dont be so quick to judge about that. some are actually still involved in crypto, they just want regulation of the edge businesses/gateways at the sidelines of crypto

take kevin o'leary(shark tank fame) who was highly invested in FTX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxEFYqbOchc

by adding in more 'dynamics' actually cause confusion

sticking to the basic fundamentals helps.
bitcoin is a 4 year cycle due to the halving events

THEN seeing other events that occur because of it then helps to explain other things.

EG a year after price discovery GPU mining become the main mining
method which stemmed the 2011 increase due to mining cost increases
(along with other social events spurring the hype)

2013 asics became the main mining mechanism.

2017 a large change in the next gen asics(s9 became the main popular asic
2021 the next gen asic S19 become the main popular mining
(along with other social events spurring the hype)..
...
there are other events too in between those, but to a lesser extent
like inside the halving years themselves, where you see the price at start of year be atleast half that of end of year

2012 ranged from $5 - $40
2016 ranged from $450 - $900
2020 ranged from $7.5k - $25k
which shows inside the halving year the market also doubles+ due to the halving

but if you take away all the speculative sentiment of temporary movement between the main events. and only stick to ground level of the lows and not even consider the highs in regards to VALUE

it becomes clear

however other coins.. have lost their cycles
lets use ethereum
splitting off from its 'classic' start. and then later again merging into PoS has broke ethereum value from any concept of cyclical pattern

ethereum half a year ago had a good supported value (via mining costs(cheapest way to get ethereum on the planet) of ~$700+ and the markets were $1.5k at the time.
then due to PoS the underlying cost went massively down to $40, meaning that ethereum is no longer cheapish at a ~2x of value. but instead is a premium speculated bubble at a 30x of value

its concepts of sticking to rules and costs has gone out the window. how people store it has changed with its custodial staking where large millions of coins can be ripped away from custodians if more changes are made.

ethereum have broke any underlying value pattern or security support they had.
and now are just blindly speculating at a premium via just shadow tracing bitcoin price movements.
alot of people think ethereum "value" is in its utility as a base coin for other tokens.. and yet if the other token market was actually utilitised instead of its fake sales due to the seller selling to himself to pretend his token is worth high amount.. the ethereum market if it has utility would have it own price sentiments that peak and dip independently and differently to the bitcoin market due to utility sentiment changes of the day.. and not be a shadow trace market of bitcoins price wiggles

in short any altcoin which when looking at the price movements show signs of just shadow tracing a main coin.. proves the altcoin has not independant price sentiment of demand/utility need

Doomad

you dont understand much out side of your small community of chums,. but you have very high corporate shill practices of wanting people to get off bitcoin and move into the patents and property of LN and liquid designs

you say things like bitcoin is politically neutral. yet YOUR politics where you want sponsored core devs to write whatever code into bitcoin rules that pleases the corporate need while saying users of the decentralised network have no way or should have no way to stop them from writing what core devs want.. is your not so neutral stance

yes devs should have freedom of writing code in any platform in any language.. but when it comes to what code THEN GETS TO ACTIVATE and become part of bitcoin.. core having mandatory methods to force THEIR whims in. is not true consensus of the decentralised network that meant to prevent forced activations to be possible

yet core done it.. with their corporate partners(DCG economic nodes) that sponsored segwit to get activated

the funny part is you also HATE if there was a second team or third team doing a "reference client" for bitcoin(you know a thing called decentralisation). where by it reduces core control (central point of failure)... you LOVE core having control of the code and activation decisions of what core roadmaps want in bitcoin
.....
while you pretend the data arguments against expanding bitcoin tx count is reasons to say no to it, by pretending it will centralise bitcoin.. you are just ignoring the real reasons of what causes bitcoin centralisations. and that is not letting users have space to transact daily to then actually want to run a node daily. instead you are the one that was happy with the exchanges(economic nodes) having a vested interest and majority voice of a mandatory activation of segwit. that fit your desires of needing segwit to use as the gateway offramp to your favoured altnet

you dont care about bitcoin network utility. you and your chums have been seen talking about using prune as a feature.. which does not help support the backbone security/decentralisation of the blockchain.
(if nodes dont have the blockchain, they cant share the blockchain. thus there is less of a pool of nodes about to help out new people entering the full node backbone)


your narrow mindset thinking $3/coffee is an acceptable fee and an unacceptable spend amount for traders/users to want to move.. is your narrow mind of the elite world of 1st world countries..
i personally am born and raised white british and as far back as the family tree goes has been british.. so i am a 1st world country person. but i atleast can see beyond my personal circumstances to actually want bitcoin to be useful for the 3rd world where $3 is a day/weeks wage. where by they should not be told to not use bitcoin and instead told to go use another network. or simply priced out of using bitconi via fees being higher than their days/weeks salary

bitcoin was a payment system for the unbanked.. not a reserve system for the corporate elite financial services sector!! acknowledge understand and realise that.

....
the points at which i said not everyone needs to be a full node..
is different to those that want.

this statement of me saying not everyone NEEDS to be a full node is in response to your drivel over the years of you previously saying that you thought my mindset was that everyone should be full noder even if they dont want to use bitcoin daily.. and also your opposite drivel about those that want to use bitcoin should not have to be

its actually true if people are only transacting once a month they dont NEED to be online 247 watching for broadcasts
bitcoin is not LN
logic and common sense wins.. if you are not going to cdrive a car for a month. there is no need to keep the car engine running for the entire month your not using it


however people that are true bitcoiners that want to use bitcoin every day should be able to. without being told by altnetters like yourself that they should adopt your altnet instead to avoid fee's which your favoured corporate shill devs have pushed into bitcoin as a premium to advertise other things that lead them on a path towards altnets

bitcoin should have more transaction counts per blocks so that more people can enjoy bitcoin regularly. and i mean bitcoin. where they actually use bitcoin daily.

your idea is for people to lock up sats and for months not need to run a full node where by they instead give sats to a hub and a hub gives them inbound balance on some other network to play with for months

when you say you want the fair balance of fees of bitcoin.. you are not talking about bitcoin network fee;s.. you are and you keep doing it. talking about fee's associated with moving value you call "bitcoin" but on a network that is not the bitcoin network even though you try to assume the LN network is "bitcoin"

when i talk about bitcoin fee's i actually mean the bitcoin network fees

as for your rhetoric about the privilege of a limited blockspace which comes at a premium where people should pay that premium.. again that limit is not one based on science or physics limitation. that implied limit is put there and kept low for the politics(not neutral)

whilst you dream about a situation where block miners need $100k($16k*6.25=$100k) a block to cover electric~hardware  costs of mining and a block only has 2000 tx average you love the idea that people should be paying $50 per tx

however.. basic economics is that if bitcoin miners need $100k a block.. then having
10k tx = people pay $10
20k tx = people pay $5

thus having more tx onchain actually helps decrease the fee each person pays without having to get everyone to pay $50 in your "limited blockspace so pay the premium" scenario
...

now ake your altnet appreciation corporate middlemen service mindset shilling back to your altnet because all your chants about why you dont want bitcoin to scale is not about BITCOIN utility. its about convoluted ways to limit and premiumize bitcoin out of common folks reach just so you can con and scam them out of pegged value on another network


oh an as for privacy.. bitcoin does not ask for your name. nor does it ask for you home location nor does it ask for the list of products you want to buy.. bitcoin is good. you are confusing bitcoin with the middle men services which you are so engrained and used to using so much you cant tell the difference between the corporate shilling and services you are involved in. vs the actually utility and protocol of the bitcoin network

yes you are one of the idiots that wants to break blockchains to not be immutable accounting system that proves the creation of coins and also shows that all payments use coins that can prove their creation origin.. you instead your your business/service "surveilance2 exchanges as a thing to wreck bitcoin.
sorry but how about stop using services that share your shopping list and delivery address.. then you can have your privacy

FTX was VALUATED as $32billlin
but thats not 32b of custodian held assets. thats a FIAT paper spreadsheet valuation based on the math of 1share price X total shares

its a meaningless statistic like marketcap is. its unbacked by real fiat

there were about at one point 12billion in customer assets deposited
which if you average this better measure. meant the 1.2m customer of FTX had an average deposit of $10k

that said. whats actually the case is there were a few whales that invested millions and alot of minnows investing less than $10k

there were less than 1000 people investing more then $1m
bit these names were big celebrity/big name people

and its these big names that made FTX suddenly a popular speaking point to mention

its big names not big numbers.

mtgox only had about ~24k customers
so FTX 1.2m is a steep amount higher victim base

but.. coinbase has 60m customers
binance has 26m customers

so in todays scheme of customer bases. FTX was not that high in customer numbers.. but it was high in popularity with say a couple thousand whales that have celebrity level reputations to retain

bitcoin might have a 19m limited supply this year. but those 19m are not on exchanges

lets say 4million are
exchanges might have limited supply of 4m but not all of those are on active market orders

lets say 2m are (binance only 400k btc in custody and has les on market orders)
market orders might have long order books of XXXk btc. but the price is only based on the current decimal amount of btc being sold at any specific time

yep thats right the market price is only based on the decimal amount of btc being sold at a given time

people are not depositing $16k to buy a whole BTC (like they have to to buy whole fiat company shares). people can buy small allotment of decimals using lower fiat amounts

exchanges can trad 0.0001 for $1.60  and the market price still calcuates to being $16k for 1btc

so even without much "supply" in an exchange. market makers just swap less decimals.

in 2012 the buyers depositing $400 and could get 66btc
in 2022 same person does not deposit 2500 x $400 to buy 66btc
investor still puts in his regular $400 and only gets 0.025btc

we seen in 2012 that walls (large orders that didnt fulfil) were 1000btc thick. now they are 1btc thick

..
though in 2012 the entire bitcoin network coin circulation supply was 11m coins
and now its 19m coins (more supply)
the market supply on active orders went
from  1-1000btc per order line
to 0.001-1btc per order line

just be aware of the fee's though

silly idiots promote LN as being cheap..
but thats if you are only paying a channel partner whilst already in LN

it takes real bitcoin tx fee's to get value in. if freshly starting. and out

if whilst in LN it takes X hops(middlemen routers) to move msat from a DEX ln to your LN channel. than thats a 10 multiple of the lower ln payment fee. because each middleman wants to get paid for participating in the msat movements

also when exiting LN to get back to bitcoin. if broadcasting check the close session fee's allotted to the partnership arrangement of the channel

before setting up your LN node. check how its set up and if you can get hold of the LN seed, as it may save you in later date..
if that seed can be used in your hardware wallet to show as balance(doubt it in many LN software wallets)

but for this instance. also check if the close session allows you to pick your destination (normal segwit) or if its a address in the LN seed which might need a double tx just to get out of the channel then out of the LN seed to a bitcoin wallet address
in many cases the destination of a channel exit is usually not capable of choosing your hardware wallet address as the destination

remember LN is not bitcoin
it uses msat and a pegging system between the LN payments vs the close session states.
where by if you are receiving inbound msat value from a channel partner. its them that make decisions on fees and destinations which you have some degree of agreement to. but usually dependant on what LN wallet determine how much sway you have or if just slave to channel partner

LN is a completely different payment system to bitcoin. so take your time learning the differences

2011 seen a grounded value of 30cent.
    2011 that bubbled to ATH of $32   = 100x

2013 seen a grounded value of $40.
    2013 that bubbled to ATH of $1.2k = 30x

2017 seen a grounded value of $900.
    2017 that bubbled to ATH of $20k = 21x

2021 seen a grounded value of $10k.
    2021 that bubbled to ATH of $75k = 7.5x

lets call this wide gap the "window"
yes the window is getting less multiplier gradually and stablising..

dont expect large 100x windows expect more 2-10x windows
....
you also ended this part of quote with
'when it reaches new high 'values' (facepalm)
'when it reaches new high 'prices' (smiles)

the cycles are not about yearly bears or bulls.. forget about bulls and bears.
bulls and bears are the cattle of fiat inflation markets..

bitcoin is a dairy cow. it stays grounded and as you let it graze(hoard it) you can then milk it(profit) at the end of the day(future)

the cycles are actually based on the halvings. which are ~4 years. and set as a rule in bitcoin to be around that 4 year..

bitcoin is based on code and uses PoW which has costs. so base the cycles and costs on the actual things underlying bitcoin.. code and costs.. forget the market whimsy. the cycles and costs doubling are built into bitcoin via coded rules that dont break

market highs are a totally different creature.. filled with fish (minnows and whales) they can create ripples and waves and tsunami's with the market price


it was not the case that previous highs becomes instant minimum of he next cycles low..

the 2009-2012 cycle.. seen a ATH of $32.. yet after the 2012 halving. we seen prices below $32

eventually yes as the lows raise you can forget that the market price will ever go to $32 again. but thats like the next cycle over

EG the 2012-2016 cycle did at the start see prices below $32. but the cycles after that dont worry about $32 number anymore

EG the 2016-2020 cycle did see prices below $1.2k. but the cycles after that dont worry about $1.2k number anymore

EG the 2020-2024 cycle did see prices below $20k. but the cycles after that wont worry about $20k number anymore

you will also see this

bitcoins first price discovery was 2010(not 2009). the first cycle started 2010

now each cycle.. is actually of the halvening (first would have been if price discovery began in 2009)
so start of cycle(SOC) +1 year is when the ATH happen
SOC 2010 ATH 2011
SOC 2012 ATH 2013
SOC 2016 ATH 2017
SOC 2020 ATH 2021

this means we may not see prices go over $75k until 2025
but we won see under $20k after 2024

the exception is this though
there might be other ATH inside the same cycles
but playing it safe of keeping expectations rational dont bank on it. treat next ATH as a bonus if before the next cycle begins

1. you mention china being king of setting standards. but then mention that EU sets standards.
lets take data disks..
there was the DVDR- and DVDR+ ,, china did not care because they manufactured BOTH for 2 different corporations in america.. it was america that ended up settling the fight(sony) when it came to blue ray
though china build the products. they build it via specification blueprints of what US/EU companies want. where the EU/US hold the patents and decide which factory to licence as their source provider.. think about that

2. the BRI connects many countries together that were not connected before.. this does not mean china is king. this means that other countries can now use those same roads, rail and shipping lanes to actually prosper themselves..
yep indonesia having a fast lane to EU means that indonesia can become a power house to rival china.. have a little think about that.

4. china the land is the source of most manufacturing. but did you know that its actually american/EU companies that decided to go into china and use china for EU/US manufacturing
if other countries with lower wage costs have a fast lane access to the EU. the EU would use those other countries.. think about that

5. what you will find is that maufacturers dont want to ISO standard. because that means no repeat sales.. if everyone uses the same charging cable there is no 'upselling' of accessories such as new chargers every time a phone is upgraded.  think about that

china like variety because it means more factories to make more product to make more profit... think about that

..
what you are not realising is this
china is a cheap place to live, and create and innovate.. and while institutional level corporate america/europe love and partner with china.. they dont want their competitors using china. and so the media narrative puts china to shame by talking about modern slavery to scare start ups from using china..

silly conspiracies that the only way to trade in china is if you are a registered citizen using a government app. to scare start ups..

did you know china is not a "one app" economy..
people can use paper money and also a multitude of apps in china. and even debit and credit cards.. (are you shocked.. well you shouldnt be)
all without needing to be a registered citizen providing life story to the government.
yep true fact. think about that

(oh im british and white.. but atleast i can see beyond my nose of what i see on TV/internet.. and actually see whats happening in the real world .. because yep i travel and visit these places)

just remember everything you read on the internet was put there by someone in only the last 20 years
try instead to get out the house go travelling and see the real world cultures of countries beyond the human input of just 20 years of their opinion

the way LN works currently

if you have msats stuck in a LN channel with a CEX as a co-channel  partner where you never had a LN node yourself.. (EG your using their app)
they have both keys for both sides. so you would need to ask them to close session to credit your CEX account and then withdraw

if you have a LN node/wallet you can send those msat to your node..
but here is the thing. currently LN is a double layer

when setting up LN for first time people set up a LN wallet seed.. they move BTC network coin to a address of LN wallet seed key for the LN node(a 'master' LN wallet key) in the node. and then move again into the channel LN key.. where the channels withdraw/close session destinations are back to the LN master address of the LN seed wallet

yes you can import that seed into a bitcoin wallet. by finding the LN seed in the LN wallet and copying it over. but some LN nodes methods of backup/access to that seed is not easy

so then some people just make another tx from the LN node to a bitcoin node wallet

grow up.

actually try to include some actual hard data evidence not some social blog post a buddy referred you to

do you know the average internet speed in 2002
do you know the average internet speed in 2012
do you know the average internet speed in 2022

your refered blog is saying 2x-4x slower growth per decade

how about hard drives
i had a pc in 1999 with a 3.6GB hard drive and they were saying 4GB was the then limit of consumer/retail hard drive capacity

do you actually have stats of the growth rate since the millenium to back up your silly assumptions that things have slowed down to a snails pace and so bitcoin should not onchain scale at all in a decade

here ill give you a hint
1994-1998 28.8k modem (4 year)
1998 2000 56k (2 year it 2x)  
2000-2005 internet was 0.5mb (5 year it 10x)
2005-2010 internet was 5mb (5 year it 10x)
2010-2015 internet was 35mb (5 year it 10x)

oh its 2022 now and people can get gigabit internet speeds
(oh and i was low balling numbers because 7mbs internet was available in 2010 and 50mbs internet was achievable in 2015)


if you are using your blog you think internet speed growth on a chart would look like
  __
 /       not       /
|               __/

however the opposite is true
technology is not dying/stifling, becoming limited. its.. wait for it GROWING
and bitcoin should too..


lets make thing very simple
if 7tx/s was acceptable in 2010 when internet was 7mb/s
with 5G and fibre in 2022 offering upto 1000mb/s do you think we should still be stuck at ~2000tx/block average (3.3tx/s(2k/600))

or do you think we should be on more transactions per block by now seeing as the internet and hard ware is much more than a decade ago

segwit is not actually real harddrive/bandwidth byte data length much different to legacy.
the code manipulation of miscounting certain bytes is just a couple lines of code of /4
segwit is not cheaper due to actually being 4x less bytes per transaction (the lame 1990's hard drive/bandwidth bloat excuse of why bitcoin should not progress)

its just cludgy math to try to promote people to use segwit out of a faked discount devs decided on as their arbitrary numbers of their dev politics. rather than actual numbers of real decision basic on physics/reality of real world utility

if you read the code its not a discount. instead all that cludgy math is doing is making legacy a premium by doing the tx fee policy of *4 legacy costs
....

the 2 main demands/requests the wider bitcoin community (outside the exchange economical node and sponsored dev mini "community") was:
a. fee's not increase to amounts the unbanked(3rd world) see as daily wage
b. more transactions per block to allow more users to use bitcoin without congestion

checking the fee's chart of the last 6 years(2016+) and the transaction count of same period
transaction counts have not grown. but fee's have

thus segwit did not solve either
segwits real purpose and need for activation was not more onchain tx and less fee request solution.

instead it was to have a tx format that allows gateways to alternate networks. to push people away from using the bitcoin blockchain for utility. meaning they have no real need to be full nodes due to lack of daily use of the bitcoin blockchain. thus also causing less full nodes to be used. and yep that includes pruning nodes so that there is less of a pool of full nodes able to offer blockchain data to other nodes that are initial block downloading
the ratio of USERS:businesses of full nodes has filled more to the business side due to segwit than any data scare store has

..
as for binance charging fee's for withdrawals. (0.0002)
if they were doing solo tx of 1in 2out to pay out to a user, then they could charge 0.00000226+(~1sat/byte+) 1000x less
of what their fee is (or 1ksat to cover their internal deposit sweeping to cold and then cold to hot for withdrawal movements)

because they 'batch' withdrawals where the outputs only account for ~33bytes(+ a % share of the input data) they could be charging as low as say 0.00000040 per withdrawal as a representation of 1sat/byte
when doing a 2in 100 out tx(3700bytes / 100=37)

but if looking rationally
they would want to re-coup the costs of sweeping deposits from hot to cold and then cold to hot prior to the withdrawal. which would just be a 2-4x of the amount.
so lets call it a 160sat per withdrawal at a rate of 1sat/byte to also give them a lil small profit margin(the round up) on fees
which if looking at the congested rate of network fee of 100sat/byte
is 0.00016000, which is not much different to the
    0.0002 (disclaimer.. they are the cause of the congested 100sat/byte. thus this 0.0002 should be the exception.. not the rule (max not min))


..
as for those saying exchanges should implement LN to the off ramp people out of an exchange and into LN as oppose to a self custdy bitcoin utxo.. are you friggen kidding me

having value locked in exchange "hubs" is like saying you want to givve people WBTC (sidechain) value.

the purpose of actually withdrawing is for true self custody. not some new altnet co-custody arrangement system that requires middlemen to be only to process payments

seriously. it seems people dont understand what real bitcoin network features are, and trying to find convoluted ways to push people away from using the actual bitcoin network features and also trying to prevent the bitcoin network from expanding to allow more utility with silly 1990's excuses, pretending that hardware bandwidth is 20 years ago. and smart contracts of 210 years ago are the solution to bitcoin..

if people think their homes are not secure enough to invaders, burglars, or family. where you fear an outsider/insider stealing a piece of paper..
then:
a. i guess you have no large screen TV or wifes jewellery in your house out of fear of theft
b. you dont trust your family

to which. get a better door lock.
and get a divorce and find someone to live with you can trust

doomad

YOU are the most vocal cry baby that has been saying you do not want the masses of say unbanked people using bitcoin

YOU have said YOU dont want to se people using bitcoin for coffee amounts
your ignorance does not realise those ~$3 coffee amounts are weekly wages for the unbanked
YOU and your altnet chums are the one that does not want people using bitcoin because YOU want people to use another network instead,

as for the hardware requirements of being a node runner
i have never said get bitcoin into a position that only big businesses can run on large servers..

YOU and your altnet chums  are the ones now saying that your prefered altnet(LN) requires non techy people to load up on msat balance by using hub serves

YOU are very vocal about not wanting certain people/individuals using bitcoin

..
also a true non cludge utility of 4mb space does not harm the decentralisation of the network. even core devs have deemed 4mb as network safe.
however in segwit. using its cludge miscount of bytes(vbytes) users are not getting full true utility of 4mb
also if you look at the transaction count segwit has not even expanded the transaction count even though they have changed the weight"(miscounted blocksize) from 1 to 4

so how about stop trying to assert your network preferences of limiting bitcoin utility to congest it up because you want people to offramp to your prefered other network.. and understand true bitcoiners want BITCOIN scaling

now go take your altnet promotion campaign cries back to your prefered network.

oh will you just once try and step back from your device when this subject is mentioned. take a break and think before picking up your device.. do some research when you pick it up.. and THEN AND ONLY THEN reply to people talking about the subject.. you have had years of opportunity to do the research, so please take the time to do it.

..
now to respond to your ignorance
over the years the debate has not been about expanding the blocksize purely to bloat it with data for the sake of filling it with data

its about increasing the blocksize for the sake of increasing transaction count

now if you do your research.. such as this:


what you will see. if you use your eyes... you will see segwit has NOT! i repeat NOT helped increase the transaction count

..
now what you will learn with further research is that core devs have admitted that 4mb of data is not harmful to the network and not an overweight of average peoples hard drives
in short they have said it is not the 1990's where 1.44mb(a floppy disk) is a limit of inconceivable amount that should not be passed
we are also not in the 1990's of slow internet

average PC's have hard drives in TERRABYTE sizes and internet is fibre/5g

yep 4mb blocks are not apocalypse scenarios. but if you remove the cludge code of misrepresenting a "byte"(vbyte) with miscalculations. to instead go back to counting bytes where bytes were counted as byte like in 2009-2016.. but with the 4mb blocksize

4mb would have offered 4x tx capacity compared to 2016

now please stop following your party line/hymn sheet of your social club. and do some research and actually understand bitcoin. not your buddies network preferences.

the only purpose and function of segwit. is a gateway tx format to allow bridging to other networks.. it was never meant to be a solution to multiply onchain transaction counts by upto 4x.

majority didnt.. mandatory code activation decided along with a coalition of economic nodes(exchanges and corporate sponsored devs). and it was that small(in numbers, but large in social popularity) that caused the split..
try to read bitcoin blockdata of july/august 2017
try to read bip and code.. then you will learn what actually happened

you can spot its time to discuss SCALING BITCOIN (no this is not an opportunity for certain people to advertise side/subnets)

what i am about to say is about bitcoin tx congestion.. and what it actually means

i have been watching a certain group of social queens over the last couple years.. always chime into discussions saying idiotic things like

"just pay more"
"wait until the week end"
"wait a week"
"just do CPFP" (yet another tx in mempool, with higher fee)
"we dont want independant people using bitcoin for whatever, like coffee or their 3rd world weekly salary"
"we dont want to see exchanges always sweeping customer deposits to cold store"
"if you only have pizza amounts. dont use it/move it/withdraw it"
"stack sats, dont spend them"

i do laugh to wonder what exactly they want the blockspace for (rhetorical as i know they want it to service their favoured altnet/mixer only)

but here is the thing.
we are not in the 1990's where loading 1.44mb every 10mins (like floppy disk storage) and the concept of bigger storage is inconceivable

we do not live in the 1990's where internet is 56kbps
we are in fibre/5g era. we are in the era of 4tb hard drives

only doing ~2000tx a block needs to expand to allow more per block..  to actually confirm and settle onchain.. not the silly offchain situations that have inherent risk
(this weeks custodian and subnet/token systems have proven bad)

bitcoin and blockchains solved an actual purpose. pretending that payments off chain is the future is acting as if its the 1990's again because yes believe it or not smart contracts and custodians are not new tech.. its old outdated tech

finance guys and cypherpunks were years before bitcoin, doing custodian and smart contracts and they kept running into problems

emphasis
bitcoin was the solution to those problems.. .. those problems are not the solution to bitcoin!!

bitcoin does actually need to scale onchain. because bitcoin does actually serve a purpose and has utility onchain.. its not meant to be regressed into the clutches of large 'hub'/businesses to have privilege of while the little guy has to wait/avoid making utility or pay a premium just to get a chance of utility of bitcoin

if just 1 exchange can cause congestion, its time that bitcoin scales ONCHAIN

he also donated to the republicans hedging his bet that the donation might atleast get some chummy favour time with whomever wins

but. republicans are jealous that the dems got more donations

scam bankman fraud spent about $32m on democrats
FTX 2nd in command Ryan spent $19m on Republicans

you are not going solo
things like key seeds means you literally just have to make a few copies of 12 words

many people are parnoid. and fear their own family getting acess to keys. so they dont just have 1000 copies of keys dotted around the house just in case..

yet then stupidly think its safer to put funds into a custodian where then the user himself does not even have a key to guarantee he can get out his deposit

i completely understand for 100 years people have trusted custodians(fiat banks) and in recent decades had the trust that their deposits are insured by governments even if custodians went bankrupt..

but the cryptosphere of crypto custodians dont operate the same way and dont have the same regulations(the consume protection part) or even a insurance policy

this is where education needs to come in
teaching people not the "get rich quick" but "if you invest, secure your investment into YOUR control.. because its YOUR property YOUR responsibility. if you hand it to someone else its no longer yours"

very short

inflation.. you buy less goods for unit of money
deflation.. you buy more goods for unit of money

however

valuing the unit of money becomes complicated
as does comparing this to the value of goods

but lets just use the minimum wage vs cost of living
(the value of money us normal people (majority) understand)

US has over the last decade injected alot of money into US economy.
(2012: 16trill -> 2022:  23trill) (+43%)

but. this money is not all in citizens pockets to spend
the citizen/businesses pockets/accounts amount was
(2012: 2.5trill -> 2022:  6trill) (+140%)

where just individual peoples personal bank accounts s less than this.

citizens have seen over double the amount of cash circulating at ~14%/year. but their incomes have only increased by 3.3%/year average

the reaction to this is that the price of goods then increase based on the bigger numbers of circulating money and big money of whole economy.
whilst the income of people is not such a large leap

believing in, following, trusting, having meaning in "inflation".. is tough to measure by a individual to compare to their income..

for instance..
house prices of 2012 178k -> 2022: 380k (+117%)
loaf of bread of 2012 1.41-> 2022: 1.82k (+29%)

which depending on what "basket" of costs of living goods is included can affect what rate is ultimately used.
government have a basket which they have used for decades. but this basket is not good representation of peoples spending habits.
for instance computer, devices and internet costs like ISP/netflix was not around in the 70's
so governments "rates" are not representative to peoples personal income vs costs
...

when minimum wage went from 7.5 to 10 in that decade
only a 33% rise. but the average cost of goods/living in that decade went up by more then 33% in a decade (3.3%/year average)

the "official" rate was more like (under 3%/year)
2012  2.07%
2013  1.46%
2014  1.62%
2015  0.12%
2016  1.26%
2017  2.13%
2018  2.49%
2019  1.76%
2020  1.23%
2021  4.70%
2022  9.98%*

however the way this rate is calculated due to its bias choice of "goods" to include in its accounting... does not represent what people feel that costs of living caused vs their income.

the simple fact is that the inflation rate is a dodgy number that means not much because it does not correlate to the real goods and services people actually pay for vs their income

EG they say this year its only 10%
yet car fuel, groceries and rent has increased by more then 10%
and those 3 categories are the 3 main ones people FEEL/experience/spend their income on

where they are buying/getting less goods by more than a 10% loss this year