one mega thing about the requirement of fertiliser is ...
industrial farming

100= years ago the soil was ripe. rich with fertile soil untouched for millenia..  naturally ripe without mans intervention needed to add anything..
feet/metres deep of nutrients settled in over millenia of autumns .
which due to non industrial farming back then replenished each year

but industrial farming make the land naturally infertile by using up the normal rich soil in just 60 days per harvest. where they then had to plough(churn/flip) the soil to bring the deeper soil to the top.. and then more recently had to mix in slurry into infertile soil to add fertility..

now they say animal slurry is bad due to excess phosphorus

"we want gender equality"
(ideal is females paid fairly)

end political result to sidestep and avoid the issues "what is female.  there is no binary genders. everyone is unique"

libertariansim
businesses call themselves libertarians by not wanting regulation or to not have to comply with consumer protections. .. or is that capitalism.. soo confusing(satire)

the alibitress example seems easy to explain

the lower price ($83) is 0.005
where the bigger price($8.3m) is 500btc
in todays currency

i believe its a typo of someone putting the wrong amount and simply posting a new advert without removing the error

you know, it seems they are used to using μbtc measure of 0.00001
and simply got the conversion rates wrong

i dont think its a nefarious laundering offer

when any product/asset shows good profitability, competition of capitalism will come in to take that opportunity

because bitcoin showed a 100x spike from 2010-2011 (0.30-$30)
because bitcoin showed a 4x spike from 2012(post ATH $3-$12)
because bitcoin showed a 100x spike from 2012-2013($12-$1200)

capitalists jumped in and started investing.
(2013+ asics, exchanges, regulation, sponsored developers)

if you are sending funds to a multisig where you own the keys.. then you are just (in practice) sending funds to yourself.. thus no point needing to call it a refund.. its just you sending funds to yourself.. as a wasted transaction before sending it to someone else
becasue you own the keys you dont need to send it "back" thus no point using it forward before giving it to a recipient..

a multisig is meant for having 2 people combine to control decisions. .. which is escrow

so which are you trying to explain.. wastefully sending funds to yourself in a new address.. pointlessly to want to send it back you YOURSELF if you change your mind/accidentally moved/funds moved via theft.  .. its wasteful because you dont need to "send back" because you own the keys for the multisig.. which means a hacker would too!! so you or they can just do with as they please from the address. so its the same as just hoarding from a base utxo address

or .. send coins to a multisig where there is the recipient or a middleman having the other key to co-sign funds forward or back when conditions are met

either way.. those proposals wont help fund thefts of a hoard where there was no situation of wanting funds to move as a spend. but where an invader found the keys..

..
i know you are trying to suggest a CPFP
where a parent address pays a child address.. and the child then pays it forward or back where it moves the coins faster back or forward rather then just paying direct to a recipient.
but again. there ends up no point.. because a hacker will have whatever keys you have so wherever the child funds are the hacker also has.. just like you.

(EG imagine you exposed keys to the internet/hacker via a spend in september 2021, in whatever scheme you make. where you end up needing to use the child keys in your scheme in september. then the hacker has them too because the child keys got exposed too)

............
if you are talking about needing two devices to finalise a payment to a recipient (one device for parent tx to child and second device for child to recipient) well you can do that anyway without needing any special sub layer network or change in protocol. however a hacker wont care because they will just take the parents key. and just send funds direct to hacker address without doing the send to child thing

some people thought you were trying to promote a CSW protocol breaking money steal/refund option.. breaking bitcoins immutability

however the multisig option you now describe is how some have done things in the past.. its called escrow

however escrow refunds only work when you want to spend but unsure if the other party will release goods.. they only work when/because you enter a cooperative multisig. to cooperate and agree with the other party on payment/refund terms..

it doesnt work when someone is hoarding and not expecting a hacker to steal funds from hoarded funded addresses

that use to be true. but the stupidity to consolidate different paths back together several taints across just makes the whole point of shifting fund over several disposable addresses pointless.. because when they were split in a same pattern per shift and then consolidate again it shows all the coins in between are the same person

usually you would split funds up into different addresses and types and amounts to be complete randomness..  and never let them meet up again to then make it appear they were sent to different people or services for different reasons to make it less clear when funds changed hands/ownership.. but however having a pattern and ending up together again just shows they never left that persons custody and just a wasted effort

many dont go 'all in'

unlike shares where you have to buy a whole share.. bitcoin you can buy a decimal amount

most orders these days are minnow amounts of 0.1 ($1.65k) or shrimp 0.01($165) or  less.. NOT shark 10btc($160k) or whale amounts of 100btc+($1.65m+)

here in the UK we had covid, making some OLDER truck drivers stay home. creating a demand for some younger people to train as truckers. we had brexit stopping euro truckers coming in causing more demand for young people to train up as import/export truckers..

then we now have the old truckers coming out of covid and finding the new recruits took their jobs and less older truckers needed. and everyone wants to blame lack of demand of produce as the reason older truckers cant get any work

why would any distributor that financed a young persons training and gave them a job for £20k.. want to instead tell the young chap to F-off (meaning cant repay loan also)
just to re-employ an old grouchy driver that wanted £43k+ a year

i personally find hoarding bitcoin easier than saving fiat.

i dont need to ask a bank manager to deposit funds  i just whip out a bitcoin address and boom its done. 10min confirm and the funds are in my address.

depositing fiat cash into a bank account is more of a hassle. above certain amounts banks ask where did money come from or where its going to. and such

as for the other person asking about volatility.
if your worried about the ups or downs of a given day/month. you are not investing/saving long enough and instead day fearing the price by looking at the price too often

personally when i first got my main stash of coins in the 2012-2014 period. i was monitoring prices daily. but i soon learned if im not cashing out that day, why worry about that days price.

years later looking at the price and comparing it to the last time i price checked.. im happy with results (deflation wins after a few years of setting funds aside and not worrying about daily play pricing)

as said about the 204 which split down into legacy addresses before consolidating with another 9btc 1yar amount

the off shoot of the legacy splits went to p2sh wallet taint jumps
EG a 24 split that went into p2sh (prefix 3)
and a 17 split that went into p2sh (prefix 3)

then the 2 paths of p2sh split into small sw (bc1q prefix) addresses of precise amounts of 1-5btc whilst the remainders taint jumped down the p2sh paths

where the ends of the 2 paths of p2sh taint jumps resulting in two under 1btc amounts consolidated together into 1 sw address of 1btc
               1 sw
             23.352 p2sh
           /        \  1 sw
24leg              22.352 p2sh   1 sw                  sw sw sw
180leg                             \ 21 p2sh               /    /  /
         \                                      \.and so on  .\ .. \..\0.349324 p2sh \_  1 sw
        162 leg                              /and so on ../ ../../0.651364 p2sh /
           17.6532 p2sh         15.6532 p2sh       \   \  \
                   \                  /1 sw                    sw sw sw
                  16.6532 p2sh
                     1 sw

end result of the 2 paths of p2sh
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/6fc2f7370682b068c78778ce591a24c13dc797a172c69e31a1fd331e0cb80bff

basically whomever the hacker/mover is he is not even experienced with mixers because he is just taint jumping..
and is using 3 wallets/services to do so
one that prefers legacy change addresses. one that prefers p2sh change addresses and one that prefers segwit

---

im presuming the precise single digit btc amounts in segwit are 'chip mixer'(term not brand) chip amounts about to be mixed. but usually they get spent quite quickly in a mixer shuffle.

im wondering if luke meant coinjoin not as a mixer but as a term meaning consolidated to new address

well the coins are moving again but the idiot is consolidating coins yet again
the ~204 lump that went out and the 9 lump that went out after.. . part of the 204lump split up and re-consolidated to the 9 lump few taints later

thus not a mixer. but a idiot just taint jumping through addresses he created himself in his own wallet (whomever he is)


1yar  204btc split split split split down to 33.7btc.(using legacy)
 and then consolidated with the 1yar 9btc  to make 43btc in a bc1q address

its hard to predict the future, but anything thats:
novel(new)
disrupts/changes an industry
creates a whole new industry
sustainable
solves a problem

is sure to 'strike it rich'

however its not a sure thing..
of the consumer web companies of fang (facebook,amazon,netflix,google)

amazon vs ebay
google vs yahoo
netflix vs youtube
facebook vs myspace

trying to bet on a winner is not so easy at the beginnings
EG
FANG could have ended up as YEMY

because out of the 4 the only one that was a 'first mover' that remained was amazon
yep yahoo dominated search before google
yep youtube dominated video streaming before netflix
yep myspace dominated social media before facebook

before these web social/consumer industry was the hardware
ibm, apple mac HP
many were betting on HP

and after FANG was the financial
paypal, venmo, crypto
many were betting on paypal

the next industry i feel is the household utilities
energy, water, transport
tesla is trying to take on 2 of the 3 industries so far but i bet tesla has plans for the desalination/water utility soon too... but will tesla survive against its competitors.. who knows

main risks of mining 51% is
half of blocks are "empty blocks"
or
malicious pool tries to get its pool customers to not mine a current block. and instead mine an old(edited) block again. and then try to mine forward to catch up and overtake the good pools current height, to re-org the chain and make the malicious pools coin rewards become visible..

however to go back and mine a old block again and then catch up needs more then  51% to catch up meaning alot of asics noticing their asic is mining an old node and those users not jumping pools

im not concerned, after all why would users of a pool want to mine an old block not earning them any sat rewards for hours, while they waste time trying to catch-up with only a hope to take over to win possible rewards

in most cases if this was to occur pool users would prefer to jump to active height block mining pools.. same also if their asic was hashing empty blocks too often
after all why would a pool customer agree to empty block mine when the pool is actively not putting tx in blocks meaning users cant spend their rewards if the pool is not allowing spends

im not worried about mining pools at all.
im more concentrating on the dev and economic node power houses possibly colluding

the reason was back in 2011. although silkroad was drugs related. it was mainly libertarians who didnt give a crap and thought drugs should be legal and authorities cant do crap about it so they didnt mind sharing delivery addresses
because receiving drugs was not a big deal crime for personal use amounts in many area's, where only the seller needed to stay hidden and not reveal location

however these days we have the extremist tin foil anti-gov conservative types that are "privacy" "dont use centralised services" kings who even with legit products dont want to reveal home delivery locations out of fear that one day if laws change they could be locked up for just using bitcoin or not declaring taxes on their bitcoin income "coz services log everything and government watch everything"(facepalm)

to me i laugh and feel the second(more recent group) sound more drug induced paranoid than the first group

but basically these days no one really used services that tried(openbazaar, crypto emporium), so they fizzled out quickly.. (by this i mean they didnt get high user viral sensation/utility)

never invest due to what someone says purely because you recognise the persons name as some one famous and automatically think "well he is famous so he must know what he is talking about"

instead take what that person says and the research it. and see if what he says checks out, also find an opposing view and then research that, and then come to a conclusion of which one is right and choose based on the right information

and by research it means find actual data/code/sources.. not popularity contests of how many followers some one has that have merited or liked a certain topic

its not about ignore famous people. its not about blindly believe.. its about listen and take what they say and research its accuracies

some days they can be correct about one thing and not so much about another. so dont just blindly trust forever a guy because at one time he said something you agree on.. always do your own research on each subject

collateral was kept in account to sway users from just making 1000 accounts a day and scamming 1000 a day

it helped to keep both buyer and seller to keeping one account occupied and used else they would lose that value. or cost them multiples of value just to generate multiple accounts..
it was on both buyers and sellers (dont hold me to that response, but it makes sense if both sides had something to lose)

and if there was unresolvable dispute then the collateral was used to resolve dispute. thus it forced parties to agree on something to avoid losing collateral

yes although i didnt like the produce silkroad was advertising... however, the method of keeping dubious criminals from scamming was novel by using the deposit system (deposited collateral used as reputation) was a feature.. aswell as the escrow. it wasnt perfect but it also was better than nothing. however more is needed to offer a good reputable product listing site that doesnt cost a high middleman escrow fee to counter any losses made by scamming

because if the fiat scam rate is 1% even with all their middleman features and protections. then the scam rate in crypto would be 10x+

the issue with marketplaces for goods is not what you might be thinking at first.. its not the centrality. its not even the listing of goods.. its the whole scamming and scheming on both sides
EG
sellers that dont deliver and just run away with the funds..
buyers that pretend goods not received and demand refunds
where they just set up new bitcoin addresses for payments and pretend to be a new business every day, or customers pretend to be different everyday and scam the same seller over and over

things like ebay have buyer protection which makes it harmful to sellers.
other sites have seller protections which makes it harmful to buyers.
but these fiat sites found they needed something to alleviate the fraud/scam risk

but in a system of anonymity and no desire of KYC it becomes a hotbed of people trying harder to scam and scheme a system

market places have a headache with this stuff which is why they charge fee's for offering a listing site. because they become the mediator of disputes about sold goods not being sent or customers saying they didnt arrive where both sides are trying to run off with goods or funds for free

ebay/etsy work better because they are clear accounts with names and addresses and ratings systems where seller get to rate buyers and buyers get to rate sellers where its slightly more difficult to just create reputation if your just going to use a no ID system

it would be great to have a market place where people can advertise goods and novelty gifts to sell. but it requires a highly invested middleman to mediate/escrow deals, so that fair trade can happen with punishments for abusing said deals

yes developers make changes... bitcoin is not AI (self generating code) after all

the issue is not "developers"... its the "centrality of certain developers" forming one sponsored mindset/roadmap in a niche community of a subset of sponsored dev hierarchy that are IN CHARGE of bitcoin commanding development..(central point of failure)

thats what we should be careful of

where they "SHOULD BE" be open to independent peer review and critique and open to being challenged. where there "SHOULD BE" different brands of "reference clients" to spread out the decentralisation of development. where by even other brands can make proposals. and if a proposal solves something the brands support it and the wider node community support it by upgrading their nodes (of whatever brand) and then when majority is ready to support verifying the proposed change of ruleset.. THEN it gets adopted/activated
unlike how things are now where things can be slid in without consensus (requiring nodes to upgrade first to support a change before a change occurs)

the consensus mechanism of upgrades to support change, before the change is a security mechanism to ensure the network supports it.

and also if majority dont like/need or see a change will be detrimental, they can avoid it being slid in by not supporting it thus it not activating..
thus means devs actually have to bother to listen to the needs of the community to appease the community to get things the community want and need to get bitcoin to evolve by community consent

 by solving things the community want in a consensus mechanism (solving the byzantine generals problem) things get activated
yes consensus is consent by census (survey of population)

rather than one commander(brand) that shouts out orders and soldiers just follow politely