional subnetwork bridges to be capable of handing millions of users payment, has failed.. failed in promises features functionality, operability, capability.. and the test of time
its because cores team of "products"(subnetworks) they are not building subnetworks to solve problems they are building networks to stall and delay and make people wait years..

this is why amazon chose a subnetwork bridge of ethereum to use(avalanche). because locking btc to then peg to avalanche has shown more success in 15 months, rather than locking bitcoin and pegging to lightning has in 7 years

im ashamed to say, but its too obvious to deny
avalanche has shown it has a better value store and security monetary policy. thus gained more btc pegged adoption than lightning

lightning still has flaws bugs, lack of value security, weak pegging (on the lightning side) no network wide audit, no network security model.(list goes on)

its become shameful that more users trust their btc value on avalanche than they do on a subnetwork supposedly linked to bitcoin mainnet
and even more shameful that business titans who done their research also see avalanche as the better option subnetwork for btc value locks, subacute of the lack of success/promises met by lightning

the comparisons of eth development and btc development is they are both centralised
vitalik is just like adam back with a few other notable sponsored devs below the leader that have main merge privileged

that said. ethereums wide community. is not wide at all they do not even have their own unique utility that offer users a separate sentiment of usefulness and desires to have a different price discovery sentiment

check out their price wiggles

about 98% following bitcoins market price discover, just at a dropped rate of 1:14

however because unlike lightning whose peg has no network wide audit or chain or mechanislm for accounting. and where lightning has MANY flaws and methods to fractional reserve, double spend msats and steal directly and indirectly from channel partners break commitments/promises/ious... people just dont trust lightning for useful amounts.. lightning is more so stuck in concept stage for 7 years of sandbox testing and playing around. rather than having a functional monetary security policy to make it a final ready to operate network.. which other subnetworks do have

so yea people are preference to lock btc up and then using that lock reference on other subnetwork bridges with better monetary security policy on other subnetwork bridges
.. as for the comparisons to ethereum and cores centralism
core play the music of shouting "open source" but with their hierarchy structure and moderation, their concept of "open source" means something else to them.. under their premiss. lets use an analogy of a newspaper that is open on a page, transparent to read the contents(source). but that does not mean anyone can become a newspaper editor with publisher rights
open source to core does not mean open gate/open door policy.

the most popular altcoin is etherewum.. but if they are number 2. you would think they would have a large community where their own market would have its own niche price discovery/vale metric of its own senitments.
meaning if it was popular with large unique usage the price markets of ethereums would not look anything like bitcoins market movements

but take a look at the 5day or 1 month or 6 month charts and compare the market price wiggle shapes

ethereum the supposed #2 coin is just sheep following bitcoin. because bitcoin is where the real discovery is and the other markets are just tracing bitcoin due to arbitraging
take a look at how its over 98% similar in its ups and downs
bitcoin                                 ethereum


in short. other coins dont have any meaningful disruption to bitcoin

no no no
it was not about that at all

it was instead of broadcasting a legacy tx to a wide network, people can broadcast their transactions(using bitcoin legacy p2pk addresses) direct between users

it had NOTHING to do with using an IP address as a fund receiver ID instead of a legacy address

it was not about putting an IP address inside a transaction as the destination 'output'
because if it were, then there is no way to sign/confirm spending that output

it was purely about broadcasting a standard legacy TX to someones node direct instead of via the entire peer network

to allow direct communication between customer and merchant so they can send extra data like receipts or order numbers along with a legacy tx

when the US central bank (government owned)
and the US treasury(government owned) have a debt between themselves

.. is it truly a debt

if 2Y = Y*2
is it a meaningful formulae of something that solves something. or just something that can cancel itself out thus showing its meaningless

if i owe myself $31trillion. and i pay myself $31 trillion to cancel my own debt with myself.. what has actually changed

then do i need to actually pay myself. or tell myself to write off my own debt

@windfury
you were trying to infer that FED actions were going to cause a BITCOIN SURGE
i first responded to correct your notions of how the fiat economy works. and in later posts  that not only will there not be a bitcoin surge to the extents you imagine. but  how FED actions doent imply/cause bitcoin surge reactions

i explained what does cause bitcoin surges

you then deviated to say none of your topic was about bitcoin economy but only fed fiat economy. which i then quoted your "bitcoin surge like its 2015-7" to remind you that you stated it was about bitcoin surging

---

.. as for doomads social drama..
anyone can read his post history. including himself
that is my reference to his suggestions that LN is a bitcoin scaling solution
look at his post history. there are too many to count examples

the many many many many posts where he infers there are many scaling solutions but the devs are currently only working on LN as the main one that promises scaling right now and everyone needs to be patient if they want other options. where he pretend "only franky wants other option" (yet many topics on this forum show many many people discussing bitcoin scaling

its all researchable.

not really

it just means less users per market because they are trading on lots more platforms rather then millions of users on one market

it affects the volume of the trades more so.. not the price per trade as much

most of the time by having other markets. people can do a thing called arbitrage
EG
USD-BTC-ETH-USD-BTC (full circle)
or
USD-ETH-BTC-USD-ETH (full circle)

which bot trading then takes advantage of a possible arbitrage path, thus they rinse whatever profitable circuit path is best. thus then causing more volume over multiple markets using the same lump of funds value. increasing the volume of each market

thus it ends up as little to no effect

first of all there is a significant reason why the market price did not go over 75k in 2021
and did not go under 15k in 2022

there is real world value premium measures
where people think too cheap, where its not making profit even for the last profitable miners standing on the planet are still mining..
where even the last seller says too low

same for the top where everyone on planet can acquire cheaper via mining thus see the market is getting too pricey where even the last buyer gives up buying at a certain level

the market speculates inbetween the value:premium window

the non zero bottom is 15k and the market went to near on $15.5k
this year its more like 15.2k in january for a non zero value bottom. so dont hope for a 12k bottom unless hashrate drops consistently for 6-24 months below current hashrate
and mining hardware gets more efficient to drop the value rate down to even give the market the option of selling while still profiting..  for the most efficient/last man standing to stil be willing to sell down to the titles $12k

.. as for dipping below $20k. well that is a rational possibility/option.. but $12k is not. not unless alot happens with the fundamentals behind the scenes

---

as for fiat economy impact
lets say the average investment was not everyone saving up to buy a whole bitcoin where they if they have less cash means bitcoin has to come down..
becasue wait for it. peope dont need to buy whole coins

the real average investment if you look at the coin reserves of exchanges and the customer account counts is about ~$600 each

now lets imagine fiat economy drops where people can only afford $400 investment
its not that bitcoin price drops by 33%
instead sellers offer less decimals of coin for that less cash amount
as they have real life costs to meet for their mining efforts/acquisition costs effort

you will find due to mining costs going up and fiat going down

if market price was 18k average in nov-december
a investor with $600 would get 0.03333333

which if investing in 2023 if price was still $18k
a investor with $400 would get 0.02222222

and if mining costs went up meaning sellers want the price to be 20k
a investor with $400 would get 0.02000000

---

in fiat company share markets where people are forced to buy whole shares
if the market average changed from say $600 where people average buy 3 shares at $200
if peoples average were to be $400 they either only get 2 shares or the market has to force the price down to $133 if buys get cancelled if not meeting a 3 share committal of $400 total. where seller are forced to sell 3 shares for $400
..
thats the beauty of bitcoin. the decimal buys means the sellers are not locked/strong armed into certain buy pressures of whole numbers

most bull runs happen AFTER the halfing, like the following year once miners reassess their costs of the year (big asic farms dont play by daily whims they have investment in hardware+electric contracts of mostly 1year+)

your fear is that say when there is a halving. a new gen of asics is released where their efficiency and electric costs are 2x better thus not need to sell coin 2x higher due to the cost per coin becoming neutral..

well do not fear
asics every couple year only get a few % efficient and electric costs go up not down

due to nm chip scaling the efficiency leaps used to be massive but now due to physics the leaps are getting less
lets take the s7 vs s9       3.6 thash/kw - 10.4 thash/kw = +1.88x
lets take the s9 vs s11     10.4 thash/kw - 15.75 thash/kw =  +.5x
lets take the s11 vs s15    15.75 thash/kw - 17.5 thash/kw =  +.16x
lets take the s15 vs s17    17.5 thash/kw - 22.4 thash/kw  =+.28x
lets take the s17 vs s19    22.4 thash/kw - 29.25 thash/kw  =+.3x
lets take the s19 vs s19xp    29.25 thash/kw - 46.6 thash/kw  =+.59x

as you can see its not like its 2x each evolution anymore.
plus as said electric prices are going up

Edit
and as ETF also highlights below the network hashrate would also need to drop considerably to bring the efficiency up to a 2x figure.. considerable network rate loss to give remaining miners more coin per cost

by the way its not my idea, nor is it even a proposal. its just demonstrating that there are ways

and like i said it would have to be a future discussion thing where everynode has a known milestone ID for block 630k utxo state.. this would be given a strong Id of the utxoset where the network nodes identify and share this ID for 100k blocks+ before being settled into data law of consensus.. thus plenty of time to notify nodes before even then taking a ball id, which obviously matches the data because they are all milestoning the same data

after all its like having al blocks and knowing the ID of block 774435 today compares to everyone around, to know we are all working on the same chain if exact data matches the ID and the id matches id of block heigh and everyone is at same chain height with same id means they all have the same data

but the ball idea.. is not full blocks, but a mile stone  blokckheight in the past, back long enough to be considered immutable where the spents are 'pruned' out already
and the hash of the ball is easily verifiable to a network known milestone much the same as the genesis hash is known throughout the network to keep nodes united and building on the same milestone

correct he was part of bitcoin but found out early on that butting heads against the core roadmap and treated like an attacker rather than a proposal suggester. is where the centralisation was first spotted and the clan cultish mindsets began

funny part is.. ethereum has its subnetwork bridges and more people are preferring to lock bitcoin. and use as reference point to then play on ethereum subnetwork bridges. more so then using the failing subnetwork bridge that was promised as the solution to bitcoin scaling

the bitcoin scaling solution of a sub network bridge promise made 7 years ago. has less users less liquidity, but more flaws than a ethereum subnetwork bridge which is only 15 months old
(funny sidenote. the snake oil sales men of bitcoins scaling solution was offramping to subnetwork bridge,, are now this year saying how its not the solution its just a side effect niche for small utility(took them long enough))

im not suggesting ethereum is better(for many other reasons). but more users are preferring to avoid the offering by the core devs.. because core devs seem half assed in being devs and more inspired to be sponsored governors/moderators ensuring they stay in power
and yes you can do your own research and find the stats. its eye opening and may surprise you

bitcoin devs(not just core) need to catch up and do something to really help utility and usability rather than just promote "wait patiently"(conservatively)

core devs promote to their noisy hounds to suggest that devs are migrating away from bitcoin because devs are being critiqued by node users and trying to say node users should not have a say in dev review critique.. yet the actual dev migration away from bitcoin is due to sponsored devs in core being in moderation control to want to only enforce a core roadmap rather than a decentralised "bitcoin roadmap" of multiple brands united in byzantine generals effect, uniting via true consensus without hierarchy

im a bitcoin maximalist so no interest in using altcoins. but if you want me to review and critique and find the flaws (bug review) to help you mitigate problems and reduce attack vectors, sure

smart devs actually want to have people that search for holes. have an outside point of view of finding worse case scenarios. rather than some ass kissing group that only deal with best case scenarios and ignore the obvious flaws

trusting coins to 3rd party is not insurance.
its the worse form of protection
(not-your-keys-not -your-coin)
it actually becomes putting funds in 3rd party, where you THEN need financial insurance to counter the risk of the third party

in short its the custodian that needs insurance.

if its about your own funds.. be your own custodian and secure your funds in the many many ways available using features of a full node such as the many ways to multisig funds and then separate out keys to relatives where they then can backup keys anyway they like to evade sibling attack

however putting funds into a business custodian. you then need financial insurance to protect you if said business was to go bankrupt/abscond with value due to 'not-your-keys-not-your-bitcoin

those shouting that growth is recovery have the mindset that bitcoin was suppose to be higher and that we crashed and now its healing, recovering

no. just no.
the ATH is a temporary event. not the point of value. its infact a point of premium. where you are more guaranteed to lose value buying in at the ATH

reality is that VALUE is not found at the high. the "store of value" is not the ATH amount

the store of value is the non-zero bottom

EG 2021 was $10k store of value
EG 2022 was $15k store of value

when the market premiumed to $70k
that meant that anyone buying at $70k was not protecting 100% of their wealth
they were only protecting 22% of their wealth

to protect say 95% of wealth is better to have bought 4.375btc at $16k rather than 1btc at $70k**

the recovery/value correction is when the speculative market comes back down from a speculative premium ATH bubble

thats the key good buying point of bitcoin. the ATh is not the good value store of btc. thats the good value store of fiat when your about to sell to get fiat.

again thinking if from a fiat inflation side where all you care about is maximising fiat you need to flip the mindset when talking about trying to maximise your btc holdings

**
think about it.. which is better
buy 1btc at $70k. it then corrects and recovers to near value of $16k by which if it then rose to 90$ in 2023 you only gain $20k when you sell

or buying 4.375k for that same fiat lump of $70k investment. which again if market then goes to $90k = 393.75(4.375@90) meaning you gain 323k on your initial $70k

..
those shouting that recovering to some ATH is the ones thinking in fiat mindset of their exit of a FIAT investment.. .. not thinking of value recovering/correction down of investing in btc

you are not a bitcoin investor if all you can think of is future holdings of mass fiat.
a bitcoin investor is thinking about accumilating bitcoin and protecting his wealth in the process by buying low

i think you took my numbers too literally..
its more of the mindset that people think they should only have 1 back up.
yet nothing stops them having more

as said before if your worried about a sibling then there are many different ways for you to encode your key

you are not locked to only relying on a trezor or a paperwallet(one option to be stuck with) you have freedom of choice of options. thus can create your own cunning methods to back up your key to evade snooping siblings

plus sibling needs all keys of all relatives to then be able to steal funds. so just finding one siblings key is as useless as not finding 1 siblings key in a 5 of 6 multisig because he needs to find atleast 5 keys hidden by 5 people in x number of different ways.

thus its not a case of just needing to steal 5 trezors. you have freedom to back up in many ways

EG tell family you have key on a trezor. and let them waste years sneaking around he house trying to locate your trezor. when actually you etched it on the inside of a metal ball point pen grip which then needs to be sha256 hashed 10 times with a salt nonce of a special number to reveal the private key or some encryption..
(theres a world of options)

media can attack all they like.. an asic does not read the newspaper
an asic also does not self power by eating a lump of coal.. its the power plant that are the issues

as long as an asic owner is living in a region within X miles of renewable. he has a case where he can defend that he is not polluting and just keep mining.

media can say whatever they like.
but it becomes harder for a government to tell a renewable power plant to cut one of their customers off using a "green law" when that power plant is green so has no reason to cut off that customer with fake reasoning that said customer is polluting

.. yes if a miner is paying bills to a fossil plant then yes that miner can risk having their power supply cut

but for near on a decade(2014+) most mining farms set up near cheap renewable regions and bulk purchase via xxMW contracts units for 5-24months of electric from renewable power plants direct (rather than retail power "services/billing companies")

its only the home-hobby miners stuck with whatever residential power 'billing company' there is that might be told they cant mine if there was a "green law"

but that blame is more on the power plant that then lose possible income due to the power plant(real culprit) being non -green

its a middle of between pruning vs full chain.
not saying its a proposal. just saying there are ways.

same principles apply. but if whole network deems blocks 0-630 are immutable you no longer need all chain data of such and just the state of position from 630k, everyone agrees state of utxoset of 0-630k can be milestoned and given a strong id ..where previous to 630k is just utxo of position upto block 629,999

but as said that would require whole network activation of new data set recognition and rule defining the 'ball' as the dataset of blocks 0-630k state