oh please stop!!
you have fallen for the coke sniffing conspiracy guys rhetoric..(the anti-gov nut)
im not pro gov, im just not a nutjob, im a realist that does research and understands how the real world works

tornado was not sanctioned/arrested just for coding a service
he as sanctioned and arrested for.. (take a breath and let this sink in)..
.. for then personally being involved in facilitating the laundering of hacked coins and more importantly getting a fee for facilitating that particular transaction..

it has nothing to do with maybe getting paid months before for making software. it was he personally benefited from the hacked funds being laundered(the exact transaction)

ethereum devs are not at some threat for just being developers

satoshi's disappearance or opposite(if he became public) would not have made any difference to the state of bitcoin. he had no backdoor that could have been interrogated out of him to then break bitcoin.

the actual important thing is that he left coins that were on p2pk and re-used addresses with atleast half a dozen signatures of those spends.
yet. without him around to move coin.. to stop anyone from spending(by moving coin) those coins.. those coins are FUD'ed as "at risk" .. yet 13 years of the coins being on those FUD'ed weak addresses.. no one has managed to spend/steal those coins(which proves the security of bitcoin by lack of theft)

and that is the strength of bitcoin. knowing someone can leave coins for 12+ years so far and no one else can steal them.. which brings more trust to bitcoin then the social drama of "who" invented it

---

bitcoins security and status and trust and success is not based on some social drama "fame"

its based on cryptography that proves itself to be successfully secure. and thats bitcoins greatest success

BULLSHIT

bitcoin was not even around in 2008
the first person to person trade of bitcoin was in january 2009. and that trade recipient has since died.

the first "exchange site" for bitcoin done its first trade in october 2009

..
sorry dude. nice try pretending to be an early adopter that lost coin. and your not the first to try..
..and so no, there is no point in playing the violins and sympathy to next post a donation address.. (as have many pretend early adopters have done before)

---

if you are talking about a game where people traded "a currency" .. that would probably be "second life" using a currency called linden dollars which was traded inside and outside of the game pre bitcoin(and nothing to do with bitcoin)

here is the thing

to be a financial adviser of fiat you usually need to actually be an expert/trained with some business liability and restrictions on what you can and cannot say as anything you can say can cause losses for others and thus you get blamed/sued

in early days of bitcoin, bitcoin was not a currency(mainstream recognised as). thus not really "financial advice" thus influencers would advise people or just give personal opinions when to buy/sell.. treating it like they are just advertising pokemon cards

but now that bitcoin is seriously treated by mainstream as a currency and investment, the SEC and CFTC and other regulators are taking a serious look at bitcoin. especially at unregistered/unlicenced brokers/advisers

yep recent regulation drafts and proposals are that crypto brokers/advisers need to follow the same regulations as fiat brokers/advisers

and with the latest news about idiots trying to sue elon musk for the idiots bad trading decisions based on stupidly of trusting celebrities.. now makes celebrities/influencers now want to be more back-offish and stand back-sih about what they say about crypto

when people think a celebrities personal opinion is accredited financial advice.. its time celebrities stop talking... or tell their fans they are idiots
(but we know they wont take option two as that just going to stir hate..truth but hate)

google:
"PayPal processed 15.4 billion transactions in 2020"
=~293,000 transactions / 10mins

bitcoin
=~1,700 transactions / 10mins

about as best of a comparable as you can get

here is the thing though

elon didnt pump and dump bitcoin

he never said things like "everyone jump in today by 3pm, bitcoin gonna fly to the moon" (typical pump and dump influencers)

elon made an announcement of buying coins in december 2020 via a financial report (legally obliged to)

and later just added a #bitcoin to twitter and said a few positive things about it. but never told people that everyone should buy in strong that day/week/month and pump the market..

it was some cryptomedia/social of other people that started a pump/dump in ~february 2021 by using musks earlier financial report, by them (other people) trying to say that he was intending/will/is going to buy in february where everyone else should too..

thus not musk himself doing the pump and dump

as for the sale in 2022. well again. what elon announced. is different to what and when crypto media announced.

as for elon doing a Doge pump and dump.. well thats a different story with a different ending.

i understand there are alot of people that not only twitter follow celebrities. but they also sheep follow and take what celebrities say too seriously like its gods words that must be followed..

it gets even worse when people follow social media/crypto media when its those "media" that say things out of date, context, but mention a celebrity name. which then people then believe without checking

if your investment/trading habits are based on social media/celebrity . your doing it wrong

scammer trying to pretend there is a celebrity contest happening just so scammer can advertise a scam site that promises free coin/regular wins

(making a tiktok video is not the scam, its the subterfuge.
 its the requirement to sign up to a scammy site to get involved to 'collect/earn your coin' that is the scam)

bitcoin mining is not a yo-yo thing, where they will happily just switch off half the day or certain days of the week.

you will simply see asic farms just not set up in regions of solar/wind

they will instead set up in regions of hydro/nuclear that are more stable.
asic farms already do buy electric not by the day. but instead by the GW per quarter/year
where by you will simply see that governments will limit power companies to impliment a limit for certain industries whereby for instance each asic farm location has a max XGW per quarter quota upper limit (if governments wanted to go to those extremes)

..the electricity grid doesnt just do pay as you go responding by the minute to cater to demand telling industry to shut down via a phone call/email
they actually know their top capacity and know how much they can lock off as 24/7 utility of stable rate use. and sell off portions of that as a quarterly/yearly contract to have guaranteed income of stable use they can plan for(baseload contracts/PPA's)


                  night day night
                              
                 |      /\__/\_                 |      /\__/\_      |
residential  |/\_/ _____ \/\_           |/\_/           \/\_|
                 |___/         \___           |                       |
office/retail|_____________     not |   everything     |
industry     |_____________          |_____________|

they can plan for things like office/retail which usually operate in blocks of 12 hour stable use and then 12 hour low use
and then negotiate the pay as you go(residential) variable which peaks and dips hourly with other power stations that buy and sell surplus energy to share out different regions peaks and dips.
where by the stable 24/7 industry has been pre paid, pre organised, pre allocated amount months/year earlier

they actually prefer industries that have stable constant 24/7 use that will pay up in allotments of yearly contracts for XGW

its the random power of residential which national grids dont like as they have to ramp up and power down some plants which if not timed well causes brown outs

i do not think they will be phoning/emailing asic farms to switch off. at certain hours..(stupid idea of conspiracy to think they would call farms to shut down  certain times of the day)
instead they will just not offer yearly contracts if the previous years demand was close to capacity.
where as other regions with alot of excess capacity wil sell yearly electric contracts

as for residential..
well they will limit households to X kwh per day at low rate. and then X KWH at higher rate.

first of all if initial plans go through, miners will have to use renewables more(not that difficult) where a mining farm wont exceed XXmw per location(not that difficult)

if these easy tasks cant be met to a standard government want..
in short america becomes not a good place to mine...
.. much like 2009-2020

yep america only became a highly notable mining location after 2020
so things will just go back to a era where america is not the main location to mine, basically a couple years ago

as for exchanges, well they might get told to drop btc like they did with monero. solution.. exchanges operate outside of america
..and those that cant migrate, see less exchange fee's by only trading altcoins

one republic -i lived. music video

?

aswell as tokens/icos of memes created on event days of meme topic..

most of the highly overpriced ICO/tokens of any meme are never usually sold to dumb investors first..

instead they are sold to the creator themself first using an alt account

EG if a creator pays out 10btc(as a pretend buyer).. to himself (as the initial owner/seller). he has ultimately in the end paid nothing, lost nothing. bar a tx fee..

however now the "price" is set via publicity, which he can use as a milestone amount he expects other to pay

in short most NFT's are not actually traded. but just presented as being traded just to influence some interest by making other people think it must be worth something if someone else bought it

signing a block. requires no work/cost
thus its simply a game of who has decision power (who do people follow)

EG

if people decide to follow a block the main thing is the why.
in PoW its the not just
a block that reaches most nodes the quickest
a block that follows the rules that is the quickest
a block that everyone then agrees they seen first thats valid

but also in PoW that block has to have done X work, which:
is not just about cost. but also an extra layer of puzzle complication, which not any random/chosen person can do in milliseconds(unlike PoS)

PoS does not have this extra layer which means chain re-orgs are both cheap and easy to perform.
heck PoS is just a 2 layer of "fastest first" they are always in a constant state of re-org. they have several possible blocks that are quickest seen. and then confirm when one of them gets far enough ahead of a threshold height.

on a PoS chain it becomes easy to perform them by, for instance easily changing code to have the initial peer connections to connect to specific DNS which then tell peers to follow certain nodes. which then control which relayed data to see first

where as in PoW if a certain DNS listed certain peers. those peers data that connect to selected pool(s). still need to perform expensive work to even have a block thats acceptable to the network. thus cant be easily manipulated to just accept some "quickest first" peer of their choosing

opportunists will always take some opportunity

timestamping some ICO genesis or some token NFT to be created on the very date of an event, causes an ico/token to then become significant as an item of interest. which if done right becomes a milestone in of itself. to then have value.

compare that to a token/ICO genesis made in X weeks time suggesting it represents the events of today.. it would have less meaning/value. and be worthless. because its less related/significant, even if it had the same name/title/publicity

but with that all said. people only make these things for a quick profit. they dont care about the long term value/utility/future. nor wish to respect the subject involved. as long as hey can sell something for profit. thats what they will do

the Eu and the UN do not want ukraine to join the UN/EU memberships whilst hanging onto that eastern zone

so although the EU/UN will help in certain subtle ways for ukraine to defend the central/north/south/west ukraine area. the UN/EU dont care much for the eastern zone..

the eastern zone is upto zelensky/putin to decide on/fight for.

i feel that now that the area has been pushed to a point of most ukrainians being relocated out of the eastern zone. it will end up becoming a 'independent' state officially buy EU/UN as a kind of middle deadzone no mans land politically that russia or the eu cannot cross.

that way russia can see it as a safe zone to keep the EU back. and the EU can see it as a safe zone to keep russia back

i cant see it falling into ukraine(future EU member) hands. nor can i see it going full russian either. the only real option is an "independent" state
thats neither russian or ukrainian.

its just going to be a long drawn out process to agree on some middle ground where no one "wins" the land

i have took some time to look into possible reasons some feel that $10k is even an option/possibility as its a number below my opinion of a store of value level of $15k based on efficient recent gen asics.

and it turns out that some believe that the bitcoin network is mining not on efficient asics but on old outdated asics where the hardware has now got its ROI and so its just pure electric costs being considered as the only mining costs(a bit narrow minded but lets go with it)..

the S9(2017 gen) even at just electric only, is not cheaper than store of value even at low electric cost($20k/btc at 4cent electric)
the s17 however(2019 gen) would have reached its hardware ROI this year(just). and would have a lower than $15k(SoV) cost IF you only consider electric
($9k/btc at 4cent electric)

however most mining farms plan well ahead to stay ahead. having bought the latest gen(planning ahead) which are for 25% more electric 200% more hashpower. thus efficient to bring in more coin per day(the purpose of mining obviously*)
they would sell the s17 hardware to altcoiners. to then offset some initial electric bill costs of the next quarter of running the new asics(cashflow upfront to not need to sell coin to create cashflow)

which is a business model they have followed for years to stay efficient and ahead of the mining competition.

they are not mining to instantly sell coin to pay electric. they mine to accumulate coin. so the decisions are about hashing speed efficiency per physical unit space** of a warehouse to get as much coin as they can per day

(lets use 5asics instead of 5000 asics for math ease)
EG imagine you pay a quarterly electric bill allowing for ~13kw

instead of say 5 s17 asics at 5x55thash(275thash) using 5x 2.5kw(12.5kw)
they can replace that with s19 3x110thash(330thash) using 3x3.25(9.75kw)
saving space and electric (be in credit next quarter thus pay less)
and sell the old asics to have cashflow thus not touch any btc. whilst also increasing their efficiency aka more hash=more coin reward share

the other aspect is they wont want to rush to soon to just have 4xs19(13kw) as that is too much hashpower too fast too soon, which ends up with too fast block solving which causes difficulty to jump too fast thus shooting self in the foot.

so instead they have room** and spare electric capacity to grow in future months further by another 33%(or use as credit of next bill) with ease,

and..when they think its the right time to put the 4th asic on the shelf and turn it on. where it wont raise difficulty to much, they have the room, capacity and ability
..
*my own math of the $15k SoV already accounted for the transitions of each gen asic and the timing of where i see when the transitions occur to have the next gen asics take over as the dominant majority miners running(follow the difficulty changes~next gen delivery release dates) to then calculate the mining costs based on the this.


that said.
there are hobby miners that just run their asics to the death after hardware ROI. but those hobby miners after hardware ROI are not part of the asic farms of the most efficient hashpower bottomline electric cost SoV competition
they are the residential miners with higher electric/limited electric which are above the lowest costs

**asic farms look at hashrate per rackspace as a efficiency measure

well yea now in hindsight after the events of last year people in el salvador knew that fiat was still used..

but...
check the news of last year(before/at the time) .. there were PROTESTS
so, read why they protested(not after the adoption, but before/at). they were protesting against bitcoin because they thought crypto was a compulsory REPLACEMENT legal tender not a second option extra legal tender. they were initially calling the president an authoritarian for implementing a change of legal tender which was unconstitutional.

translate: "wake up el salvador no to the dictatorship no to the reforms"
"total rejection of bitcoin

they feared not being able to continue using fiat
(once it was legal tender they realised they still used fiat.. where there then became other issues people experienced)


translate: "The Bitcoin bill must be repealed, it will bring more corruption and poverty"

within days of then using it. one protest reason stopped. and then the next one started.
it escalated to other things about the exchange rate losses as the international price of bitcoin dropped from $50k to $40k. also the problems with using the wallet where the bottlenecks were happening.
where they were saying the wallet was not fit for retail and couldnt cope with buying most popular stuff. etc etc

here is the jist of things. wrote calmly without BS. without embellishments or exaggerations about how things actually went

elsalvadors first attempt into crypto didnt go well last year(sept-jan) because they didnt enter the crypto realm via bitcoin as bitcoin using the bitcoin network

they entered via a bridged sub network with pegged value for transfers(LN) which has known bottlenecks and liquidity issues and a peg that has no consensus security, that could not support 50k(<1%) citizens let alone 6 million people(el salv pop).

they learned this within a couple months. and shifted away from that subnetwork that was being used as the backbone transfer of their wallet system, and moved more to a CEX custodial service to do internal swaps and then actual bitcoin/fiat withdrawals to avoid the locks/liquidity and bottlenecks and peg issues

their other issue was when promoting a new legal tender many citizens thought it was about stopping the utility of fiat in the area to be 100% crypto. which many citizens thought was an impedance to finance not a new extra option/freedom

again those first few months were hit with resistance due to bad promotions where people thought they were being forced to only use crypto in a manner that was not actually the true crypto they were mentioning.

the last kick in the leg that hindered movement last year was the calling it a "bitcoin" project even though the wallet and its backbone network was not the bitcoin network. so again they felt lied to or misinformed

all these 3 things stirred into a unsuccessful adoption due to payment problems and misinformation about what they were actually using, able to use and had access to.
...

this year they are trying it a different way. and progress is more organised, timely and positive. yes this year may be different than last years first couple months. but they are now actually trying to concentrate on bitcoin and not the other subnet that caused them problems

it will take time. but already in 1 year they have more citizens using crypto in the area(120k+(~2% pop (its more but i wont embellish))),  which is more than say the whole of bitcoin had gained in 2010(its first year)
so its progress. just slow

here is the thing
having the main economic nodes of exchanges and merchant services also being the main stake custodians is a huge risk which regulators can poke at..
even if they HAD a algo to slash exchange stake if 1 exchange changed things the fantasy is that.. however.. if all economic nodes(many exchanges grouped together like the UAHF/NY agreement style). they can just remove code parts that threaten their stake/hoard)

it is more of a network protocol risk because there is no financial loss/risk/cost to those custodians/services because they would be the ones still accepting those new style blocks as valid.. thus not 'slashing' their own reward. thus no risk/no cost


in a PoS state..
if the major exchanges and merchants were the main Stake pools.. and they VIA REGULATOR INSTRUCTION done a UAHF (NY agreement comparable)
where some main custodians agree on a new path..
DUE TO REGULATORS mandating that exchanges perform a change..

guess what
those exchanges/merchants most people use continue to accept the blocks of their mandated new regulatory approved change. and reject the old paradigm.

the new paradigm/feature/direction activates and the regulated exchanges/services continue to trade on that chain as if it is the main chain.. and because they are both the main economic nodes (exchanges/merchant tools) and the block creators... users not supporting the UAHF(NY agreement comparable) end up being rejected by the most popular services(exchanges)

its not a simple idea of  users not supporting a change 'lets reject those new blocks and destroy/slash coins of those support it"
its actually the opposite way round those not wanting the new feature get rejected by the main regulated(economic node) exchanges.. where the new feature opposers are left as a altcoin. destroying coins on their altcoin. and also detached from being recognised by the main exchanges/services.. thus end up as a useless alt

in the end those rejecting the new feature have then a choice.. be left to follow some useless altcoin that has no exchange/merchant support.. or re establish themselves with the (USAF/NY/mandate activated comparison) feature chain to be then be re established to have value on the chain that exchanges are accepting..

compare that to the FUD spoke about bitcoin risks of "51% attack"
bitcoins decentralisation talks about the FUD fear of a 51% attack that only causes
1. a empty block risk for prolonged period which doesnt benefit the attacker in the long run(cant spend if they are empty blocking the potential spends)
or
2.redoing old blocks to do a chain re-org to double spend certain tx they control (but that is only worth performing if the value they want to re-unconfirm to respend are not worth the attack cost amount of value..
thus not worth trying.)

store of value "properties"?

store of value is just that. a store of value
value(economic number) is the bottomline number where the most cheapest most efficient most lowest cost of getting coin that no one else on the planet can go below

anything can develop a store of value. even if that store of value is just a X cents.
the issue is... if the PRICE remains close to that SoV to protect majority of someones wealth from loss when they buy. or if its bubble inflated/premium far far above SoV line
(its why most PoS coins are not $1k+ and those that are. thats just unprotected pure speculation over hyped/pumped prices that are not sustainable)

EG
right now people buying bitcoin at this quarters rates have a wealth security of 75% SoV, IF!! they bought at $20k(Sov ~$15k)

where as if they bought at $60k their wealth has only a 25% SoV security

bitcoin is a good store of value because its deflationary nature means at the next market cycle that pishes up SoV and thus the price speculation window above it. that wealth stores last/this year gets more protected later..
unlike inflationary fiat where the longer you hoard fiat the less value is protected and you lose value

..
separate scenario
those buying eth at $1.5k might have a 66% Sov now(~$1k inc hardware pow). but will soon be more like 0.05% after PoS
so expect a massive price correction when fully PoS and a value protection loss of like 99.95%

---

as for your other comment about government..
PoS doesnt use special equipment
what you might be more concerned with if you like PoS and are gov worried is...
..is not equipment. but [inserting slight gov conspiracy theory for you] if the custodial pools (EG coinbase which is regulated and licenced) got told to seize all the staked value by regulators(hand custodial keys to regulators) or if coinbase got told by regulators to perform some task using its staking opportunities(and other regulated services told the same).
- but thats entering into the extreme realms of the line between possibility and conspiracy


a more rational concern of gov intervention is..
..is even when regulators are saying that for instance liquid, LN and monero are bad currencies which exchanges should not custodianise or offer services for.
reality is those regulators are not begging to seize all monero/ln/liquid funds. they are just saying to regulated exchanges, to just dont offer services to those currencies in the first place. thus most govs wont seize equipment/coins for the sake of it. but instead you will just see less custodians(legit businesses running pools) and businesses (merchants) accepting those PoS coins should governments take a bad eye to a PoS.
but that same rationale can happen with any 'proof-of..'  coin

---

but to the point of store of value
bitcoins SoV grew from about $0.04 early 2010. to ~$15k 2022
eth grew to about $1k in 2022 but is about to drop to a couple dollars or even a few cents SoV after PoS
(expect a massive price correction)

as for the market prices of those coins. well thats the speculation and whimsy stuff above SoV of the times.. which is more wiggling and volatile above SoV
so just be sure to buy the LOW not the HIGH if you want to protect more of your wealth when you buy.

..
bitcoin is a great SoV because even if you buy a high. deflation means if you leave it long enough more of your wealth becomes protected as the SoV increases over time
(unless bitcoin foolishly does a PoS or algo reset or something massive to change the dynamics of economic policy)

PoW is about hashing a block HEADER(not the individual transactions)..
it doesnt matter how many transactions is put into a block transaction area, the header of that block are the same size and hash is the same length
more transactions do not cause longer delays in block solutions/confirmations
because PoW miners are not mining transactions. they are mining a hash of the block header.. which is always the same data lenth no matter the number of transactions
..
transaction congestions causes transaction congestion due to the limits implied of the block DATA area which is outside/separate from the header area..
thus PoW has nothing to do with transaction numbers

.
bitcoins transaction limit was a decade ago set as a arbitrary small amount due to not needing to be so big(not many transactions in in first few years). but now its set so low to push LESS people to transact so that devs can advertise some other project for people to use

the fee's are high because a rational fee formula was removed and not replaced with another rational formulae.. instead it was replaced with a freemarket bidding war concept, aswell as others code that multiply the costs of certain standard/older formats, using bad math to make certain newer features appear cheaper, by miscounting data

in short devs 5 years ago expanded blockspace to be deemed that 4mb of blockspace was acceptable safe for decentralised data sharing compared to the 2010-2017 1mb space.
but then they added unfinished unclean cludgy rules to then not fully utilise that 4mb of space. unless you transact in their new/young unfinished feature devs implemented

..
with all that said
whether it was 32mb space or 1mb space or 4mb space. no matter the number of transactions allowed. the block header is the same length and the blockhash is the same length meaning the work PoW has to do is the same .. PoW work has no relation to number of transactions.

transaction congestion is not linked to PoW
any blockhain of any "proof" can have transaction congestion if it has an implied transaction count per block limit or data size limit to impose how many transactions can be put into a block data area (separate thing to the block solving task)

all methods of creating coin. do not last long from a beginning point of 'paying the poor'
if there is any competition/difficulty/way to game the system where one person can get more than another person. you are sure as hell going to see it happen
many people talk about resetting bitcoin PoW back to CPU. but thats just a time lag of maybe half a day before things ramp back to GPU via some mining software modification to run on a GPU
and in months blueprints of an asic design turn into a final product.

so envisioning some PoW that has some low barrier of entry does not last long. if the coin is popular/has utility beyond a very small crowd. as people will compete