isnt it funny how a guy known to not care about bitcoin and has no clue how PoW could be regulated wants to make people look at... the deisel spend of DoD tanks

silly people that want us to discuss vegan protestors, DOD tank operators .. have not spent a single day to even research
SEC, CFTC, EPA OR FERC..actual risks
not caring to see what their remits are, their powers or their jurisdictional coverage

and just wanting to look at social drama instead.. oh them silly people, when will they learn to do proper research

nothing.. CSW requested day off to organise some lawyers as some not available tomorrow

it appears that someone is falsely claiming they lost 18btc.
showing a address thats linked to flags of abuse
but where the flags are then reviews of other scammers

the scammers pretending to offer recovery services
by posting as pretend victims that got scammed by said bitcoin address also and these services they advertise supposedly recovered the value (by asking for more money to pay upfront to do the service)

.. nice try OP.. but you failed

looking at blockexplorer details

that address only received ~0.23btc via 3 smaller payments
in the form of 3 amounts coming from 3 exchange hotwallets
in the amounts of
0.10394017
0.02361490
0.10020000

no where near 18btc

the owner of the wallet of this receiving address has several other addresses
bc1qqffkd9c4f6u4cj3jkr954xlsqtdcaf4efvw26z  (0.10542374 BTC  total)
bc1qvpzzru507y3s0tef90ydmjwlkrd58fwyc482jh (0.07054069 BTC total)
bc1qu09mpr6utr5cahuk3w8lnypedvf2m568l6antl (0.22775507 BTC total)

again no where near 18btc involved

but all the funds received by the address mentioned in the OP (0.22775507) went out via 2 payments on different days
to
bc1qnrkf66c59ukpd8j5jp4zjapn8hp2ex4dzzm9rt

so it does not look like the OP had 18btc nor the receiver had 18btc
funds after this appear to now be in a mixer

theology
the study of how to create a cult of believers..
.. (sarcasm -> ) i wonder why he would see a need to study this?

digital forensics
the study of how digital files can be edited, manipulated..
.. (sarcasm -> ) i wonder why he would see a need to study this?

biggest flaw of eth PoS is yes the centralisation.. the custodianisation of the stake

this makes eth PoS now even easier for regulators to get exchanges to pull off more mandated upgrades to ease regulators minds. because its not just the utility of transaction recognition with exchanges.. but also those exchanges are the miners now. so they dont have to threaten miners to flag agreement with economic nodes.. because the economic nodes are the miners

so if they want to only follow a particular fork. USERS with full nodes would even more easily follow exchanges because not only are they the recognised services to spend coins with. but those exchanges now own those users stake and opposing the exchanges means users lose their stake.. thus now for eth a double hit for users that dont want to follow a exchange thats pushed to follow a particular fork

for bitcoiners. wondering or worried that eth will out pace bitcoin.. dont worry
dont worry about eth market cap or eth price pumping in comparison to btc
eth production cost is 100%+ less if all validators CPU signed blocks
knowing its custodian pooled stake its 10,000x cheaper to create new eth.
the price of eth is going to go down.. by alot. this slow eth price drop is just the start of the new correction to the new low eth price stable level

thus the market cap of eth is going down.
and the future pumps of eth will be based on a new low by 2023-2024 where any pumps will have its monthly highs that are lower then todays low
2022 2023 2024
_/\__                 $1.5k
        \                $800
         \____/\     $100

if bitcoin was to change to a PoS the underlying value (minimum mining cost) also drops meaning the price would go down.

no doomad. only a couple of your pals beleive your version of events.. even the core devs admit the real version of events that counter your narrative(get the hint you are not showing loyalism by pushing the 5yo fake story first presented by some devs)

the FLAG of NYA was to get segwit activated .. the actual code level and block data level of changes requested by NYA
(via the mandated crap of rejecting the opposition... data code, and flag statistics show the truth)
the second part.. which was not code. but just social "promise"/"compromise" was a later 2mb block...
the 2mb later promise (no date specified) never flourished

but we all know using common sense and logic that the 2mb part was not the real agenda.. as it was just the ploy/bait to get segwit flagged in via the NYA tactic
 you know it. and though you want to play social drama 3 card shuffle to confuse the matter.. there was a hard fork. so dont go playing it was a softfork (even that image in chart shows the SOFT didnt happen. because the blue-red shows a HARK happened.

anywy

just put your stupid social games aside

point is..
devs acknowledge the tactics of the mandate code and the flag events to break off the opposition to get a (unnatural) 100% which is what data also shows

and the emphasise is people need to know a mandated activation HAS occured. without true unbroken majority pre activation. (because they broke consensus pre activation to fake the 100%..)
and it can happen again. !

no matter how forgetful you are. block data is immutable and its data does not lie nor does other peoples memory. so just accept it.

the data overrules your silly games. so give up your charade

and people need to be aware that it can happen again so that we can watch for tactics of certain dev groups and economic nodes pushing for PoS

instead of being lulled into social drama games of fake promise and  finger pointing of blame other people EG current game to make people look at greenpeace, when the real things we should look at is this months push to change regulations from SEC to CFTC which come with actual ramifications

yes changing to CFTC regulators will change things and affect things
dont play your ignorant games for once

such ignorance and lies from you are astonishing you have been debunked dozens of times. you keep accepting you been debunked, forget that you got debunked to then try to push your nonsense again that there was no hardfork to activate segwit

hard data in the blockchain. show that the NYA(blueline) triggered at 80% to start ignoring opposition blocks, to get segwit(redline) activated
by showing a high segwit acceptance via removing opposition blocks.

segwit(redline) only reached a natural consensus of 43.75% in july
but it was because of the blue line which was the NYA which required a flag to reach 80% for a period of time. to then trigger the rejection of opposers
the trigger event of ignoring opposing blocks to segwitshows that the red line then went unnaturally horizontal in an even straight ligne.. because MATH
every day e144 block. if all blocks were 100% segwit signalling due to 0 opposers plays out like this
882-43.75%      1026-50.89%      1170-58%      1314-65.18%
1458-72.32%    1602-79.46%      1746-86.6%   1890-93.75%
2016-100%

thus had 100% on (unnatural to actually have 100% in a decentralised world)
everyone can see the block data

segwit had 100% because there was 0% opposition.
in a natural consensus of decentralised world 100% is not natural

the only way there was 0% opposition is because the opposition blocks were removed by august 1st.
do you know what also happened on august 1st yep BCH
yes the blockdata and BCH exist. there was a fork. now stop being so forgetful

stop pretending segwit was soft becasue the soft had only 20%.. and remember that it was a hard because there was 100% opposition due to the hard mandate tactics to ignore opposers before segwit activated. and yes there was a fork because BCH was created.. and no bch did not create themselves. they were pushed off btc into a fork via the block rejects

there is DATA, there is actual real life proof of events..

so after 5 years of your ignorant trolling pretending you keep forgetting and cant remember events.. just stop

the CODE. the blocdata, is more proof than your social drama links of peoples opinion that wanted to set narratives to shift blame
...
and with that said
give up the social drama games of loyal buddy siding..
instead try to be helpful and actually know that events occurred and those mandated upgrade activations can happen again. so that people can be risk aware incase another mandated activation happened where the tactics are used to activate a feature like PoS

oh and you do realise that the core devs admit it occurred.. so why are you 7 years later trying to pretend it didnt happen. because its no longer fanboy protectionism of your favoured devs reputation for aiding in pulling off the tactic by pretending they didnt.. because they admit it did happen. so whats your agenda for your ignorance?

says the (dcg sponsored) core dev team fanboy

says the guy that loved core devs(mostly under the umbrella of DCG) ability to mandate an upgrade activation with support from the 2017 NY agreement of economic nodes

says the guy that things core devs should code what they like and if users dont like it they can go play on an altcoin. ..

once you see that DCG is regulated by america. and DCG can pull that same 2017 tactic again. and you see that CFTC are trying to take place over the SEC. thus allowing a new door for the EPA to jump in..
.. you should see the risks of possibility. to be risk aware

anyway its not that CFTC have power of me (bitcoin user but british)
its not power over me
its the big exchanges and merchants (THE ECONOMIC NODES) which are regulated and...
..regulators have power over THEM

YOU KNOW THIS STUFF dont put your amnesia hat on now, dont play dumb and then try hugging your pals back to sleep telling them everything is fine and they dont need to do anything..
you know full well about the NYA and the mandated code event all sponsored and organised by those within the DCG portfolio

and users nodes end up(not much choice) following the chain that the exchanges(economic nodes follow) and merchants decide to accept as BTC. because users want to have their transactions seen on the chain merchants and exchanges follow so that people can buy/sell or swap for fiat with such

as for regulators pushing Devs
again just as DCG did in 2017 with the economic nodes(NYA) DCG also sponsored and demanded their employees(blockstream) to code the mandated upgrade.

yep now its "seems" like there are now 3 teams (brinks, blockstream and chaincodelabs) but under a CFTC regulation, sister with the EPA. bitcoin could have developers regulated to do software updates FOR/on behalf of certain regulated services.  

yep DCG group as a financial portfolio company might get pressure from regulators to push for a PoS "mandated upgrade"
thus re-visiting the tactics of 2017

these tactics are something people need to be aware of and remember.. more so then some social drama of greenpeace

as for a question for CSW

knowing he wants to manipulate and lie.. a very simple question

1+1=?

many countries already have rated electric. no need to have smart meters that talk to energy suppliers every minute..
EG household bills. first 1kwh used per day at Xrate, 2-4kwh at Y rate
and power companies just send them a bill at the end of the month
via a monthly reading

as for hashes and mining.. many smart homes already have WIFI lighting. heck i can change my lighting from blue, white red by using a tablet. yep small devices including a light bulb have wifi and can accept commands and do functions.
a light bulb socket can accept electric. and in the bulb can be basically a USB miner dongle size device using part of the electric from the socket, whilst also lighting the room and send the hashes through wifi..
the technology already exists, it just needs to be put together.

lightbulb mining is easy. so 'heater' mining is easier

you cannot change bitcoin rules with a 51% attack. you can only change transaction lists by going back and re-doing a block and subsequent blocks to catch up and over take the network to push your version of block transaction lists as the master chain to follow
where the re-done block has different transactions

in 120 years where the only mining income is from transactions.. it then becomes less likely risk of "empty blocks" because having no transactions = no income

however.
if the only income is transactions.. and thus if the total fee's are not totalling a high enough amount to make it expensive to compete on the network. thus not expensive to then re-org.. then that cheap attack makes it easier to perform than now.

so in the next 120 years we really need to push that total fee's per block are substantial amount to not make it cheap to attack.
..
this does not mean make each user pay alot more. as that just makes people not use the network and not do transactions.. but instead increasing the transaction count so the total fee's increase without hurting the average fee per user

now you might understand why scaling bitcoin ONCHAIN is more important than the silly games of "offramping"(removing) users

less users using bitcoin, and those remaining having to pay increasing fee's does not help bitcoin at all for MANY reasons
..
it does not matter if bitcoin market cap is $20tril because
if a user is having to pay more then a weeks wages to transact. they wont use it. no matter the market price/cap of bitcoin is.

oh and in 120 years.. the "dollar" of 20trill, might be hyperinflated to only be 3 months wage

thus you might even be looking at a market cap of 20 quintillion
where a single users transaction is 1.5trillion (weeks wage)
like how the Zimbabwe dollar hyper inflated

but no one would use bitcoin if fees were a weeks wage due to no ONCHAIN scaling to dilute fees down while offering extra transaction count (as what was demanded in 2014+ as the progress bitcoin should follow)
africa has 1 billion people. but how much % do you think would use a bitcoin onchain transaction when 35cent is a days wage. and $1.50 is a weeks wage
americ and UK still love bitcoin because 35c-$1.50 is just 2-10minutes of minimum wage. which americans and UK people think is the appropriate cost for a 10min transaction

im biitish but i can put my acceptable levels aside and see the issues third world countries have and also the risks in the future if fee's increase and scaling does not

yep
bitcoin 2009-2014 was not government recognised as "currency" thus financial regulators could not poke at it
then when recognised as a currency, everyone celebrated "mainstrem yeah" but.. then came financial regulator in the US(FATF) caused bitcoin exchanges to start needing to do AML/KYC

as a asset currency american regulators (SEC) applied. and as said AML/KYC applied but also some other things that the SEC was empowered with

ethereum as a currency had the same stuff. but was for years classed as a commodity. which meant CFTF regulators had their fingers on ethereum.

SEC do not have the power to impose environmental impact regulations of crypto businesses services non commodity crypto currencies..

but CFTF do have power to impose environmental impact regulations on cryptos,

this year there is a push to move bitcoin out of the SEC jurisdiction and into the CFTF jurisdiction. which changes the rules of trade law.. and also is a stepping stone into the EPA having a grip thanks to the CFTF jurisdiction

ethereum was not classed as a commodity yesterday either

ethereum has been thought of as a commodity since its inception, and the CFTC has been poking at ethereum for years
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cftc-says-cryptocurrency-ether-is-a-commodity-and-is-open-to-ether-derivatives-133455545.html
(2019)

bitcoin supporters lobbied against this. which is where instead of CFTC , the SEC stepped in. treating bitcoin as a asset. not commodity.. but this year SEC wants to step out and hand the work over to CFTC

the point of etherem was to be a network used to create other tokens(on sidechains/subnets) ..
yep a commodity is a raw material used to create other products.
ethereum were happy as a commodity


the attempts to postpone it were not from the regulated exchanges.. it was from the users that were not regulated. and those who were regulated but wanted a safe transition

..
but in short. with bitcoin not being a commodity in US legal recognised jurisdiction..CFTC does not apply.. thus CFTC regulators cannot push exchanges to push developers to shift to PoS due to things that the CFTC impose on exchanges else risk having to delist crypto's that dont fir CFTC acceptable parameters

however if bitcoin is recognised as a commodity.. CFTC regulation powers can apply(production quota's, environmental inspections.. think of all the things that agri-farmers have to obide by and limit their ability to operate/grow.. yep that CFTC stuff)

and yes for assets.. there is a regulatory reason why many exchanges do not accept LN/liquid/monero due to those being redflag currencies according to FATF/SEC under their jurisdiction of currency/asset

---

dont worry about the greenpace sideshow stage drama.. thats just the distraction finger point to "dont look at gov, blame greenpeace" and distract people away from whats really happening..
the SEC is trying to shift bitcoin out of SEC jurisdiction and into CFTC jurisdiction this year... ethereum was in CFTCjurisdiction for years

understand the implications of this jurisdictional shift

---

i tried to dumb things down and not go full wall of text.. but the important thing is

if explaining more complexities as short as possible

the EPA has ultimate environmental impact powers.
the EPA has not much power or sway of things in SEC remit. but it has alot more of a relationship and power to get involved in the CFTC remit

crypto(generally) is just currecny
top regulator (FATF) finactional action task force
sub class regulators
asset/security based crypto (SEC) securities exchange commission

commodity based cryto (CFTC) commodity futures trade commission

for those that want to learn about risk awareness of change..
read this part i wrote in another part of the forum
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413856.msg60957466#msg60957466

the summary is.
as a legally recognised currency (2014+). the FATF regulators then gained a footing into having some jurisdiction over some bitcoin business stuff.
many celebrated "mainstream" but didnt see the consequence (AML/KYC+change to privacy rights when using financial services)

then when defined as a asset currency. the SEC got a foothold, which then had other stipulations

whilst bitcoin is NOT a commodity. the SEC does not have jurisdictional power to impose production quota's or environmental impact limitations.

however the CFTC does have this power.this caused ethereum to push ethereum over to PoS because yes ethereum was classed as a commodity

bitcoin was not a commodity(yet). thus safe from environmental impact regulations. but due to binance chain, liquid and now LN. bitcoin is slowly falling into the commodity category..

so people need to be aware of the legal and jurisdictional implications of allowing bitcoin to be classified and then regulated as a commodity.

bitcoin2009-~2014 was not considered a currency by US government

it was like pokemon cards or other collectables.. thus fell under property law as it had the features of ownership and transfer of ownership
thus bitcoin had a right to privacy under property law that institutions could not break.

however when bitcoin became recognised by governments as a currency, this changed things. the property privacy protection was revoked and instead replaced with financial privacy protection under the bank secrecy act. by which banks and institutions can monitor log and request reasons of use and seek to look/request info about source and destination when they custodian'ed their customers value and part of that is to report any suspicious activity(in short AML/KYC applied)

there is no deep property privacy protection now its a currency
(property privacy laws/protections are different rules to financial privacy laws/protections)

currency is a umbrella term which many things fall into sub classifications, such as assets, commodity, stocks, shares, etc

bitcoins subcategory was considered an asset classification.

bitcoin was not a commodity because bitcoin was not used to then create other products(sidechain/subnet tokens, microunits of exchange).

however now that bitcoin is becoming more of a mainnet to then lock up coin to then create pegged tokens/microunits. the us gov is trying to sway favour to classify bitcoin as a commodity when it is locked to then have value used on sidenetworks and subnetworks (binance(btcb), liquid(lbtc), LN(msat))
where the locked btc becomes the commodity and the subnetwork token then becomes a new classification dependant on utility

ethereum has been a mainnet for sidechains and subnets for a whiles so already considered a commodity for a while.
where for instance eth locked/pegged NFT are deemed as property class

as for ethPoS when locked up as "stake" yes that can be classified as a security(equity securities)

---

but here is the thing
when classified as a property. financial regulators cannot regulate it. meaning they cannot enforce rules on businesses or people that create or use it.

as a currency then the regulators (SEC or CFTC or FATF) can interfere. however depending on the classification, defines which regulator applies and thus what remit their interference then applies

as a asset currency, like securities. thats the SEC
for commodities, thats the CFTC

both under the currency umbrella regulator FATF

with assets. the SEC cannot do things like apply quota's to limit what a business can produce or sell or handle as that impedes the business and businesses can sue.

however a commodity the CFTC can impose production quota's and regulations that production should not cause environmental harm.. EG farming quota and environmental inspections.

so with eth as a commodity is was pressurised to shift to PoS or have regulated exchanges and merchants be told to not service/accept/maintain or use a commodity that is in breach of commodity regulations.
yep regulators pushed exchanges to push devs to make eth PoS else having to de-list eth off of exchange orderbooks

with certain groups trying to push bitcoin in "offramping" users away from bitcoins mainnet to utilise sidechains and subnets as "solutions" to bitcoin scaling(facepalm) its now pushing bitcoin into the commodity category more.

which can later push exchanges into having to make the choice. use their economic node presence a power to push devs to transition to PoS or have to de-list BTC

so lets not let certain groups lobby government to classify bitcoin as a commodity. because the CFTC will regulate exchanges to get bitcoin to shift to PoS or have exchanges delist bitcoin

you mean the same people that wanted to take photos of clmate change of how icebergs are being broken.. by sailing in a icebreaker ship.

oh the guys that printed a billion paper leaflets to campaign about deforrestation

bitcoin moses and digital monk are the same person with 2 accounts

he is trying desperately on both accounts to make himself someone associated with prominent figures of bitcoin so he can ask questions and garner info and hen sell his pretend story/info to media. aswell as try other stuff.. he is a wannabe CSW.

be careful
dont be too quick to stroke people to sleep that bitcoin is "too big to fail" that a switch over to PoS is impossible

knowing the 2 mandate tricks of Eth to switch to PoS
1. mandate that a deadline point be made where by difficulty wont follow the blocktime rules but instead just periodically increase and only increase until unmanageable to solve blocks via PoW mining.
2 mandate that on such date PoS validators take over the block confirm process.

now how to push it into happening in bitcoin.. well again look to history. 2 tactics
its not about needing users agreement of user node..s its about the economic nodes of exchanges and merchants to treat a forked coin as the master chain..
the NY agreement of many exchanges in 2017 done this by treating the UAHF mandated activation fork that created a split where there was a segwit flagging chain as the master chain to follow. where the other split became the offshoot altcoin

and ofcourse the code itself to enforce the mandate and the rejection of those not flagging for the mandate.. that was blockstream sponsored devs.

looking at the past both the NY agreement of economic nodes and the code to support the mandated upgrade were both sponsored by DCG.

now imagine if government regulators pushed that scheme to happen in 2017 whereby the mandated upgrade was not segwit but PoS
where by large businesses had to comply under law/regulation, rather than sponsorship/bribe/payment.

dont turn this into a debate about the 2017 events of taking sides.. think about this as protocol risk of events repeating by a malicious actor(regulators) pulling the mandate grenade