hmm..
thinking of it from that prospective..
well a real world happy meal which comes with a free collectible fortnight/minecraft gun/skin or VIP server access.. might tempt the kids to ask parents to go mcdonalds more often

central banks and commercial banks are doing this because the main payment rail is actually VISA for most accounts. their tap and pay means visa get rich for processing payments. and banks want to get away from the visa debit system and be more direct commercial bank<->customer without a visa middleman

not the best example to link.. the dude bought a double bacon deluxe with large fries and a shake
its the most expensive option on the menu

however comparing a £$1 cheeseburger from 2018 to today. its more then £$1 and the meat patty is half as thin meaning £$0.50 of 2018 meat for £$1.20

either way. the metaverse was suppose to be a place where people can go to virtual concerts/football(soccer) games and see a live real world football(soccer) game with the new 3D view camera's on real pitches, where viewers pay for certain view vantage points in the stadiums
(streamed to peoples PC's) and they can at halftime order a meal that arrives at their real house to eat in the real world whilst watching the second half of the football(soccer) game

there has been a buzz about stadiums of premier, euro,world cup league stadium games using 3D cameras for the last decade.. i still dont know what meta are waiting for

the idea of metaverse / web3 WAS that instead of looking at a standard 2D webpage. people can walk around a virtual shopping mall* where users can walk around and see advertising** and they can see products in 3D and using an uploaded pic of their face can see themselves wearing certain t-shirts or denims. and then order it in the virtual shop and real shirts/denims get delivered to their real world home address
where walking around the mall they walk into a mcdonalds order a burger and uber-eats / just-eat/deliveroo/grubhub/doordash sends a real burger to your home

..
however they have wasted opportunity to instead sell virtual tokens(nft) of a virtual product that can only be played with in virtual land.. in short.. its just a game where your avatar is a cartoon character that cant even walk properly let alone buy stuff properly


* retailers buy virtual retail space (server hosting)
** retailers can buy advertising space inside the mall area(3d ad-sense)

i didnt want to list all the pitfalls in one go to moses. it would blow his mind. i wanted to slowly poke at his lack of care of detail and research. just to see if he can either come back with a better master plan to show he even gives a crap and wants to do something.. or like always from him. just wants someone to be his slave and do it all for him including coming up with the rules and concepts and protocols... and make something... so he can take it, pretend he made it and then try to make money from it by saying its his product(as usual)

it is funny watching him squirm from one half assed idea to the next never putting in the effort to think about it and then start ranting

i did say to him to stop wasting his time on his previous nonsense. to grow some morals and think up a viable ethical business that he could start himself.. .. seems months later(now) he has not changed his ways and continues his silly antics

alot of people read title and headlines but lack research

a CBDC is nut where everyone in america has a wallet with BoAmerica
a CBDC is not where everyone in Gbritain has a wallet with BoEngland

its where BO(A/E) have a blockchain to create coin and designate it to payment providers (commercial banks)
people then have wallets with commercial banks on a sub network of smart contracts

think if it like bitcoin  - blockchain coin issuance between central and commercial banks
                   liquid - first sub layer network for federated smart contract multisigs between banks for fast reserve swaps
                   lightning - second sub layer network for customers of banks to use banks as 'hubs' to 'route' payments

where the customers have 2-3 choices of second subnetwork channels(accounts) where imbound balance limits apply depending on type

just like fiat government(politicians) dont watch every transaction
just like fiat regulators(ex-bankers) dont watch every transaction
they get commercial payment providers(banks/hub service) to police/supervise customer payments and report the suspect ones


the 2-3 tier wallet choices are like this
(based on many countries scope of their systems)

bottom tier = £$1k-£$3k with minimal/no KYC
mid tier = £$3k-£$10k with basic KYC
top tier = $10k+full KYC

this means playing around with small amounts like part time wage or giftcard amounts or 'virtual visa' amounts has no kyc where as needing to handle $10k+ payments will require you upgrading to top level account/channel which requires full registration, proof of income, etc etc

..
it will not be the case of "everyone swap next week" it will instead be offered as a new 'account' that your local commercial bank offers with probably some sort of feature or benefit promoted to get people to try it.

then they will start doing things like increasing fee's for their old system while offering new system cheap/free.
heck.. lets play tin foil.. i can imagine extremes of negative interest rates on old style "accounts" as a method of pushing people to move over. or simply multiplying the fee's for old style formats of payments

EG making old style formats 4x more expensive than new style payment format

---

above the CBDC chains will be what is known as an "m-bridge" which will be the central banks reserve swap system (like the IMF of fiat)

which many countries are already trialing out their CBDC and the m-bridge system right now. but in small trials of a few cities commercial banks that then peg up to their nations attempts of CBDC which then peg up to the BIS m-bridge for international reserves

doesnt need big money to derail ethereum

ethereum is the so called "biggest" PoS coin, right?
meant to have had the most independent markets and utility and soo many different subnetworks of utility, right?

yet even basic overview of ethereum market shows it has little to none of its own community..
if it had its own massive utility separate from bitcoin. it would have its own culture and sentiment where people would view ethereum market as a separate independent price discovery market, unlike bitcoin.

yet it 99.9% shadow traces bitcoins market. or more precisely bitcoins arbitrage is majority of all ethereums movements.

the markets wiggles of price movements although at a different value price ratio. wiggle in the same pattern

so here is the 5 day chart of both btc and eth

can you tell which one is ethereum

what about this last week(and ill add more hints this time)

in that tweet debate just posted.
luke said how his private keys were not compromised to an internet using PC..

luke however did expose his wallet to the internet back in september because we can see he was spending funds in september and sending them to a change address he had in said wallet..
. he also had a wave of hacks happening throughout november-december. and knew the hacker was tailoring the attacks specifically for lukes systems

luke also had to rebuild-recompile a new version of knots because that got compromised too meaning he knows he was compromised.

i understand humans make mistakes, but to say bitcoin is insecure rather then admit he is human.. doesnt play well with me either
he would rather pretend he is the infallible god and bitcoin is broke. pfft.

oh you love to cry and shout gaslight even without you even using the buzzword in correct context, especially when its you that is failing to remember your own words or even do the maths of the stuff you try to imply. or even basic research on your implications..
how abut cry less. buzzword less and spend the time doing some research, calculations, and work things out for yourself

anyways
you said

so i done the math on which you implied your expected "big surge" to be
so i said what that "big surge" was(by doing the research and math for you):
(333->20k) because thats what you said to expect this year to be like('like it was 2015-2017')
its called maths & research.
a surge from 333->20k in 2015-2017= 60x
so yes you said expect a big surge like 2015-17
so yes you implied a surge like the 60x surge of your specified date


and now you are trying to suggest that there would be a 2011-13 style surge
(facepalm)
a $0.30 -> $1200 = 4000x
or $30 -> $1200 = 40x
a $3 -> $1200 = 400x
(depending on what part of 2011 you want to include)

seriously you are trying to play the fool but then double down and double down and double down on your absent mindedness to go even further into fantasy land then pretend you never said what you said because you didnt include the simple maths you imply, even though you still made the implication.

now a lesson for you, yet again
what you are not realising is that the "surges" per cycle get less and less volatile.. not more

end of story

exhibit A: the title

exhibit B: your topic message content:

case closed moving on

here a lil lesson

the US treasury does not trade with other countries direct. the treasury trades with the Bank of America(central bank)

US gov owns both treasury and BoA
the treasury is technically a trust. and no one technically owns the treasury and thus the debt is not "citizens" liability.. but media and gov will pretend it is debt that citizens owe and not the politicians. (even though politicians are the decision makers so politicians should take responsibility for their decisions)

the debt from treasury is a debt to the US bank.. meaning us government (owner of both entities) could EASILY just write off that debt.. to itself

however this then would look bad for BoA(central bank corporate arm of government) who hold the bonds and sell bonds to other countries central banks and domestic/foreign commercial banks. thus making future offerings of bonds to those outsiders less appealing..

so whats the other option you may ask.. well its easy.
raise the debt ceiling. and push the problem into the next sitting government in 2024+

us government wont default
unless the BoA fails its payments to its creditors/investors(domestic commercial and international central banks).. those creditors/investors wont be begging to get paid by the BOA. meaning the BoA wont be forced to demand funds from treasury.
if BoA failed to pay outsiders. BoA can invoke "force majeure" which can delay repayments, change interest rates to lower amounts or spread payments over a lengthier period
its like when people instead of going bankrupt, do a individual voluntary agreement/debt relief order, or other restructuring plans before even getting close to filing for bankruptcy..

so before the treasury has to worry about bankruptcy it has the buffer of the BoA

i said $21k but thats rounded. i think its more of a $21.5k wall lastweek-this week

as for why they won in december..
because they put a bet(futures) that the price would be under $17k by year end 2022.. and it was. so they won
it was only under $17k becasue they also as a side investment used another stash of funds to arbitrage the spot markets to keep it down. to ensure their win.

and since they got their win they no longer needed to keep their stash arbitraging the price below $17k so they stopped thus releasing that wall..
now the new wall is at ~$21.5k

..
2022 was a slow bear.. starting from like MAINLY april 2022 where the whales done their fortnightly/2monthly step downs using method i said but lowering the resistance wall each period

i feel we will see a slow raising step of the same fortnightly-2month step UP where whales control the spot market to get their bet(futures) wins per period, on the way up

if using DEX to do silly day trading of btc to stable.. you can stay off the radar

if using DEX to do wire transfers.. then obviously your bank and the other persons bank is watching the wire transfers.

so dont be complacent thinking you are hiding 100% perfectly
and if not operating through a business account but doing many wires you will hit a threshold where banks will start to think your doing too many wires to be a "personal use" and start asking questions

alot of people thought that banks were just anti-bitcoin, truth WAS half that but now mostly its these things:
a. the sender sends fiat. then pretends their bank account was hacked and they want a charge-back/refund. which means receiver has to legitimise his receipt of fiat by revealing what was purchased.

b. sender innocently sending funds to lots of people on a personal account makes banks question the purpose of all these funds movements. treats sender as a business offering a service, thus questions the purpose

these usually mean situations evolve where DEX frequent swappers need to start keeping records like KYC to prove the person at the keyboard of the other side, was the account holder (asks for id and a selfie)
ends up needing to have a business account and register as a MSB aswell or have account closed

many dont see it happen straight away because if unpopular, unregular, insignificant amount/value of wire transfers stay under a threshold.. but when they get popular or people get too comfortable/complacent by doing regular trades on DEX , the flags add up

other flags like someone on a menial income suddenly having a massive $3m deposit or lots of multiple deposits that add up way beyond a salary.. raises some flags

yep one of moses other failures of understanding... blockchain is just for logging of results..

what he has failed to explain, suggest or show a design concept/theory of is the protocol strategy of forming a community consensus of a result/verdict

which "anybody just vote"

what if there was an incident related to a small mom&pop retail store vs a hell angels gang.
where only the mom&pop family and friends vote one way. but the mass of the national and international biker gangs vote the other way about what occured at the event.

20 vs 2000

.. as said before moses has not out a single rational thought into it. no plan, no concept design. just an idea he want to pitch. get others to make so he can then sell it..

share holders do not own the trust
NO ONE DOES
thats the point of trusts

they have trustees(managers/sponsors) that control value going in and out

the shares are 'advisory' shares of the sponsor. not stock options(ownership certificates) of the trust collateral

share holders can vote on the contract terms. and change them
but they are not owners nor "owed" btc

its not going to be a redemption because the SEC has continually said "no". and its this that grayscale are fighting
all grayscale can do is sell shares for fiat at the share rate and void said shares

this can unpair/untether some btc inside the trust. but that is not then to be distributed to ex shareholders. its to go back to the "sponsers" (grayscale/DCG)
or more likely just re-jig the pairing where it moves the 'btc per share' from 0.00091 to 0.0014

---

the whole SEC /ETF debacle is that by saying no. the SEC is not letting people have ownership of btc.
meaning no "redemption"

all that can be offered is a tender(fiat) buyback of shares to cut down how many advisory shares are available

But what if i told you the CBDC origins is in the "hyperledger" projects. by which even bitcoin blockstream devs have been part of(aswell as the ethereum elites)

where the terms "layer 2" buzzword origined from hyperledger. not the open crypto community
yep bitcoin is being the sandbox test of many CBDC future code.. in regards to its mainnet(reserves chain) and subnetwork(user payments) network

but governments dont want to use existing mainnets as their base reserves platform. they just want to take working open code. and adopt it into their own new genesis beginning networks

---

as for PoS
its fatal flaws are these 2 things

a. lack of underlying cost of coin creations means lack of underlying value. thus the market price speculates at a higher multiple compared to its small value(and can/will correct just as massively)
meaning value security is null and void

b. thresholds of being validators ends up pooling/syndicating the small shrimp amount holders. into large custodians. the shrimp then wont want to oppose their custodian because if they do oppose it. their stake is gone. thus they end up foolishly accepting whatever their custodian proposes, even if its a bad idea

quantum computers cant reverse engineer public-> private in seconds.
its still going to be a several hours-days(compared to thousands of millenia) thing even with the high qubit rate this topic link mentions

so the fear of someone grabbing a zero-confirm tx at relay. engineer the privkey then RBF the utxo to a new destination, before the original tx confirms.. . is not a concern for a network that confirms much sooner
(still be cautious but dont be fearful. its more super luck, if they manage to engineer a RBF in the average 10min confirm window)

the real concern is leaving valuable amounts/data on a exposed key
EG hoarding on a re-used key.
EG putting valuable data into a message on an app where you dont want anyone reading it later after the fact. but have your encrypted messages stored somewhere to be interrogated later

also those owning a large expensive multibillion dollar system are not going to waste hours on one process that wont net them break even/profit

i dont bully. i literally just speak frank to everyone.
oh and no you didnt make bitcoin

oh and if you had ANY skills you would not be asking other people to make a blockchain for you!!
this topic proves you have no skills

yep im being frank.
bye. case closed. witnesess dismissed

sha is safe.
dont worry about PoW algo and asics.

the risk is in the ecdsa of keys. and learning that bitcoin does have mechanisms to protect from quantum. but people need to learn how to use them

dont put funds onto a address that has exposed its public key
this means not using p2pk (yep satoshi stash is are risk of moving)

accept finds on p2pkh or newer formats. but when you spend it. dispose of that wallet/address.

dont re-use an address to receive funds after spending funds from said address
use different destinations for "change"/remaining funds, that are not the same key as the one you spent from before

---

if you are worried about when sending out a unconfirm broadcast to the network and before confirm a quantum sees your relayed broadcast, reverse engineers the key and he RBF's your tx to replace it with their own tx with a different destination.. dont worry.
though quantum could reverse public-private its not a 0.1sec task. its a multi hour task..
the real risk is those hoarding funds on used addresses or addresses with public key exposed. where by just sitting on funds for hours/days gives them time.