in refards to the ukraine war..
since 2014.. nato wanted ukraine in the euro/nato brotherhod but didnt want the eastern par.. due to russia.

so whe russia wanted the eastern part. those to entities had similar wants..
nato/euro isnt siding with russia. but do see the banefits of russia taking the eastern side as a independant state  thats not ukraine nor russia but named as a buffer state to separate ukraine/euro away from proper russia

as for inflation..
when somone who earns $1m a year gets a 10% pat rise that is $100k

when someone on $20k gets only a £2k rise

food and heating rises by $2k a year atleast. meaning the min wage dont get any more income:costs benefit. yet the rich dont eat more food or warm more people in their house so the rich gain a $98l payrise

thus yes the rich love inflation. their income climbs by ALOT more than their daily life costs of the basics.

..
as for bitcoin

forget the ATH vs low where the low is the scary thing.
pretend the ATH never happen and look at a ground level of lows as a value indicator. bitcoin lows have been raising all the time periodically

EG                                                     _   _
                                                        /  \/  \_
                                     /!         __/\/        2022 low
                                __/  !____/  2020 low
          /|    ________/      2018 low
       _/  |_/         2016 low
___/      2014 low
2012 low

take each low of each 2 year
12.14.16.18.20.22

google the price of bread or a tin of beans or an every day product someone needs to buy regular for those years. and you will notice you can buy more with bitcoin every time

market cap and dominance is MEANINGLESS

dont give it any second thought

market cap is not a valuation based on billions of dollars held somewhere backing a market cap of any coin

its just a empty math calculation of multiplication

anyone can create an altcoin with 1trillion premised coins.. sell just 0.00005 coins for 1cent
yep just 1 cent need to be paid

they can create a whole coin price of $200
meaning creating a market cap of 200 trillion dollars.. yep making bitcoin 0.25% dominance.. all for the low low price of 1cent

solar is not free..
solars ROI is not based on months. its based on years.

i never said to calculate a electric cost alone. its the hardware+electric
even if you are not paying "the grid" you still buying the solar panels which if you divide down the solar panel via how long a solar panel lasts gives you the end cost per KW/h

which still is inline with the planets cheapest realistic cost to mine via grid based electric of cheap grid electric cost

some places where its really really cheap grid electirc are also the highest climate temperatures meaning more electric needed for cooling so again this needs to be factored into the cost.. which again become aligned to a certain level
there is no such thing as free electric

bitcoins 2022 underlying cost has been $15k/coin which is where the markets have been trying their damned hardest to get below $16k but have not really been able to budge down to $15k . this is because no on on the planet can acquire coin below $15k so no one wants to sell for less this year

the markets ares testing the lows. the support where people just stop seling below thus refusing to let the price fall below.. testing these levels is a good thing as it then becomes support/confidence that it becomes the new non-zero bottom number everyone wont go below. thus then traders then start using that as the bottom and then confidence increases compared to previous lows of previous years. and then start using the bottom to then grow up from and trade upwards from..

over the decade those that did accumulate for less, that have weak emotions have sold already. where the new buyer has bought in at the sell price of the past higher than previous holder, they too sell at their min and each time the minimum level raises of the coins bought decades ago and sold and bought and sold over the years. where again no one wants to sell below X amount in 2022

...
i personally did do a math mistake at the start of the year.
i put lowest cost at about $30k when the market was at $50. my miscalculation was the the retail electric grid change of price due to inflation where prices jumped up..
however i did not factor in that many of the most efficient mining farms had 2 year contracts with the grid and or had solar with 5-10 ROI thus
real prices were still based on 2021 electric rates. but my early calculations were on 2022 rates i initially mad the mistake of valuing the bottom as $30j by not considering all factors..

and i bought in when the market price came down to $30k. i personally did not care/worry. as i know next year when the grid contracts expire of the 2021 prices and they have to start paying 2023 prices that min cost will raise up from the true $15k number i was not accounting for
but for the last 6 months i have gone by the truer 15k bases. and so far the markets are trying hard to test that line. and unable to bust it

unless before contracts renew. people get bulk order asics at a lower cost to run/special deal discount at delivery. we should not see any large fall in the underlying bottom of costs on the planet to get coin. unless there is no large long term drop in hashrate that lasts a couple seasons-annually. we should not see large break down in underlying value base number.

it sends a message to other boiler room scammers and crap-sites that activities like scam bankman frauds activities are not free to do. that people will get punished. it may sway other scammers to think twice.
and also make legit services become more legit to avoid mistakes that may cost them a punishment

yep
CSW gets paid to turn up as claimant in court he enjoys turning up as a claimant in court. win or lose. he got paid to be there.

the losses are not losses to him the losses are between the lawyers and the backer investor, not CSW

his backer investors see that paying $xm is cheap. its cheaper then paying TV.media $xm for advertising if the court details get into press, its cheap advertising to them. so they happily buy into CSW schemes

he doesnt/they dont care about how long the case draws out
he doesnt care if it loses. he already bagged his backers investment on day one.

its the same as the conference speaker tours

he doesnt care about the speach or the material of topics to speak about he already got paid to just turn up. so as long as he can keep adding event fates into his schedule he gets paid. no matter what the event is.

the backer might not see instant ROI on the investment when cases lose in court, but they hope the advertisement nets them more users on the BSV network to syphon ROI from. though they probably do wish they could one time actually get a win worthy of more then a lollypop($1) amount, because their advert hopes are not causing a mass user adoption to syphon from either




part of my opinion about why his claims smell rancid and have soo many inconsistencies and lies and obvious flaws in them is, that i believe he puts errors into claims and easily debunks crap. to make the defendant prolong the case having to re-debunk each and every error. thus letting CSW get paid the longer the case flows on

the problem with cash ATMs and bitcoin ATM for cash. is the cost

banks doing straingh fiat account to cash ATM cover costs becasue most ATMs are in the walls of the bank branch thus repairing, refilling ATM is part of bank salary expenditure

but maintaining a bitcoin ATM comes at a cost.. because they are independent
they dont have a service in that town that has employees that as part of their main duties they are paid for . is to also quickly refill a ATM within their salary of other duties

even refilling an ATM comes at a cost. as does the physical material construction of an ATM and its repairs..
which passes onto its users who request to convert BTC to fiat. which puts the exchange rate at a premium

many complain about the premium and end up avoiding bitcoin atms and thus less using it = more premiums per less users to cover costs.. causing a snowball effect

firstly bitcoin needs to be widely used in a location to warrent the need of a bitcoin atm where enough users will use the bitcoin atm to dilute the premiun per user

the less users the higher the premium
the more users the lower the premium

so bitcoin ATM cant just be put in places like having 500 ATMs in one city

because a city of say 2m with a 5% bitcoiner usage is 100k then if there are 500 bitcoin atms thats a 200 users per bitcoin atm
which if they are only using it once a month like receiving salary thats only 200 uses a month

if it costs $50 to maintain a bitcoin ATM per day ($1500) it equates if you average out all physical costs of hardware, refilling and maintenance
then thats a cost of  $7.50 per ATM use

no one likes to or wants to pay $7.50 per atm use
im in the UK we get free atm use with fiat banks and £1 for private fiat ATM

i avoid fiat private ATM and i would definitely not use one that charges me £6.35($7.50)

to get those costs down. there needs more bitcoin usage in a city. where by it can dilute the cost per user down to insignificant amounts. then a Bitcoin ATM would be sustainable to be put into a location.

some will reply i expect that in one town have all bitcoin ATM maintained by 1 guy to dilute the premium.. but.. thats then not decentralisation if one guys owns all ATM's and controls that towns market rate and BTC reserve

the real sotisho created bitcon and used the term BTC

it did begin in 2009
but CSW main claim is that thet kraken is using another network called bitcoin but its not "the bitcoin"


everything in the quote is true. the bitcoin network(btc) was invented then. and is used now..

CSW's BSV network was invented 2018
it was a fork of a fork
BSV is not the main inheritor of "bitcoin"

and isnt really used at all by any substantially known exchanges

its like royalty lineage
the straight line of descendant is the winner. first child wins
the offspring that come later are not first inline to the thrown

                     / anne                      /harry
k.george - Q. elizabeth - .K charles- william
                                      \ andrew
      
btc - btc - btc
      \ bch - bch (minority economic(exchange) acceptance)
               \ bsv (minority pf minority economic(exchange) acceptance)

thus BSV is not in the lineage inheritance of "bitcoin"

first CSW has to establish which network CSW defines as "bitcoin"

because even this forums posts in 2010 show the actual satoshi described bitcoin as the network of the BTC coin. and BSV was not even an invention of satoshi nor existent until 2018

however CSW if he wants to define BSV as bitcoin. though it only existed as of 2018.. then all lawsuits bout trying to get "bitcoin" to have coin robbery code added. are only lawsuits wanting BSV to have such code.

if he wants to define btc as bitcoin then that makes BSV not bitcoin.

he cant have it both ways

..
now lets look at the "WRIGHT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED"
created 2016.. ok not 2008-10 although legal documents in tweet says that WII "has traded at all material times in the commercial and technical development of Bitcoin."

development of WHICH? bitcoin?. is CSW referring to.. i can see this as a first paragraph failing of CSW

next error (ignoring the obvious falsities (reality is CSW not being the creator))
"based on what the paper described as “a chain of digital signatures”. Such chains are now generally referred to as “blockchains”.
bitcoins blockchain is PoW using hashes. its not a chain of digital signatures. as that is PoS.
seems he cant tell the difference between PoW vs PoS

signature chains. are not a think. because signatures are not chained in bitcoin.
transaction UTXO's are, which are something else but the term of the chain of OTXO is called "taint"

next error
pretending he owns bitcoin.org
CSW should have stayed with pretending to own bitcoin.com and bribed
R.Ver to sell it to him years ago

next error
bitcoin was not described in the white paper as:
"Bitcoin can be bought, sold and transferred through digital exchanges."
because there were no such things in 2008
the white paper was actually about coin rewards from PoW mining and the transfer peer to peer

next error
CSw description of successful minded block and coin reward
"In respect of nodes which are successful in their
mining efforts a distribution is made comprising a quantity of Bitcoin together with
the transaction fees relating to the transactions recorded in the new block."
a 'distribution is made'.. um distribution. excuse me but what english is this..? i guess he meant a contribution.. but had bad autocorrect..

next error
CSw says he set up businesses to control the commerce of bitcoin and development. then he uses other things like handing development over to independent devs in 201. and that other independents set up businesses. yet wants to say WII was in control of bitcoin commerce and development!!

again which direction is this guy trying to walk along.. he is saying two things at once and getting the lines crossed

next error
again he says "During the period of 2009 – 2016, Dr Wright set up, owned and controlled various trading
entities, including WII, to develop his ideas for blockchain technology."
yet WII was not around in 2009-2015

next error
describing forks as "air drops"
CSW has no clue about crypto systems or terminology.. it pains my eyes just reading his errors of crypto history and terminology

next error
was where segwit activation "requires
information relating to the digital signature to be stored on side networks or “off chains”,

seriously. he really has no clue..
even though i did not like the procedure used to activate segwit. CSW is by far going complete idiot by not understanding what the activation triggered or the layout of data thereafter.
..
here is the kicker.
he admits the bitcoin using the BTC ticker is the one that has segwit.. and the core dev team maintaining it...

so he admits that the btc network is the network of the real satoshi who also used the term btc..

..
next error
he confuses which network he defines as the "airdrop"
he ends up calling the BCH as the airdrop. which means that its a new network giving away free coins..

and then admits that BSV is another airdrop that was created that gave away free coins..
so thus he is admitting that BSV is not the original network but a fork of a fork. or to use his words an airdrop of an air drop

thus.. his BSV is not bitcoin

..

point 32 quoting for emphasis

hmm BCH was created august 2017.. BSV was created november 2018

seems he doesnt even know when his own network begun or which network to speak of


ok im getting a headache im stop reading at point 32. and ill come back later to add to my post about al the crap thats just stupid about that filing document

profits?
Nope not getting them back.

first of all.
even if running a legit service.
imagine 1million people depositing about 0.4btc average each in january
=400k coins.
 ( where $50k/btc valuation in jan=$20k per 0.4 = $20bill value combined)

 getting a fiat reimbursement. wont be $20k for their 0.4btc. it would be of at most $6.6k this month (this month valuation is $16.5k/coin)

however
if running a shady business
 if there were 400k coins in deposit. and they can only find say 40,000 then that is a 10% on return. meaning that $6.6k turns into $660

that $660 however will be further diluted by legal fee's and other creditors with priority over customers.

so your $20k average investment turns into well under $500 return..
but thats IF they can even find say 40k bitcoin to divide up before fee's

pruning does not help
by not having the blockchain you are not helping the blockchain

pruners leach data but dont keep it to be seed data sources for others. thus if there are more pruners there are less full noders.
pool of seeders decrease more so due to the pruning feature adverts than due to physics

idiots pretending the world works on 2005 hardware and pretends everyone should prune. are not people that are advising on how to be a full noder and support the network

yes people are not forced to be full noders. but using fake rhetoric suggesting that pruning "is full".. is bad advice.

not everyone needs to be a full noder just to use bitcoin as a currency, it is a personal choice but trying to convince people that WANT to protect the network, that want to be a ful noder.. trying to convince those that want to, that bitcoin should not scale to allow more people in, to make that choice. is then not a choice. its a restraint

bitcoin in 2022 using technology available a few years ago will allow utility for a few years after 2022.. whereby people naturally upgrade hardware anyway.

however trying to suggest people should use subnets or prune or just pay more in fee's as reasons to not allow expansion of the tx count thus not allow expansion of users on the bitcoin network is not a good suggestion. especially of the silly hard drive myth constraints are of hardware from 17 years ago as the reason to politically restrain bitcoin from user growth in 2022+

"resource constrained" is the myth of the speaches debunked and outdated from many years ago

i still laugh that the same myths of 2015 are being used in 2022.. not realising their data restraint arguments have changed since then

yes in 2015 your 250Gb hard drive would have been good enough for 5x years of 52k blocks of 1mb
but the thing is.. after them 4-5 years from 2015 you would have to upgrade your hardware..
gues wat. that means in 2019-20 .

so arguing in 2022 that you are resource constrained. is not a bitcoin fault. its a personal choice of yours to not upgrade.
where by the normal upgrade window of all tech is usually 4-5 years any way for all tech purposes, whether its office use, gaming, video editing. whatever

gamers upgrade their console/gaming pc far sooner. they dont cry that gaming should be halted at certain dpi/ping/frame rate.

phone users upgrade far sooner then 4-5 years. they dont say they want apps and features to be halted so they can carry on using their 10yo phone

if those myth makers think its ok that bitcoin is $1 a tx+
they are ignoring the fact that $1 is only reasonable for about 600m people in 1st world countries... but pricing out the utility of bitcoin as a whole no matter if is custodian, lite or full node usage for multiple billions of potential users where $1 a transaction is not reasonable.. does not sound like a myth that is aiming about making bitcoin more reachable.

even if people transacted just 1once a month doing a open/close sessions of an subnet, as their utiopian dream way forward where by $1open$1close per month($2). in a 4 year time scale (when people usually upgrade hardware/software). that amounts to $96

if you think bitcoin should remain constrained... where they myth make that a hard drive cost change from say 52gb data per year to 200gb data per year  is the problem(4mb blocks of full legacy utility and byte count)
then they really need to so some better math.

a 1TB hard drive which is more then a 4 year utility of say 4mb block of true way of counting true bytes amounts.. is far less than $96 cost.

heck real math of real research show that you can get a 4TB hard drive
this amounts to over 16 years of true 4mb block utility.


heck even if people only upgrade once every 10 years
a 4mb block system allowing for true 4x of legacy byte counts without the cludgy code. costs far far far less then 10 years of monthly open/close sessions of a subnet over same 10 years under the constraints/premiumisations of fees they want to keep implemented in the code

so scaling(it means progressive small growth periodically. so dont myth make it to myth that it means leaping) to 4m block of actual true byte count is not resource restrained at all
even most core devs admit 4mb is no harm to the network

so while on one hand the myth makers say using bitcoin just once a month for 4 years to close reopen some subnet system. is better than paying to buy a cheap hard drive once every 4-16 years. the math shows that its actually the opposite.

tx counts need to go up and fee's need to be kept down.

pretending that bitcoin should remain at a 2000tx average block and people should just "pay more" per use or use an altnet.. is not even good economics for the myth makers

because math of the open/close costs show that it still ends up more expensive than just upgrading hardware which people usually do anyway for different reasons unrelated to crypto

if you want to sing a hymn sheet of myths . atleast include lyrics that involve math and economics and not hopeful thoughts of promoting a subnet

do not reply if you just want to repeat the outdated hymn sheet of the subnet promotion lyrics.

do some research. take average internet/hard drive statistics of 2015(where the scaling debate vs myth began) and then realise it is 2022 and so also take some stats from 2022. and remind yourself its 2022.. reply with some data, stats, evidence that backs up your myths. come back with something that has some logic and common sense included

a 250gb hard drive was out dated in the 2019 era.
dont be stuck in the past

resource constraints are not the issue.
code implemented restraints are the issue.

in short. its not a physics problem its a political problem

finding the bottom is actually simpler than you think

forget the market
below the market. there are people able to acquire bitcoin CHEAPER.. they are the miners of the most efficient mining on the planet.
they are the BASE. the "no one on the planet can get below"

some less knowledgeable think bitcoins base/bottom could be $3k. but thats their opinion from market wiggle watching of a few years agos low.

it means nothing in regards to todays base.

if no one can or wants to sell below a certain level on the entire planet. then thats the base/bottom.

this base/bottom support is not something that wiggles volitally day by day. its a stable rate mainly due to miners electric contracts being allotments of MW over a 1-2 year period. averaging out the variability of their daily-monthly costs.
their hardware they run for a couple years before upgrading. again averaging out their variability.
the only variability is the hashrate competition itself which determines how much of a miners hashrate compared to the network hashrate a miner is going to get on average of coins.

but they do not play to the whims of the daily changes of mining coin rewards issued due to hashrate changes. they instead just plod along mining, and just take their coins they accumulate in a 6-24month time period and evaluate the coins of 6-24month vs their 6-24 month costs of electric/hardware

if you simply calculate the mining costs of the cheapest mining on the planet. you find this base number

there are legal means of a business, taking in funds from customers. and not giving the customers anything in return

however busniesses need to have met a legal threshold of having to make customers aware that there is a risk of losing all their deposits and that when they are putting money/asset into something they are handing all ownerchip, possession and control of that money/asset over to ownership by the business

thus anything after the deposit is no longer anything to do with customers, and customers have no redress/option/involvement/chance of recouperation

there is also the charade buddy system of links to political entities. EG scam bankman frauds family know someone who know someone in the CFTC and SEC and also in both the trump and biden camps(should future elections shift party and this bankrupts drama stretch out beyond 2024)

..
with both that said.
its not CFTC or SEC that will hammer SBF(if its an option) its the FATF(financial action task force) that will do the hammering

also those friends of friends in SEC/CFTC may want to distance themselves by actually getting involved to find/give evidence to help prosecute him as their way of saying their job/integrity mean more then loyalty to friends in their personal lives

all in all. it can swing both ways legally and lawfully. only time can tell.

we all want to see scam bankman fraud in prison. but when it comes to business law of contracts etc. certain deals can be done to make sure a brand gets destroyed without punishing the human that made the brand

philosophical questions
1. were they stolen in november.. or the very minute a customer deposited(when they decided they no longer wanted to own coin)

2. was the deposit a contractual agreed management custodial service or a simple relinquishing of ownership by the customer by agreeing to just give coins away to a business out of generosity(like a donation)

in real estate. if someone buys an apartment in full they have legal rights as owners no matter who has a door key. if they employ a maintenance guy to be given keys (a custodian 'super' to manage the utility/maintenance/services of the property) does that mean the custodian then owns the property.. answer here is no

but in crypto. a custodian does put terms into the exchange user agreement where by the property becomes owned by the exchange
and by having the only key control of funds a customer has no access to regain possession

so regulators have to work out. did scam bankman fraud legally get given coin (as pseudo-donation) to SBF's retirement home.. or did SBF steal users funds.

i understand that they have coins in a multisig inside a coinbase wallet meaning that signing a message to prove control of addresses is complex..

but atleast displaying the addresses which auditors/regulators can check could benefit alot of people.. EG they can promote a verification address of a vanity address 1GBTCProof.. and move some coin to it and back again

more concerning. their promotions is that buying greyscales shares "is buying bitcoin"
yet

soo.. the shares do not represent bitcoin.
users having shares dont own btc

you can usually spot the flaws of an entity that pretends the entity is owned by customers(share holders). when its not the share holders that vote/come to consensus to pivot the entity in a new direction at a good/bad situation.. but a ceo of the parent company making sole discretion decisions based on whats best for the parent company(greyscale)

..

if greyscale disappear. or their excel/database of investors gets deleted.. . there is no legal swap to be given 0.09x btc by coinbase(who hold the coin) that you thought you were investing in. even if you were to show coinbase a share certificate or let then see your screenshot of a recent share holding on account they wont release the coins to you

yep folks you are not buying bitcoin when you buy GBTC.
its a business "promise" of one day getting a matched 0.09xbtc per share, but those agreements can change and they can veto the deal, with multiple excuses

 the coins of BTC remains greyscales and you are just buying shares that are not backed by BTC, but of a company brand valuation of collateral that suggests a moving price of its company collateral value which it will not disclose the reserves of said collateral

when buying a share you are not gaining ownership privilege of an allotment of sats.
the sats are owned by greyscale

1."losing value"??
a. forget the market price. its a meaningless number moving up and down. its only important to anyone at the excact moment they want to buy or sell.. when they are just hoarding that number is not affecting them personally
b. value is not found as being the market price. value is a number that sits below the periodic lows (it sits outside the market price chart)
that low for the last 3 years has been
2020 3k   2021 $10k and 2022 $15k
value has been on a slow constant rise.

2. "doomsday for cryptos"
this does not mean bitcoin. its means for BUSINESSES and centralised things in the crypto space. exchanges will come and go. market prices will wiggle, the wind will blow, the earth will orbit the sun...

now on to the main topic
there are 2 directions.. legal and lawful
they have to investigate if he legally used all tax/money legislation to legally avoid tax/liability/losses.
if he is found that instead of legally avoiding, and instead illegally evading. then it can  be a fine/court order to repay.. or
separate case..  move to criminal acts of if the deposits/control of assets were lawfully in 'scam bankman frauds' ownership(his to do as he pleases). or as customers credit/property

yep some businesses can put stipulations into TOS/user agreements that pretty much say once you deposit the coins, value is no longer the customers and its up to the business to decide how it treats its customers. and if customers use the service/sign up they agree to the risk of losing it all where the exchange is not liable.

if its deemed the coins were of customer credit. where there is no user agreement to allow 'scam bankman fraud' to fractional reserve or move assets to somewhere that users can never withdraw/recover. then it can become criminal

advice to everyone:
if your going to use a custodian/exchange. ALWAYS ready the terms of service/user agreement to see how ethical they are before handing them your coins, even if you intend to only use them short term

really..
strange how its the same group (even see you blind follow their mindset many times) that are saying that altnets are the "solution" because bitcoin shouldn't/cant scale because x,y,z lame excuse

do you see what i mean. they are saying bitcoin cant do X because technology limits. cant do Y because "centralisation" cant do z because no one wants to see people spending only $3 in a privileged data space


are your responses more about being on the defence of protecting a social groups hymn sheets to restrict, prevent,delay bitcoin from scaling, with lame excuses outdated by a decade
only sung so they can promote other networks...

or are you thinking of actual bitcoin, where congestion/high fee's are seen, actually being discussed by more then "just franky" but really shouldnt be seen if it was able to scale 5 years ago as requested by the wider bitcoin community(not the small corp group+social fangroup)

are you personally of the mindset of:
A. people should use altnets like LN to lock value up with a middleman and rely on other middle men to be online and accepting to facilitate payments..

B. people should be able to stay with their wallet keys on the bitcoin network where they can just send a transaction and get it settled and confirmed without having to pay high fee's or having to wait days due to whatever dev politics are putting restrictions in place that have not been needed for a decade

CEX exchanges come and go

when i started getting into bitcoin,  btc-e was my favourite. yea it was simple and unregulated and risky, and yep.. its not around now
nor is mtgox

heck even bitstamp had some popularity presence early on.. but now no one really talks about it.

then there were like XX others exchanges that came and went
cryptsy, cryptorush, mintpal..... plus alot more

with the FTX contagion affecting the DCG by messing with genesis and circle. and where coinbase/greyscale are not providing much in the way of showing their cold wallet storage.. i would be looking more towards the exchanges listed on the DCG portfolio for possible more contagion hits.

caught in botched robbery?

its more like
a robbery occured at a shop, and the mall of shops talked to the shop and said, "do you need some cash.. or we can send our guys to repair the damage and get back the stolen property, we can help"

and the robbed store owner says "its ok i have SAFU insurance, i didnt realise i could do that (get my goods back), we can try to get them back in a few days but im worried about the consequences" "my priority now is to fix my shop which could take a week"
then hours later" i spoke with the mall shops and decided not to get the goods back or undo the damage via their support"

try to watch the video in full and listen to the whole context.

it seems many in this topic didnt watch the video or do research of the other communications on twitter pre and post AMA video. nore realise tht all social drama events of this topic were just social discussions in a small 40hour period

one more time just for fun
day 1.
A. hack

day 2
B. many exchanges and miners -> binance "want us to help there are these options"
C. ama "lets discus topics from people that have asked me things"
D. "after speaking to the mall shops, we decided we are not gonna pursue that"

all in the space of about 40 hours from A to D
B to D happened in less than 12 hours

your assumption that B is CZ begging exchanges/miners is wrong.
B was exchanges/miners giving him idea's of support

your assumptions of C being a declaration of intent
C. was explaining topics discussed

your assumptions of C is that there were actual attempts to re-org on day of C

C. was saying his intentions were for a few days to dedicate time to find binances inside bugs and fix them to prevent more hacks and then in a few days it could do other things mentioned to him

there was no re-org attempt or intent to attempt on day of C

it was not a declaration. it was a discussion of topics of things asked before the AMA

D. was not a 'we give up, we tried and failed'
D. was a 'stop the fud we are not gonna'
..
re-org didnt happen. he didnt even try a re-org.,. it was just a discussion of options GIVEN TO HIM. where the whole social drama of the options lasted less than 12 hours..

yet here we are 3 years later and people are still even now promoting a non event that didnt happen(re-org) as if it was an actual threat..

---

i am not a kiss ass or fan club member of any crypto business
but here is what i see happening this month in 2022

there is a fanclub of the DCG portfolio (FTX/blockstream devs)
that seem more butt hurt by binances whistle blow that caused them losses of faith in their fanclub portfolio trust(FTX).. more so than any butt hurt of events that happen inside the portfolio

remember
FTX (buddy of DCG) robbed from the DCG fanclub
so why call the whistle blower a botched robber with silly rhetoric like
"ftx only crashed coz binance"
"binance tried a botched robbery 3 years ago"

there you go again
your ignorance has again shown up

the 2017 event was not a world vs franky. and i laugh every time you imply that

the 2017 event you keep getting wrong and imply your ignorant and stupid version of events, was not a network wide community node decision to activate segwit.
it was not a majority nodes decided something else, which franky disagreed with

it was a MANDATORY ACTIVATION that did not require the majority of the community to upgrade their node to cause an activation

it was a small group of devs and economic nodes that had code to flag a threatening 'your blocks will be ignored if miners dont flag this' ..and then when one flag was reached its level. triggered the rejection(bias miscount) to then get the 100%(un unnatural level by the way) to then activate segwit

its all there in the blockchain. the data exists to prove this event. its immutable it cant be edited.
heck i even made it easy for you to remember by showing you the actions in a visual form of the flag chart. and colour code the description to make it as easy for you to understand.

YOU fail to use block data of flag events to prove your case all you use is insults and lies.

now take some time to go do some research and go check out the actual version of events. not the ones you are trying to suggest happened due to your wishy washy story you are trying to sales pitch to people..
go on check the blockchain and realise what happened and how. learn what the flags represent read the code that gets triggered dependant on what flags reach which threshold. read it. and learn.

oh and as for your silly "increase the cost of privacy"
you are the one advocating for pruning. so there is no extra cost for you

as for your "extra cost"
we are in an era that 16TB hard drives are a real thing

the difference of a 250gb vs a TB hard drive(10x)
is not an extra cost of 10x the cost
..
people do not keep the same computer for decades
if they did then you would not see the gaming industry evolve. you would not see the graphics design video editing movie industry evolve. you would not see basically technology evolve.. but here is the thing they all do evolve faster than you want to imply.

technology when you first spouted your ignorant version of events outpaced your rhetoric, thus making your assumptions wrong then.. and because it was years of you spouting your ignorance. technology has been evolving more since them making it even more wrong now

in short your rhetoric of ignorance and lack of hard data to back up your rhetoric becomes more wrong the longer you stick with it.

so actually do the research and remind yourself of what actually happened. and stop your crap