480.. is that all

it must be wednesday

exactly its not true adoption.. its just coin "lockup" to cause the amount of coins going to an exchange to sell to dry up for a "demand" price rise.. and that in most cases is as you say the only reason many scream "adoption" but actualy want more buyers(demand/institutional money flowing) for a price rise.. they are not interested in users utility. they just want the price demand/rise.

and as you say. yes a large allotment of coins will cause a price spike that is temporary. but the tool is that those coins are then locked away and untouched for upto 40 years meaning again. demand price rise. due to lack of coins to sell.

heck there is even the "adoption" scheme of locking up bitcoin to then use other networks("altnets","subchains", "sidechains" "offchains") they are all the same game. locking up real coins long term so that it causes an exchange demand due to lack of coins being sold. .. its kind of hilarious when they call all these schemes "adoption".. they keep missing the point. when locking up real btc. and then go playing around on other networks/systems with tokens/shares, etc .. thats not bitcoin adoptions. thats other system adoption.. yes it impacts the price of bitcoin. but not "adoption"



the latest "adoption" game is not to have merchants adopt bitcoin. nor have people escape custodial exchanges to put bitcoin into their own independant wallet..

but now its instead to lock up bitcoin with a co-partner(stranger requiring their authorisation) for a few months and then go play with other units of account on another network and get merchants to adopt that other network instead. whereby they want to call that bitcoin2.0
(this is the "bitcoin layer 2" and "bitcoin LN" brand stealing and user stealing of the other network pretending it is "bitcoin")
...

as for suing the regulators.
i understand new financial tools require new regulations to fit its purpose.

many new regulations are made, and each one comes with a process of calculating the "cost to business" effect of a regulation, where it has to minimise this cost/burden because yes businesses can sue the regulator if its an overburden. and most new regulations are made in like 120days. so it leaves regulators in a bad defence position to delay things for years for no reason.

for this situation specifically.. it depends on the details
if an application has a normal deadline. its normally only allowed to be postponed/extended if there is an error found on the application that needs to be corrected or that the application does not meet an acceptable threshold to be accepted. whereby more time is given to tweak the application and update it. or its just rejected and they have to apply again..

its not about suing them for not auto accepting an application and awarding it an ETF. its about not even giving reason about why its not even being processed!! even if that processing leads to an objection/rejection

just leaving a company in limbo not explaining why they cant accept or reject it. costs businesses money. where the business cant do anything or help move the process along with updated edits. or change the business policies to fit the regulator needs.. simply a "come back next year" is not something that is free for the business.. and regulators should not put undue costs on a business due to regulator decisions. because as first said they can be sued

so the regulator needs a good excuse as to why:
they didnt simply reject it by saying what is wrong with the application.
they didnt offer suggestive changes/hints/options to update the application
they didnt request business policy changes to fit the regulator needs
.. because if they just delayed it for the sake of delay.. that is no defense(even during covid)

so you say you dont see LN as the SOLUTION .. but then you go and say its a solution.. in the same post..

i didnt even have to check your post history to see how far your leaning into the LN camp of scripted words where you do see it as THE solution, where you pretend its the best/elegant/top, better option..
..but i could search your post history for other quotes..

i can even quote you calling it subtly and overtly as bitcoin2.0 when i see you many times talk about the "bitcoin L2" "bitcoin layer" and "ontop bitcoin", and "bitcoin lightning network"

heck the way you say bitcoin cant cope bitcoin cant scale.. your soo deep in the salepitch BS of Ln you are literally saying "bitcoin bad LN elegant"

for someone that pretends they are promoting bitcoin adoption. you are certainly trying to call it crap. and advertise another network instead..

.. LN is not elegant. it has bugs and flaws. and after 5 years+ LN still cant guarantee payment success 100%
even now people are needing to add more channels or wait for other days when their route parter a few hops away comes back online.. where they need to close channels or rebalance because OTHERS have used up YOUR funds.
setting up and using LN is not elegant. its worse then setting up a bitcoin wallet.

Ln has less security then bitcoin. it has many things against it that make it nothing like bitcoin. but you continue to try to make it sound better then bitcoin.

LN can still function WITHOUT bitcoin. it is not essential to bitcoin. LN is its own network that can function without bitcoin. accept that fact. you tagging on the word bitcoin does not mean LN is purely a bitcoin thing.

..
when you talk about LN. you are mainly saying about how LNs FEATURE/BENEFIT is to get people away from using bitcoin..

a solution to scaling bitcoin and increasing BITCOIN utility. is not to take people away from bitcoin and stifle bitcoin scaling to stop more people adopting it, simply because another network can adopt the people instead.


emphasis
for someone that pretends they are promoting bitcoin adoption. you are certainly trying to call it crap. and advertise another network instead..

put it simple..
if i was to call LN.. bitcoin "SV".. and that is all i have scenario'd.. a name change.. from your bitcoin "LN" simply changed the lettering to "SV. .. suddenly you might see the light of day of the game being played by LN supporters.. trying to get people to stop making bitcoin transactions to instead make transactions on another network.. you might start seeing the debate from the other side

give it a try.. give yourself a month of calling LN "bitcoin sv".. knowing people are trying to take people away fro bitcoin to your "sv" network. it might enlighten you. you might even start getting risk aware and looking for the flaws other people see inn your "sv" rather then hyping it up and ignoring the flaws

your last paragraph makes my point. most of you LN fans are screaming sales pitches that LN is "the" solution and nothing else should be done because LN does it all. trying to make Ln the only direction people should go for daily use. and avoid scaling bitcoin avoid expanding bitcoin avoid helping bitcoin, because lightning is the go-to thing.

there is not a necessity for "lightning". specifically.. it is not "the" solution
other networks can make stronger protocols that are more secure in a "off chain" method. but lightning has more flaws then other models.
im not a fan of the sidechains, but even with their flaws and i emphasis their flaws. lightning has more flaws in comparison

by presuming that LIGHTNING is the necessity everyone has to offramp to. is the human flaw of just parroting the utopian hype advertising scripts.. of getting people to adopt msat pegs instead of real utility btc, or pother options bitcoin could take.

lightning is not a thing everyone should shift to and no one should be trying to shout that bitcoin should not scale because lighting can take the scale away by diverting people away. (yet many do, including you)
trying to get everyone to shift to lightning is narrowing options and removing bitcoin utility from users.

there are many ways to solve large transaction amounts.. without lightning. even if you fear and want to cry if anyone mentions scaling bitcoin and you just want an off-chain solution.. it doesnt have to be lightning that is "the" offchain solution. because the lightning model is more flawed then other models.

for instance if a better more secure "off-chain" network was to be made. people can diversify over several regional variants of that network protocol and then co-communicate across them "offchain" . but heck i know the response is to ignore any other option coz you think lightning is the only direction. (standard mindset of lightning fans)

bitcoin exempts no one..

the only issue is the persons access to a PC/device.
if they can use a PC there there is no issues. because their PC/device has " accessibility options" like text to speech or speech to text. or brail nippled keyboards, or other tools..these allows them to know/see/hear what is happening on their pc..
the rest is childsplay for them

completely avoiding the bad sides of another network(which it is) to sell the utopian hype of getting people to use bitcoin less, just to promote the other network.
predictable.

funny how they all ignore and avoid the liquidity issues of routing.
how more channels are needed, more hops required as the network expands to reach everyone and more balance just to get small payments to succeed.

let alone the later bottlenecks and thinks like the snowball effect of reblancing that then unbalances other people which sets off a whole stream of events of just moving funds for sake of moving which causes other peoples to do and so on. (goodluck finding a solution to the rebalancing flaw)

heck the sily uptopia is that when they show off that their LN fee channel is 0.001sat fee per sat.
they are not telling people that it soon adds up

take a $10 amount. LN is not going to cost them 0.001sat(1msat fee per sat spent) to make a payment. of $10
($10= 0.00050000). 50,000sat = 50,000msat....so 1 hop away is 50sat fee
and in the A-F example in my previous post thats 4x 50sat = 200sat yep just 5/6 hops away ends up being the same as a bitcoin fee

so is it really multiple times cheaper than bitcoin.. where a 250byte tx at 1sat/byte is 250. but is confirmed and settled in minutes/hours. instead of promised to be settled after closing in 1 month on LN
..
again some are ignoring:
if 10mill btc were locked up i GUARANTEE not all of that 10mill of coin would be utilised by the person locking it to actually spend on their own personal needs

you those people cant all use that pegged msat for their own purposes. because its already used up by others making their payments. and rebalances. leaving some users unbalanced(causing a cascade effect).

i guarantee you people will scam each other by getting people to download specific software offering "special features" but are just used to do bad peg conversions beneath the gui, and to offer channels with no locked bitcoin (because its already been done)

suggesting the solution out bitcoin is to stop using bitcoin and to trust another network without consensus, without security and without many of the things that bitcoin has got. is not a solution..

im not suggesting that another altnet might do better or have a different mechanism to allow free open flow in and out. as a choice. but pretending bitcoin shouldnt be used for users is just shameful

---

dont think of these altnets as the "solutions" or think they are bitcoin 2.0. think of them as niche services for temporary, small amount services. not something to lock up and stay on long term.
dont risk more then you are willing to lose, and expect that you are NOT going to get 100% payment success every time.
learn the risks and flaws, understand there is no security of network consensus ensuring the pegs remain 1sat:1000msat. learn from the mistakes of other networks that pegged to coins.  that recently broke their peg
be risk aware. dont let people fluff you with trust and utopian while getting you to risk your value. they are not going to pay you back when it goes wrong

---

this is why people need to learn
"buy low sell high"
"average down"
"buy the dip"
"buy the drop not the top"

i personally have hoards from early years so dont NEED more coins.
but when seeing the highs(not interested in selling anyways, give it a few more years)
i then seen the correction of this cycle. and i HAPPILY bought more at the $30k range. then more at the $25k range and more at the $20k range.
im not sad or angry or emotional about the $30k because i know its still a low in comparison to the high and the next cycle
im not sad or angry or emotional about the $25k because i know its still a low in comparison to the high and the next cycle
im not sad or angry or emotional about the $17k that i didnt hit.. because i know not everyone can snake in deals with exact timing to get in at the exact low of the low.

no one can time it perfectly. no one is expected to..
the best people can do is find the window of value opportunity and gauge it as a cheap to premium. and just buy it while in the cheap zone

cheap                                           premium
[|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||]
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

lightning network is its own independant network. it bridges to multiple networks.. it is not a sole bitcoin feature.
people can still use lightning with litecoin and other altcoins. LN is not something uniquely for bitcoin.
it just wants to tag on the "bitcoin" name and subtly hint its ontop of bitcoin to win instant fame/recognition/trust and steal users over to the LN so they stop using the bitcoin network

rightnow, using the same software i can easily with the same peer(partner) set up channels that are bitcoin pegged, litecoin pegged, ltc testnet pegged, btc testnet pegged..  no problems at all.
thus LN is not "tethered" to only function with bitcoin
..
a solution to bitcoin scaling is not to get people to stop using the bitcoin network. yet that is exactly the job of LN. to stop people using bitcoin regularly

im not saying these altnets(Ln, sidechains, de-fi, pegged chains,federated networks, etc) dont have a small value temporal niche service use. but by no means should anyone be declaring it bitcoin 2.0 and the solution everyone should move over to and lock up all wealth long term. LN is too flawed to act as a full mainstream utility to replace bitcoin

there are many flaws in LN
first is people dont realise bitcoins never EVER leave the bitcoin network.
all the liquidity in LN is based on pegged balance of locked bitcoin.

Ln liquidity is not bitocin its a new unit called msat. a 1:1000 unsecured peg(a flaw)

anyways
the more thats locked, the longer its locked the less transactions happen on bitcoin (less users using bitcoin)

do not confuse using LN as still considered as being "using bitcoin"
much like the sayings of custodial services if you are playing with exchange mysql balance your not playing with real bitcoin. same with the stable coins. its not actual dollar your playing with

the flaws of this is that the pegs are not secured on the LN side by a consensus algo. wallets can easily create new msat balance or tweak software EASILY to misrepresent the locked bitcoin pegged balance. to a fake allotment of msat at the LN GUI and people wont know untll they close their channel months later

if anything has been learned recently about the luna stablecoin fiasco is to never trust side networks/altnets/layers as those other networks can easily de-peg or fractional reserve.

im not saying that some altnets dont have a niche to service some peoples fast/temporary spends. but by no means does that mean people should lock up value long term in them.

other flaws are the mis-understanding of LN
people call it the bitcoin 2.0, the next gen "the layer ontop". (subtle hints that LN is bigger and better and ontop, above bitcoin) suggesting bitcoin is broke/not fit. dead

LNs messaging system of payments is not even a bitcoin tx. its instead a message in msat balance. which already mentioned can be messed with as there is no network wide audit of these payments.
too many people "trust2 the GUI display of msats as being the 1:1000 peg. but dont ever truly check that the post "success" commitments and the close session conversions of a unconconfirmed unbroadcast bitcoin format did actualy convert back to the amount they expect if they were to broadcast/confirm by closing the channel

i know you are probably now going to see some familiar names post after mine throwing insults and then using uptopian dream hype best case scenario advertising scripts to describe how they love and trust LN.

but there are many flaws in it. and people should be wary of it.

one of the flaws about its "scalability"
imagine you wanted to pay $10 to someone 5 peers(hops/channel partners) away
from:
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $10:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
to :
A $0:$10 B $0:$10 C $0:$10 D $0:$10 E $0:$10 F

just to allow for a $10 payment. the network had to have $40 liquidity to have a successful payment
yep more funds are needed than the network will allow to spend.. (think about that, there are many implications)

next up is not every route has liquidity
EG
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $9:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
yep c's $9 stops A from making a $10 payment even if b,d,e did have $10 liquidity

this then adds another flaw. people then needing more then one channel and more then one route to a destination..
EG
A $10:$0 B $10:$0 C $09:$0 D $10:$0 E $10:$0 F
  \$10:$0 Z $10:$0 Y $10:$0 X $10:$0 /

and now for A to needs to lock up more coin just to have more liquidity in more channels to the have the chance to pay $10 to F. where by the network now has more then $40 liquidity needed($79) to facilitate a $10 payment

there is a limit to how many coins can be locked meaning a limit to liquidity of pegged altnets meaning a limit to how much can be used and spend and passed on

EG in this case A made his $10 to F.. whereby now those along the route have no spare liquidity to use for themselves to pay F. its already spent by A

put some of the social drama bias of clan wars aside. reddit is ripe with all that drama..

if these reddit social drama/twitter war stuff comes to a court case where ver is indebt. im sure the bitcoin.com would become part of the claim to get some value from

though i smell more of a scheme outside a debt courtroom and just some social drama trying to get some clcickbait interest to advertise a token begging for $47m

whats seems more bitcoin community afflicting/risky/harmful is the tokenisation of unproven debt(where they use twitter/reddit as sole proof of claim)
to then tokenise and beg for $47m from random individuals..

.. its a 9 month old company that has no actually big project that is worthy of that amount having been done in the last 9 months. (red flag).
not saying Ver is innocent or not indebt. .. just saying ver is also a share holder of that very same company. which adds on an extra layer of shady.

its easy to find indicators that hint to a value window. (bottom/tops) of possible price range the market sits inside
(i use the words hint and possible.. its not a exact formulae for an exact amount. there are other variables that are included that i have not described. its just a loose hint)

but in simple terms, lets first take the ATH
the reason it topped out at $70k instead of $100k is easy to understand
if you work out the mining costs of different regions of the planet (different electric costs) japan and germany being the higher end at between 35-40cent per kwh

you can calculate that the cost becomes around $70k. the threshold where everyone on the planet finds it cheaper to mine it rather then buy it. because obviously everyone on the planet can mine for less then $70k at the time

and so the buys dry up and the sells overpower the buys. so it topped out at $70k
there was no buy demand if people can obtain it cheaper via mining. so thats why it didnt go further.

you can use the mining cost calculations to refresh the value window periodically and see the window prices generally move within

take the bottom.when calculating the minimum (cheapest electric+hardware cost ROI) no one wants to sell at a loss and so they refuse to sell.. again less sells and more buys because for some countries when the price is near the bottom end its cheaper to buy rather than mine it.

this is why the chances of bitcoin Bottom being zero is negligible chance. there is too much value holding it up in the multiple thousands of dollar range to crash to zero

..
what you find is that when the price goes down.. the cheap efficient miners keep mining. its the expensive hobby miners that switch off their asics and then start to buy. this means the efficient miners get more share of the reward meaning more coin per hash. meaning cheaper coin for them mine.

for a drastic shift downwards of the bottom end of the window. would require alot of shifting of hashpower.
the difficulty adjustments wont go back to CPU penny rates in a fortnight. it would take over a year to get to CPU rates again.
the hashrate of the last 6 months is staying happily over 200exa. so yea. that sort of scenario is not happening.

usually your wallet creates these new change addresses for you at the time you make a transaction. but once they are made they are part of your wallet which you can back up

each wallet manages things differently and has different options to look deeper into your wallet.
EG when you use the backup wallet feature. if it backs it up as a file then that file contains all the keys for all the addresses it has created.
if the wallet backs up using a seed (a password of 12-24 words) it uses that seed phrase to create the addresses where all the addresses are made from that seed phase as the key

its not a system where its just
bc1qaddress12345 (0.00018) -> bc1qfriend (0.00006)
                                                fee (0.00002)
its not where it calculates that 0.0001 should remain on bc1qaddress12345
its like a bank note. you cant rip one in half to only spend half. you have to spend the whole bank note and get change in return, in the form of a different smaller bank note going back to you ~usualy to another hand you have
held out to grab the change with..


the wallet is not just 1 address. a wallet is a store of many keys for many addresses
look at the block explorer at the payment you made. and look at the address where the 0.0001 went to

it should look like
bc1qaddress12345 (0.00018) -> bc1qfriend (0.00006)
                                                bc1qchange (0.0001)

this bc1qchange(not the exact lettering im just using a demo description) address SHOULD also belong to your wallet which is why your wallet is displaying it still has 0.0001

the utxo model is the 'unspent(u) transaction(tx) output(o)" model.
each of the 'recipient' columns of a transactions seen in block explorer (those on the right)
bc1qfriend (0.00006)
bc1qchange (0.0001)
are the outputs.

the ones on the left
bc1qaddress12345 (0.00018)
are the inputs


when you make a transaction
it spends a previous unspent transaction output(you received) in full by you putting it as your input(amount to spend) and gives back the change as a new unspent transaction output (utxo)
just like how bank notes work. you have to spend a whole bank note and get change back that is not in the same form as the original bank note(smaller value)

it reads to me that they want to stop the sub penny trading of split shares

and stop the sub markets(dark pools) that trade off the main markets.
in short forcing people to only buy whole shares from the main market using the compliance licenced agents/brokers

if you do research it also leads into closing the "dark pools" which would actually get some backlash as although they were used by robinhood. they are also used by wall street


i do laugh how they say

well for decades now.. wall street had the CNBC "mad money" red button and sound effects guy pretending to be an analyst

i see them just trying to jump in on more band waggons.

the SEC regulating the btc<->fiat exchanges
the CFTC regulating the sidechains, altnets and pegged tokens to bitcoin

expect more licence requirements even if you already have a "bitlicence" and a "money service business/money transmitter" licence. especially if you offer both btc to fiat and btc to pegged chains/altnets

i see (guess) the next ploy they will treat it like forex for all the altcoin swaps. and get the NFA involved with their regulations and licences like what they do regulating forex

i smell shady business

ignoring the altcoin drama and social stuff..
the service is saying [unnamed] defaulted. and now wants others(strangers) to pay them $47m

dont buy into this shady token. i smell to many rotten fish

here is what really happens in such similar advertised schemes

scam site+"shareholder" asks random customers to pay them $47m for a token. and (the obvious end result of these games) later will probably say that the [unnamed] defaulter only paid in 1%. thus customers only get $470k back
(typical 'pennies on the dollar' default arrangement)

meanwhile scam site+"shareholder" keeps $46.530m

by the way "shareholder" in this case is also the same [unnamed] that is suppose to be in debt to them..

i think darkangel needs to put them special smelling salts away. (he may be smelling paranoia)

the SEC dont really care. what they actually want is just so that no small enterprise of unknown history gets "first mover advantage". yes they prefer one of their own elite institutional banks to be the first-in, in the crypto ETF industry where by its then easier to set, meet and regulate it and then use it as a template for the subsequent businesses that apply using the first mover as template

when i see people scream mass adoption..
i am not seeing them say "i want to contact my retail store in my town to get them onboard, so that people can buy things with it via that retailer".. anymore
these days mass adoption is "tell your friends to buy/invest in bitcoin and hold"

(i personally preferred the good old days when people actually wanted merchant adoption followed by crowd adoption so that the crowd had somewhere to spend it.. but now its just "invest and hold")

funny part is a few years ago.. some bitcoin thieves done exactly that.. laundered some funds via exchanges that handled XMR. and then put it through other that converted it back... oh.. they got caught a few months ago and arrested and the courts shown how the investigators followed the money even via the XMR exchanges.

to add some detail
people only scream mass adoption because they want coins price to go up helped by people having coins.. to raise the price up..

here is the thing..

imagine an ETF offers 1 share per 0.001 BTC. where by thats a share per $20

now imagine there are 1 million employees putting just~$5k a year min into a retirement package
thats 250 shares each so 250million shares. or 250k btc lump to cover the 250m shares.
(im using small numbers of $5k and 1mil as there is a diverse range of other retirement investments that can be added. to the billions of employees retirement portfolios)

that portfolio manager has adopted 250k btc. for 1mill customers

yes the employees are not personally holding BTC to spend daily today.. and yes its locked in a custodial "trust". but the effects on the price are noteworthy even with just 1million employees in the world having their partial retirement portfolio in btc collateralized shares

ofcourse there is not enough supply to do that arrangement 40x for 40 years of employment..

so the price needs to go up for each 250k coins bought and locked per year to cover that year of retirement investment..
and this 250k bitcoin .. is as already said, is only talking about just 1million people investing $5k in bitcoin for retirement each year.