simply put if coinbase held most stake.. users would not like to oppose a coinbase proposed algo change, because opposing it means stake is lost.. users wont want to sacrifice their stake to avoid a bad proposal. thus a bad proposal becomes what people follow to keep their stake in play. and thats another reason why PoS fails

those are some pretty good AI renders.
previous generation AI images badly cropped,layered and merged pictures together where you can see the blurred layering and such

AI has come long way in last couple years.
im impressed by the quality of these results

his server was being hacked all through november and december multiple times by the same instigator.
he knew the hackers were making hacking bots scripted to hack his system(s) specifically..

he (supposedly) however didnt realise they trojaned in specific code for his system to then get at his home computers.
he thought they were only playing around with his servers and had no idea they got code into his home computers to mess with them too after christmas

..
some of his comments are a bit sparse. . cynically im thinking "the less you say the less lies you have to tell" where it could be, that he heard about FTX in november and seen how people like micheal saylor also (paper loss) declared a tax loss in december.. and thought he should do something similar to avoid taxes..

however he could have actually been hacked.
his vagueness could be genuine surprise or planned avoidance of multiplying his lies

in law two things need to be established
A- an event was a crime
b- who was involved

without the ex GF and ex employee guilt pleas, there would have been extra trial time needed to prove that a crime was committed. so their pleas helped speed things along

however their pleas can provide SBF an exit by saying the crimes were only comminuted by ex gf and ex employee and he had not involvement i the activities of them

the next 10 months will have ample time for the prosecution to audit records and find evidence to link SBF to things. and well yea time for his defence to find excuses/stories to detach from the activities

devils advocate, playing scenarios in head. i can see SBF defence being something like this:
"many now ex-colleagues and ex girlfriends had access to keys of the co-mingled funds. all they needed to do was to inform a phone number via text(DM of social chat app) of their intentions to move funds and get a thumbs up emoji that the intentions were acceptable.. but can anyone prove using CCTV footage of who was handling the phone doing the acceptable emoji's or who was signing transactions.. because ex-colleagues and ex-GF stayed in my mansion alot, and my phone was accessible to these people to send themselves texts or write tx's and sign via my devices and their own"

however... now looking into things more about viable defence stories SBF lawyers can spout/generate.. SBF ex lawyer in bahamans is cooperating with authorities to give evidence against SBF
which will be more nails in the coffin for point (b) above

---

in other news about the $250m, zero-upfront bail deal(that meant to be sealed):
apparently SBF's new US lawyers have taken control/ownership of SBF bahama real estate(worth over $300m) and so they put that up as signed collateral incase of absconding. and the judge knowing the lawyers law licenses/reputation were also on the line if they dont pay up if he did abscond, trusted that the money would be paid,(but currently unable to be paid recently because its not liquid(its brick and mortar)) and thus no upfront amount or deposit was needed.. but shh no one should know this as its been sealed

most CDBC including US, canada, china, sweden, africa all try to emulate the so called "two layer"(no coincidence) of bitcoin-liquid/LN
there is a third (top) layer joining these CBDC called the m-bridge which is like the IMF SDR reserves network

yep certain corporate sponsored devs used/abused bitcoin to sandbox test CBDC future decisn using bitcoin and sub networks

the US trial variant(hamilton) of CBDC has a 2 second "blocktime" which has caused in tests bottlenecks of settling 1.7m/2 seconds where it would only be 100% at 3seconds+ for 1.7m tx fully settled

the blocks are not mined nor staked. they are just premined units put into multisig signed tx's(for commercial bank reserves).. where by the transactions in the block are collated and signed by trusted parties(central bank + certain commercial banks)

below the blocks. are the smart contract networks that[as said above] assign reserves in multisig between commercial banks
and then the commercial banks act as hubs for customers payments in their own sub network in milli second(0.07sec) payments

where funds loop through commercial banks smart contracts and the commercial banks then swap reserves between each other every 2-3 seconds to settle the balances out


                       central bank
                    /          |          \                         blockchain
    commerce --- commerce --- commerce
   commerce --- commerce --- commerce
   /     |   \          /     |   \          /     |   \         sub networks
user user user  user user user user user user

---

CBDC fiat wont be deflationary. they will continue to be able to co-sign more value into existence at the blockchain level to however much reserve amounts the want thus devalue the holdings at the subnetwork level of users

users cant just take their keys to any commercial bank wallet app it is multisig meaning they would have to set up new multisig with new (account) at other commercial bank and send funds across (like opening new account to close first account)

though commercial banks "autopilot" their tx signing of a users signed payment, commercial banks can refuse to co-sign if certain rule breaks occur

though the user database of KYC stays at the subnetwork stage, the commercial banks can report certain activities to financial authorities of criminal investigation where the authorities can then get a court order to view all payment KYC details of suspected criminal act  from the commercial bank involved

in short the Central bank is not monitoring all user payments, they delegated that role to the commercial banks, the central bank and financial action task force/regulators only receive the suspicious activity

"anarchist" can also mean disruptive. which bitcoin is disrupting and offering a new choice to hedge against fiat wallstreet game of fiat monetary policy/control

..
bitcoin does not fit the old terms of fiat categories of "currency" nor the terms of fiat based communities or civilised sets
but if you were to draw it out on a heat map of position closest to certain labels
             authoritarian
              /             \  
             /  $           \
            /                 \
capitalist                  libertarian
           \                 /
            \       BTC      /
             \             /
               socialist

bitcoin has a good locking mechanism to then allow iou/pegged tokens in sub networks..
however its on these subnetworks to also enforce a good iou/peg mechanism to associate itself and secure that value emulation to then have a useful sub system.

most/all subnetworks so far have flaws in one way or another. and a few highly promoted ones have many flaws. thus they have not gained traction or responsible value security thus not deemed a safe/viable monetary system. and just instead played around with as a sandbox experiment

we will see new sub networks with better more confident systems of value security (better monetary policy)

---

alot of people keep saying how things like ethereum have better subnetwork systems and yet ethereum does not have a good independent price discovery sentiment of its market via a different community valuing and deciding on prices in a different speculative market. instead ethereum just traces bitcoins price movements in over 95% of times at a arbitrage rate of 1:13, which means that ethereums own community is not really speculating much in comparison, not finding or discovering its own independent value:premium market sentiment

in short ethereum does not really have much of a independent community away from bitcoin

bitcoin remains king and in the near future can easily dominate even more once it actually achieves certain goals which have been delayed over the last 6ish years

while waiting for the idiots to finally read some code and run some scenarios in regard to changing the units of measure to fit their fantasy of "more decimals".. and realise that it does change things..

EG again
a change of
bin:10010101000000101111100100000
hex:12A05F20
dec:312500000
but instead
bin: 100100011000010011100111001010100000000
hex: 48C2739500
dec: 312500000000

lets just address another thing they dont know/understand

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66

oh and by the way
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/chainparams.cpp#L18

the genesis block has 5000000000 as genesis reward as a real number thats hashed

if devs messed with the amount of units. to change the reward at unit level and thus changes the
"coin" from 100,000,000 to a larger number
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/chainparams.cpp#L435
that would result in a different hash, and so the hashes wont match thus its no longer the bitcoin genesis hash seed

so do the math.. it might help you see where all the changes will affect alot of things and need to have more cludgy code to work around such things like fake count a reward of real immutable historic units 5000000000 in one count but call it 5000000000000 elsewhere but also 5000000000 in another spot just to prevent bugs as also valid in another fake count as the larger number to not bug out the other place .. in short miscount hard amounts to avoid bugs but then causing bugs by the miscounting

the fight begins.. what is:
liberty
libertairian

they say its freedom.. but then.. if there are no rules, where everyone has freedom to believe what they like and follow what they adore..  then there is no consensus/code.  because code/rules and consensus are anti-liberty

if people say devs should be free to just slide in any code without a community vote (consent(permission) by census(survey of population))
is that liberty or democracy.
should forks be done first and then people chose the path to follow. or the original propose future route and people upgrade and if enough upgrade to support a proposal then the new rule activates)

should businesses and developers be accountable to customers and community. or should businesses do as they like even if it harms customers, should devs do as they like even if it harms the community

so what is liberty in regards to the cryptosphere

rules, consent.... or wild west "run away if it harms you"

i believe its the mismatch of the index which then cant find the corresponding height thus started again from zero

i personally played around with my node to add better rules, features.. and to play around with other things.. so its been awhile since reading cores base code for things like this (it was a nice change to stretch those old brain muscles)

i presumed that it would not be a problem as my node doesnt have that problem, but turns out core does still have that problem

i kinda knew there might have been a re-scan risk but was not sure as it has been a while since looking into that part of the code to remember which was my code vs core base code,
it just seemed such an obvious fix. that i thought the otherday it was just standard base code that allowed easily transfer of partial data.
i was expecting it to just quick scan blk vs rev to then force utxoset into ram and then build new blockheight from peers IBD for the rest(ontop of what you had).

sorry i misled you, but it probably still did save you a bit of time..

it might be worth you making a suggestion to core to change their cludgy code that only operates in "one way or zero" and is not as intuitive as it could be about less than full perfect archiving

giving best practice advice vs following own advice is a human trait.

also best practice advice is sometimes too impractical.
it all depends on how much wealth you have at risk then decides how much effort you want to take to protect it

someone with just a month wage stored. may just have a seed wrote down they import into a wallet to spend and have the change go to a completely new seed based address. so that the seeds are secure each time

where as someone with more wealth might have multiple devices that separately sign and only present the signatures to each other via a air gapped method (convert to QR code and snap a picture and send it to the main system to append signatures)

some may want more then a paper wallet and have a hardware device that can enter seeds without touching a computer

there are many many many ways to back up seeds, keys, wallets. the world is your oyster, but it all depends on your personal risk/preference.

its like fiat world
only a months salary.. normal ATM visa debit card.. 'tap and pay risk' of losing maybe $100 per payment via card cloners, where when spotting it you move funds to new account

$mansion money$  set up a family trust requiring co-signer trustee's to sign off on funds to beneficiaries

some have both set up.. a multisig 'trust' for main hoard of coin. with a lite wallet seed of weekly/monthly spend amount

there are risks..

things can move into being more centralised and just as fast jump out of it. the point is to keep an eye on it

with regards to mining. mining alone can only really do some empty blocks but the rest of the network will flill blocks so not all blocks will be empty(end result some transaction delays/congestion)

a pool if they got over 51% of network could go back and edit a recent block but the further back they go the more expensive it becomes to edit. and odds of catching back up with the good network to overtake it, to re-org the blockchain, become less.. thus the "6 confirm" rule is pretty much a good risk mitigation for large emount spends people might worry might re-org as unreceived.. ..
EG if you are receiving $100k. then 2 confirm is more expensive to re-org
EG if you are receiving $600k. then 3 confirm is more expensive to re-org
EG if you are receiving $1.2m. then 6 confirm is more expensive to re-org

so unless a pool was shifting millions and then decided a hour later to want to double spend. its not worth it

..
the more riskier risks to the network of actually "breaking bitcoin" is in development.. the risk of sliding in a bug into the protocol which is something more on the developers review and central point of failure risk
we should not be slack, and just trust the devs are honourable gods that self review themselves in a clan. where we just "trust in mod"

we should not allow one brand of node, that moderate themselves and moderate out any critiques.  to have absolute control over proposal decisions and be sponsored by one main business that has most of the economic nodes to help push it into action without needing user node votes

so we really need to be critically watching what the devs and economic nodes propose and want to change. we independant users should be moderating the devs. no the other way around.. and really try to get them to think before they act if they did want to push it through(tripple checking its good code that adds a benefit for the wider community outside the sponsored dev clan).

ensuring they dont just go full on rule break on the whole community of hundreds of millions of users indirectly and hundreds of thousands of direct node users.

.. in short mining is no big deal.. but a dev collaboration is a risk
unlike what they want to think.. where they think bitcoin writes itself and devs just are janitors that clean up the code.. that is wrong. bitcoin is not AI, its the devs that write it so its the devs we need to be watching

if you are passing around an unsigned raw TX to different devices, where each device creates a signature. where only signatures and raw tx are passed. is better security than having ANY key system where all keys sign from same device

whether they mix and match seeds to create a superkey, or are separate signers using separate keys but in both cases are all done on same device is less than great security in comparison

theres no point in elaborate key separation/mixing to create a super key. if its all done on one device. because if that one device is exposed/compromised, so are all keys

if you want to do that. ensure keys are on separate devices/paper and then online combine them when you want to spend. but have the 'change'/remainder of spend go to a keyset not exposed to the device you are using online to spend, but address.. of which was calculated using separate keys on separate devices
......
.. its not just about hijacking a device to grab keys. its also hijacking a device simply to change the funds destination to a hackers preferred address rather then the one you intend it to go to


so still be aware of the risk the software on device might change the funds destination address at the signing process.. so again for best security have different devices sign a raw tx, that way you have multiple opportunities/stages to check and sign the destination. therefore ensure it goes to destined spend recipient by knowing the signatures match the tx details you want(destination)... that way if one device was compromised and changed destination. it would have different signature "messages" and txids which will get that tx rejected at broadcast because the signatures dont all match the same raw tx

but all this is overkill for most users

years back first generation hardware wallets were just USB devices that when plugged in, opened a webbrowser with the interface being a webpage(facepalm) . so soo soo many flaws back then

but yes these days and those days dont trust anything requesting your seed phrase on a pc's screen unless you have a way to prove its a genuine thing asking for it. and good to see new ledgers allow key inputs via devices(i havnt bothered looking into hardware wallets for years.)

ledger USB device has its own keyboard?? .. show me

you do realise if you look at the portfolio of DCG, that sponsor core devs(#blockstream)
own exchanges like
#circle
#coinbase
#greyscale
#kraken

did you know greyscales trust has ~660k btc .. stored at coinbase

coinbase(as of sept 2022) holds about 1070k btc combined from all customers/service holdings.. compared to binances 575k

---

i know im goona get the usual onslaught by the same half dozen idiots.. but lets say it anyways

when a large majority of economic nodes and mining does collaborate
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
(NYA was created and promoted by as the reference shows DCG)

to say they were going to run a piece of software that flags for a upgrade to activate,

where by when their flag reached 80% and held for a month their software started to reject native blocks not signalling for the upgrade. to get the signal for upgrade to grow to appear as 100%(unnatural) within a fortnight(2nd half of july). .. then that will trigger the upgrade....... and it did
(they did however have no code to implement their second part of the pledge.. that was just an empty promise to pretend they are compromising to appease the community .. )

notice the natural wiggle upto 35% in june
(only 35% openly voluntarily wanted it from november 2016-june 2017)

notice the natural fear mongered wiggle to 45% first half of july
(only 45% openly feared but voted for it from mid june-mid july 2017)
then the unnatural straight diagonal line to unnatural 100% second half of july
(100% had no choice but vote for it or have block rejected from mid mid july-aug 1st 2017)
to then activate a feature on august

yep just 58 entities collaborating in a NYA caused segwit to 100% false vote activate unnaturally

doesnt matter if its a long string of characters or a bunch of words. if its has been typed into a compromised PC that a hacker can see files of.. the hacker can get it

even a latest hardware wallet. a hacker can simply set up a phished/emulating GUI display to show "error with device. to reset device please re enter your seed" or whatever their error pages look like to get people to type it in.

this whole gemini ->genesis<->DCG<->greyscale
hop,skip, jump game of money shuffling to try paying one off with the other and hope to make some profit in the middle whilst exiting some customers at a loss.. is just ridiculous
along with the fir tree lawsuit of DCG-greyscale

it has caused the need for DCG to do a 20%($1b) buy back of shares to unlock $2b of assets
however DCG doesnt want to pull the trigger now. they want to wait out as much as possible for the "discount" so that they dont have to pay out as much on the shares to unlock more of the asset

you would have thought that after several years of running exchanges and financing stuff a venture firm like DCG will be streaming with 10's of billions of spare cash right now to handle any/all eventualities.. and yet they had to take out loans just to shuffle around their own debts and now have to do equity/collateral sell offs to then pay off loans

what would be worse is if DCG got coinbase to unlock $500m from GBTC stash first to then pay off 20% share holders. to then grab the other $1.5b that is then share unlocked.. as that is then a breach of the whole trust contract.. but i can see it happening which is why i feel coinbase is hesitant on showing coin reserve addresses publicly

civilization is about human civility.. EG caveman,, wild west,, to become democratic society of citizens with civility

i think civilisation in america died when everyone went trump in 2016-2020 and then went covid crazy in 2020-21

however population of humans is still on the increase.. and civility will increase when people stop treating CBD vapes as breath mint spray

we breached the 8billion number we didnt sink below the previous 7 billion number
the human numbers are fine, calm down

when it comes to earth population of animals and creatures, yes there are many species and breeds on the extinction list.

but its crazy to think that some christian fundamentalists need to cry and demand that all women stop working and immediately get pregnant due to some statistic they read that there are too many women are working instead of starting families and too many lesbians are not having families.
the truth is the human population is going to be fine

there are more 20year old females in 2022 than there were 20year old females in 2002. meaning more then enough fertile women to keep the population going

in short CHILL OUT!
save a lion not a lady, the ladies can look after themselves they dont need to be caged up and spend their lives breading

when "scientists" scream that women should stop working and start popping out babies because they.. (facepalm) seen it in a fossil.. that is of no bases to say humans are going to go extinct

NFT were not used in games much. that industry didnt get much involved.. the nft developers were instead wasting time on silly art memes set at silly prices.

these silly prices were where the creator puts a high price and sells it to himself thus no actual cost but then causes a price receipt to show a sell of large amount
this causes false value. and its this false value that then scares people away. especially when the creator finally sell his piece at large discount to a real customer making that fake value then become a loss..

the whole NFT market wasted too much time and advertising on "auction" style art markets and not really getting game developers to adopt NFT to manage their ingame retail product market
never bothering to create the market places for players to buy the ingame products.

everyone was waiting for near realistic 3d gaming from "meta" but all they got was anime style 'fortnight' graphic detail crap where it was just a social group of bad dancing bears buying fake drinks and listening to music while sexting each other.. not really a retail product market

....
even in the bitcoin community we had dragons tale which could have with the right developers evolved into a good 3d roaming game with games inside (gambling/chance) and ways to purchase things.. but again no development went into it.

many businesses/developers missed out on many concepts that could have drove the NFT industry. but instead they just wanted to skip evolving development and go straight to grabbing get rich quick tokens and exiting for profit to not return