funny part is..
antithesis thinks he can live off of shares. he thinks he can buy a pizza using shares..
.. good thing i have btc, i can buy pizza with btc.

while he starves himself investing in shares, i will feed myself using btc

too many people think metaverse means people need to use NFT as a currency. truth is, they dont
NFT is the land registry blockchain. to buy land you need ethereum

certain metaverse servers(virtual nations) have their own crypto tender (cryptocoin for that server) for the day to day currency
MANA: is the native cryptocurrency on Decentraland
SAND: is the native cryptocurrency on sandbox
AXS: is the native cryptocurrency for popular gaming platform Axie Infinity

there wont be a single currency like ether or bitcoin. each server (virtual nation) will decide what tender it wants to use
so infact the sooner bitcoiners get involved in starting up metaverse servers the sooner bitcoin can be accepted in metaverse

EG if there are 3 main servers using MANA, SAND, AXS, ETH.. but then bitcoiners set up 100 servers using btc, (popular servers worthy of using because they do something fun, interesting ofcourse) then bitcoin becomes the main currency, and people will get annoyed having to swap currencies, thus prefer to get the 3of 103 that dont use btc to start using it..
.. just an idea, well more like common sense approach

---

the best way to explain it
someone saying "i dont like metaverse because of NFT, why dont they use bitcoin"
is the same as saying "i dont like america because of US patent office(USPO), why dont they use $pound"
whereby it must be explained
metaverse does not use NFT as a currency, it uses it as a property register.. metaverse uses ETH or other crypto as currency
meaning america does not use USPO as a currency, it uses it as a property register.. america uses dollar or other fiats as currency

im saying since 2013 only 7million coins were mined. where the stats show 1.8m are still "owned by miners"
im saying out of the 1.8m "owned by miners" is not even 1.8m
1m of it is practically declared as 'lost' plus as you say some of the 0.8m are just custodian held coins yet to be paid out to individual miners mining on pools.

so the number "owned by miners" is way way lower than 0.8m. i would say. most "miner" linked coin that still remain after 2 year is probably what the pool gets to keep as most users would have claimed their wins regularly(weekly/monthly/6monthly) and those over 9 years are probably "lost".

it seems that chart was done via basic "bitcoin richlist" data. without much analysis on deciding which grouping of x-xx coin allotment is for which category.. in short just taking 0.X-X and give it a ocean based name, X-XX and give it another ocean based name
and thats all they done.

as said before majority of the humpbacks are not rich investors but are exchanges hot wallets. where the chart creator just put exchanges cold wallets into an exchange category. and put anything large but not known cold wallets into a humpback/whale category without much thought or analysis again to not realise that majority of humpback is stil exchange category.
meaning not really any analysis done. but even then those that are humpback and exchange categories are not owned by the exchange. they are just custodian housed funds for all the shrimp, crab, fish, octopus, sharks that cant be bothered to use their own wallet
thus making all the shrimp, crab, fish, octopus, sharks appear to be lacking funds because its again confused into the hunchback/exchange category

in short, the numbers become meaningless as they dont represent anything in reality

blackhat i am talking about this topic. yet you chime in to advertise another topic.. you have derailed

getting back to the topic of solo
ill keep it short

2009+: solo mining: user uses is own node to collate his chosen transactions, form own block template, and hashes it
2010+: pool mining: pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users

2013+: "solopool": pool manager collates the chosen transactions, forms own block template, sends work to users give winner high %

2022: silly people trying to redeifine "solopool" to be solo mining, ignoring the mining part and pretending solo mining was always about the reward..
no "solopool"(brand) was about the reward as the main difference between "solopool"(brand) vs pool mining(process)..
but the reward was not the consideration between solo mining(process) vs pool mining(process)..

pool mining solo rewarding is the better wording which was shortened to "solopool"(brand) ... NOT solo mining(process)
so stop trying to change solo mining to sound like it has noting to do with solo MINING and everything to do with just the reward share

..
moving on

they tried to regulate gold. didnt work
they tried to regulate alcohol. didnt work
they tried to regulate drugs.. didnt work

all they can regulate is businesses that use such things

this is not about regulating bitcoin.
its about regulating businesses that offer bitcoin services. (exchanges)

take for instance the delays of offering a ETF, or where some small banks freeze accounts because they were told 10 years ago to be wary of people moving funds to/from known exchange owned accounts

yep,
tagging in names like whales makes the simple "address balance distribution" then emotionally provoking into suddenly being thought of as some elitist/minimalist propaganda

but the tags are the error, because the tag names mean nothing and describe nothing about the holders. thus promote a false idea of who and how certain people hold value.

you cant even gather any kind of informative thing EG, since pool mining began properly in 2014. meaning from a starting point of ~12mill circulated coins already mined (now 19m). meaning these still active pools only had chance to gather 7mill coins, and the chart shows miners are still hoarding 1.8m of the 7mill 2014-2022 which could be falsely seen as 25% of coins mined were hoarded by active miners.

but we all know satoshi stash of 1mill coins from 2009-2010, so you cant even say that active pools have 1.8m coins hoarded
sorry but if anything 1mill of the "miners" hoard should be put into a humpback or a 'lost' category, because satoshi would now be humpback or 'lost' ..not a miner now(he doesnt mine now)

the concept of solo mining is as old as bitcoin
the concept of pool mining is as old as 2010+

the brand "solopool" is newer (2014) but even then they still refer to it as a pool.
they actually were saying "solopool" not solo mining
emphasis on the different terms.


back then it was a "solopool" it was not actually trying to define itself as allowing users to set up as a solo mining
so the buzzword was solopool in 2013-4
..
its only this year that they are trying to go hyper on making it viral that its solo mining

heck even ck used to say pool alot even in 2014

but certain people in 2022 are trying to deny the pool element to pretend its the same thing as solo mining, a defined term right back from the start of 2009

..

here is danny in 2022 trying to change things by pretending people dont understand the 2009-2010 concepts.. and then trying to rebrand the 2014 brand 'solopool' into being the same as the 2009 concept solo mining



notice how he removes the word "mining" to avoid talking about what mining(hashing a block) is about (the whole protocol) and wants to pretend mining is just rewarding
and that "unfortunately not all have the skills to setup solo and the stats they would like"

cartman doesnt really describe much. he just says "what does matt damon say in that bitcoin commercial" and then repeats a phrase said for thousands of years, not related to bitcoin or crypto at all..

then looking at the actual matt damon commercial. even matt does not say anything that explains crypto he does not say anything crypto or bitcoin related. he just has an aspiring message about humanity and evolution.. where the only hint of crypto is a splashscreen after it.
basically matt could have been advertising anything. heck even the olympics logo could have fitted in after the speech and the advert would work.

i dont see this as being anything that can bring any new incite to people to suddenly want to adopt bitcoin.

dont worry so much
these false tallying of addresses into groups sends bad signals
take this topic recently where it went viral saying a whale moved 40,000+btc out of an exchange
yet the actual analysis was just an exchange moving its 40,000 out of cold, to hot then back to cold wallet (of the same exchange)
meaning it was an exchange account shuffle not a whale withdrawal

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5383921.msg59133433#msg59133433

danny
you created the strawman. your question involved a fallacy scenario that no one does.. no one has ever done!!
i tried to reel you back to reality by trying to find a real scenario that is as close to what you described.
and i explained how the decision on how to share the reward does not decide if that person was a pool or solo. its just about if someone is generous or not. EG if you have a job. and get paid (employed or self employed) and then decide to just spread your wage around to random people. your generosity is not the decider of your employment status

and just because the dabate is over because you ran out of silly fallacy strawman scenarios that never happen in real life, to use as weird unproven proof of your fallacy new description, is not a win on your side. its your loss.
solo mining is a term thats been known for 12+ years. its not the one your trying to create this year

pool mining is about the MINING   (hint is in the word)

edit to answer below..
seems danny has forgotten the whole point of blockchain protocol. and thinks its just about random token sharing
he seems to be forgetting, avoiding, ignoring, dismissing the real point of mining, just to set a new terminology
danny have you flipped fully to the darkside of "bitcoin without the blockchain" group?

its not common though.

its not the description of the term thats existed for over a decade,
its something that is trying to go viral this year as being the new description, pretending the 10-12year old term is the false term

.. i think danny has run out of silly non real scenarios. and i answered his hypothetical by trying to find a close approximate real scenario of comparison(andressens faucet) so i have answered his questions.
thus the debate is dead now.

so moving onto other wrongly treated terms(because doomad asked) that change the definition to cause actual risk to users and a false sense of security..
i too prefer keyring instead of wallet, but thats not a seciruty/risk/function change debate worth pushing, its just grammar.. so lets think about some that are related to changing the function/work/risk/security

ill skip the obvious altnet treated as bitcoin risks. (ill be generous this time)

so lets go with pruned defined as full
fullnodes existed before pruning was even an option. where a fullnode was and is validate AND archiving. because thats what fullnodes did from 2009-2015, but for a ~7years people gently, and now this year some are pushing HARD to change the meaning to make a less then full feature/service node pretend to be called a full feature full service node.. without offering the full node features/service/security.

new peers connecting to a pruned node cant Initial Block Download from the pruned node.
a pruned nodes utxoset is not hash locked to periodically check the data is still unedited, meaning trojans can hijack the utxoset, slip in a bad utxo and suddenly.. if including this bad utxo to enough nodes. the nodes wont know any better and treat it as an unspent value that someone can then spend. which can cause a chain split between pruned vs unpruned nodes.
alot of people think its not important whether its archived or pruned. but it actually is. the data accuracy of the hashes is a security feature,
not only that, but  if we moved from:
80,000 full nodes serving 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 7.25 peers)
to
20,000 full nodes serving 60,000 pruned nodes, 500,000 lite wallets (1 full services 29 peers)
meaning 4x pressure on the full nodes that remain and the decentralised blockchain is 4x less distributed
full nodes is why its called a decentralised blockchain and not a distributed utxoset

im not talking about all 580,000(exampled) users need to be full nodes. im saying that trying to convince existing full noders, or newbies that truly want to be the network backbone support full node users, to downgrade their service/feature/security offering thus have less full nodes. impacts many things

the point is silly people trying to be insincere about the terminology to set an agenda to get some newbies to think they are getting something they are not or they are doing something they are not. pretending newbies are doing more then they actually are. where newbies are then using something they think is secure as what they were told.. but isnt

which if allowed to go viral where everyone believes the insincerity and everyone flipped over to the insincere method. they are going to cause themselves problem, all for the personal gains of the people that want the insincere stuff to be treated as trusted fully working utopia, when its not as utopian in reality.

your scenario is meaningless because its not a thing thats ever happened in bitcoin thus explains nothing.

i gave you an example.. which is more similar example of your fairy tale scaenario
gavin andressen in 2010 doing his faucet.
because he was generous to pay out to random people after mining.. does not make that generosity a deciding factor if he is a solo or pool mining.
simply saying "im going to spread my payment to random people" has nothing to do with mining solo or pool. its just pure generocity

deciding how to split a reward is not a factor of solo or pool mining
solo or pool is about the proof of work protocol. which is about who manages the blocktemplate collation and creation and who decides what nonce/extranonce range to work on. and who created the coinbase tx(no matter what the reward split terms are)


..
ck pool is not where users make their block template. nor are they the one that got to decide the 98%-2% split
ck pool users cannot decide 'nah i prefer to only give ck 0.01%' because they are not in control of the coinbase or template

chart is not that accurate..

exchanges(in chart) are the tagged known addresses of cold wallets.
but exchanges also have hot wallets which are confused and compounded into both the 'humpback' and 'whale' categories
so "exchanges" "humpback" and "whale" numbers are inaccurate.. in short exchanges hold more then you think

as for the other lower categories.
me, just me. has some coin in all categories of  shark, dolphin, fish, octopus, crab and shrimp

again people/businesses/organisation can have multiple addresses meaning different people fit into multiple categories and multiple categories dont explain different people

or maybe im just a sh-olph-fi-shrim-pusoc-rab

if you cant even trust your own kids, and they are doped up on drugs and begging you to cash out so they can get high more.. worry less about your phone and worry more about getting your kid into rehab, or if he is showing tendencies to want to get you to blackout to steal from you. tell him to leave the house and clean his life up

yep in that analogy multiplayer deathmatch is were only the person doing the round winning hit gets the reward (via the game server deciding the reward split)
yep in that analogy multiplayer coo is were all players doing the round get the reward no matter who gave the final hit(via the game server deciding the reward split)
where in both cases its lots of individuals working together..

ofcourse some(mostly danny) will want to rebrand a single player campaign to mean multiplayer death match by trying to deny the multiplayer aspect is part of the game. and deny the point of the game "deathmatch" and just say the game is only about the reward.

sorry but the important thing about bitcoin is the WORK.. its called Proof of WORK. not receipt of reward
im surprised someone like danny is trying to re-imagine what proof of work mining is about, just to cater to ck's tweaking of words for some PR.
..
as for dannies silly scenario of just paying random people.. thats called generosity. like deciding if your kids nephews and nieces and cousins deserve a pay out from your lotto win when they had nothing to do with helping choose some numbers and there was no syndicate in place. and no central person managing the tickets or payout(getwork or coinbase allocation)
.... wait.. i think i can see what danny is thinking. that because for instance G andresen mined and operated a faucet to pay random people that he must have been some quasi solo-pool.. where by if g andresen operated a faucet or not was a deciding factor of the pool or solo debate..(in dannys mind)
.. um no he was just generous. his generosity of doing a faucet had nothing to do with if he was solo or pool mining. he just wanted to give away coins. the give away had no impact on how he mined. they are separate scenarios


if you made an agreement that each family member would decide their own numbers, but share the rewards that any winner gets by showing the numbers pre draw and then showing they have the winning numbers after the draw. . they are forming a lotto syndicate. in other words.. a silly insecure pool but still a pool. just not one based on code or structure but based on  "trust"..
something that bitcoin has never been based on. "trust". after all thats what code is for. rules

which is why no one operates such a silly scenario. thus no point making up a non existant thing.

again bitcoin MINING. ill emphasis this because its an important word MINING. is about PoW work, not the reward
its based on rules and structure. not fairy tale imaginary scenarios of trust

getting a reward/paid for work is pretty much common sense that people get paid for work completed. but again the important thing is about the work.

imagine you worked for a living
arguing about getting paid either a salary as a lump sum amount once a year or paid daily does not really explain the work or if your self employed or working for someone.
its common sense you should be paid for doing work. but your not explaining how you got the work or do the work to get the pay

dannys mindset is trying to say "i dont get paid hourly, i get paid once a month so that must mean im self employed."
pay structure does not determine employee or self employed status.

how the work was managed/organised, and who wrote the invoice where by if the work is complete a payment is settled determines employment status.
if you done absolutely everything yourself. your self employed.
if you had a manager that organised and managed the work, telling you what region to work, and he set that you will get 98% of any invoice upon successful completion. then you are employed.. you are just in (good or bad) employment depending on if you get to finish the job or not depending on the terms the manager set

---

this topic has stretched to 60+ posts(4pages)
and danny is still trying to re-write a term that has existed for a decade + to mean something totally new.
maybe he forgets that no one cared about reward amount 11+ years ago
maybe he forgets that no will care about reward amount in 120+ years time
maybe he forgot what mining is all about (PoW)

but you have no problem understanding a kid that would drug his own dad and steal from his dad?

i think this scenario is less about how he stored his crypto and more about how he raised his kid.

all businesses can reject a customer for any reason.
no one has a human right to enter a business. you are entering their property and so its their decision who they treat as a visitor, member, guest, customer or tresspasser.
freedom of movement does not mean you have the right to walk into a business. it just means you can move your legs.
freedom to travel does not mean you have a right to drive stupidly on a road. nor get on a train or bus

even this forum is the same. you have no human right to use this forum
even free speech is not a good enough reason. you have the human right (well natural biology) to wiggle your tongue and move your lips but that does not extend to a stage, platform or forum to amplify your speech to a broader range.

bitcoin works because it does not rely on a middleman/service which can just say no whenever it wants. you dont need laws, rights or permission with bitcoin. it just works

nope. fiat contracts are not about the debt. no one owes you anything. you holding a bank note is not some security to some laon somewhere that someone owes you.
take a bank note to a bank. they wont give you bread loaf value for the bank note. all they do is give you a crisp new copy of the same note., to replace the crumpled, dirty copy.

if you hand in a bank note as a desposit. your bank note then forms a contract where the bank can use your collateral to fractional reserve future debt where the bank profits on the returns. and if your lucky you might get 0.01% for letting them use your bank note you no longer hold(while its in their custody).

check out the zimbabwe dollar. no one had security, the government were not liable to honour value.
once tax and min wage laws were no longer measured in Z$ people stopped using it

the only thing that makes fiat useful (where by it has no other benefits) is because of tax/minimum wage laws that force it into utility.
if people had the choice they would not want to use fiat because the moment they receive it, they have lost value.
either via tax or inflation.

people would prefer to use something deflationary, where just holding it independently increases the value over time.
if it was not for tax/min wage laws, no one would use fiat (its why zimbabwe dollar is now dead, its why people dont use euro's in america)

american dollar is only viable in america because of tax/min wage laws forcing utility. it has nothing to do with any dreamed up liable value or security promise. because there is no liability/security promise.

if something happened to the dollar. what do you think you would get.. dont say promises security liability. actually explain what you would get in return. the us government removed the gold standard 50 years ago.. you are not promised gold anymore
a UK bank notes says now it "promises to pay the bearer the sum of 5 pounds" .. not 5lb of silver... just £5:£5 meaning they only now promise to swap a crumpled piece of paper for a crisp piece of paper..

if something happened to the dollar. what do you think you would get?
the only answers would be:
a crisp new bank note swap for crumpled note. meaning no difference.
a bag of heavy copper coins that might (scrap rate) get you more value, but no one likes to handle them so the effort outweight the value, so they would probably see its coins and swap at face value 1:1 not scrap value.

imagine if bitcoin also made a promise of: it promises you pay the bearer of 1btc, the sum of 1btc or 100,000,000
would you think this was a meaningful promise.. or just a way to clean up its taint(dirtiness)

..
anyway a bank note is not worth the value its printed on.
yet bitcoin has an underlying value of ~$35k(eastern europe/west asia) $85k(expensive countries)

the price is currently near good value world wide, exceptionally good value for those in expensive countries. they can buy it 2-3x cheaper then they can mine it
yes when bitcoin was ~$70k it was 2-3x value and seen as a premium for most and seen as only just good value for expensive countries. but its much better than the dollars 26x devaluation

1. holding fiat money promises you nothing. a bank note does not earn you interest. infact each year you lose value holding fiat.
    the longer you hold onto a bank note, the less you can buy with it
    also, if you deposit banknotes into a bank. you are giving in your bank note in exchange to allow them to fractional reserve it to create new loans where they might pay you 0.01% of their profits if you leave it with them for a year, but even this is far below inflation, so your still losing

2. bitcoin in 2009 had like a penny of true cost of creation value. where people liked it because it had features that were different to bank notes. it had a purpose/function/benefit/utility(things you ignore). this incentivised more people to want it.(2010+) and so the competition to create it(mining) increased the cost of creating it. which then translated to the market value of acquiring without mining it to increase.

if bitcoin changed where it became useless as a currency. offering nothing better than other currencies where majority of people stopped using it. thus impacting the mining cost, where( instead of $35k-$85k to mine(now)) it became like $2 to mine, then the market rate would come down to a value window of $2-$5.. instead of the current cost,utility cost value window of $35k-$85k

once you understand the cost/value window. your question then becomes why would anyone pay $70k if it can be acquired by some means for atleast $35k(price within a value window)