this is the report from the scientists who went to china
https://zenodo.org/record/5075888#.YOlZidVKjce

TL;DR : dumbed down the science

dumbed down the science

dumbed down the science

there is nothing wrong with people using altcoins.
but there should be a community that concentrate on bitcoin prosperity. and not be self promoting altcoins and altnets while trying to break bitcoin in favour of their altcoin

yes i said it let people play with altcoins if they freely choose. but dont break or stall or destabalise bitcoin into a forced effort to get people to play with altnets and altcoins

its like let there be 200 fiat currencies. but. ofcouse let there be a community that are patriotic/citizens to stabilising and advancing their preferred currency without trying to take down other fiats

bitcoin does not need to kill off all altnets/altcoins to prosper. but it seems many altcoiners think bitcoin needs to break

i have no issues with users using altnets(like sidechains and 'layers' tokens) as long as they are clear and moral about the niche use case and risks associated with non blockchain stuff. and without the utopian promotion that its a 'solution' or 'its bitcoin but better'

if they actually 'sold' their altnet as a proper proposition of its niche utility and gave fair warning of its risks. fine. go play

agreed that sound like conservatist to me,
you know acting like the perfect state of bitcoin is in the past.. like the 1960's of tech where bitcoin shouldnt move forward but should remain in the hippy happy limbo

those that mainly hoard bitcoin but dont fear using altcoins are moderates at most

those that want to call altnets of no blockchain 'bitcoin' are not maximalists. they are altnet promoters

its these people that will always say bitcoin is broke. and will pretend that any maximalist wanting onchain scaling must want 100mb by midnight. (or 10mb as titular exacerbates on his own stomach vile)
funny part is huge jumps of 10x-100x have never been a request by true onscale growth desiring bitcoiner.
its the pain of no growth above a 7tx/sec(4200tx/block) has even been allowed in 12 years
(the most we got in the last 4 years is 2500tx/block).. which is the headache
the average is about 1660tx/block

i know people love positive PR and try geting any critisism or factual negatives deleted: but lets see how long my post lasts


but segwit stalled out at a 1800-2500 tx per block average



getting people onto sidechain /altnets where they are mainly using lite phone apps is actually going to cause alot of people to not be full archive nodes for bitcoin. especially when they have bitcoin locks for more then a month. they see no purpose to run full nodes everyday


mhm and yet. the altnet proposed as bitcoin solution that wishes people to migrate over to long term.. says people can create and swap public keys and then create multisig addresses and then create transactions and validate signatures in the millions per second... thus debunking your theory. that computers cant handle large capacity transaction verification

in short.
the 1mb 4weight limit is some maths of 2009 whereby internet was 0.5mb/s.. 12 years later the internet is 100x
hard drives were 250gb. but are now 10x that at 2TB
.
even if we went to a old style 4mb limit to allow an average of 8-10k transaction count (near true 4x capacity growth)
it would take 8-10 years to fill a 2TB hard drive. and most people update their computers every 5 years.
heck you can get a 4tb hard drive cheaper than 1 weeks grocery bill. and that would give you more then a decades buffer

..
last criticism of some posters false beliefs
some posters in this topic still believe that changes to bitcoin code in the last 5 years has made transactions cheaper. yet if you read the code youwill see they made legacy transactions a 4x premium. thus segwit are not 'discounted' in any way. they are miscounted atleast.

firstly there is no 'absolute' in regards to a 10min rule.
bitcoin has a special mechanism to control this. which this topic is missing

but anyways lets play the topics scenario out:
so delaying a broadcast of a block that can be made in 10 seconds. and telling it to wait another 9minutes 50 seconds is meaningless.  and not really achievable

as the next block signer onlist will happily love to see the previous block header early. because they can then start their own block signing before they should.
thus starting a chain of events where the next inlines get their blocks accepted by the next in line.
and the other nodes are then the ones waiting
EG if order was
0001 Aliceminer  12:00
0002 Bobminer   12:10
0003 Chadminer 12:20
0004 Daveminer 12:30
0005 EricMiner   12:40
0006 Fredminer  12:50

alice makes block at 11:50:10.. (timestamped 12:00) send to bob at 11:50:11
bob makes block at 11:50:20..(timestamped 12:10) send to Chad at 11:50:21
chad makes block at 11:50:30..(timestamped 12:20) send to Eric at 11:50:31
eric makes block at 11:50:40..(timestamped 12:30) send to Fred at 11:50:41

now lets say fred is the 'honourable one
its still only 11:50:41 so fred has the opportunity to make his own block by 11:50:50 based on eric header.
 
but now he is just honourably ignoring and pretending A,B,C,D,E dont exist yet(pretend ignorance for honour). and is waiting pretty much an hour twiddling his thumbs before he 'honourably' admits they already exist to then honourably broadcast his block at 12:50

reality is that all the 2016 designated miners would just make all 2015 blocks within 5 and a half hours of their first block session. and the rest of the network are then waiting upto 2 weeks before admitting the blocks already exist

this is a mega "empty" blocker risk/opportunity.. of 2015 blocks scheme in under 6 hours for the designated miners.. and then 2week self 'only seen at set time' pretend delay. for the rest of the network


.....
next flaw
 the person listed to be the 2016 blocker. who accumulates all the 'willing participants' of the next fortnight session. can easily put in his own 2016 (looks random) public keys as the list of 'who' gets to make the next blocks
thus winning all rewards
or
at very least ensure he puts his own key as the last key (the next 2016th block) to remain in control of the list each time(many exploits can be done here)

heck he could even do his 1 "hour" mining 13 days 19hours and 20 minutes before his special block is to be accepted. and already be working on the next 2016 block session he designated to himself. way way way before the rest of the network decide to admit the blocks existed for most of the fortnight
his only job for over 13 days is to just re-broadcast the set at the right time

and before you say it.. the 'special' blocker can have 2016 GPU(i presume you also trying to devolve back the hashpower to solo mining gpu) so that he can make all 2015 designated keys attached to an hours worth of hash labour each
and do that all within an hour(concurrent) of the 2008th block(end-7) which was created only under 7 hours from the start of the new 2016block cycle


in short
the designated miner(s) have the future 2015 blocks and the 2016th 'special block' with its 2016 separate 1 hour mining hashpower work.. all waiting in under 7 hours of the start... where the rest of the network are playing ignorant and only updating their blockheight in a slow timely manner over 2 weeks. finding out each block is an empty block in most cases

im a bitcoin maximalist. in the definition that i want bitcoin network to continue having utility and growth

there are some that stupidly promote that if people are not interested in being pushed onto sidechains and offchains pretending to be bitcoin. then those who want to remain with bitcoin must hate bitcoin because these altnets 'are bitcoin, but better'

its like gold. where bank managers try convincing that gold backed bank notes 'are gold, but better'
but we all know gold is gold, and paper is paper

pegged tokens and tokens of more then 8 decimals are not bitcoin. especially of the sidechain/altnets dont even have a blockchain audit system

yea i know im about to get abuse from the usual crowd how 'bitcoin cannot scale' 'bitcoin is not digital cash'
and yet the rules around transaction capacity per block was ruled in 10+ years ago
back when internet was 0.5mb/s
10 years prior it was dialup(-10x from limit set)
yet now 10 years after the limit set. we are averaging 50mb/s (+100x from limit set)

technology has moved forward alot in 10 years. but seem some want to stagnate bitcoin and make it costly with premium 4x fee's just to promoite sidechains/altnet tokens

if kodak demanded that photos had to remain below 140kb to store 10 photo's per floppy disk in 1999
then the HD revolution of photography would have stalled out for 10+ years.


so excuse me if i bring up my desire for bitcoin progress on the network. and yea please dont rebuttal with some promotion of another network pretending to be as secure and as impressive as bitcoin, while subtly saying how bitcoin is broke/cant work/not fit for purpose

firstly the journals you speak of usually make reports after like 2-3months+ of study
meaning they are AFTER the event.. they are not the cause. they are the report after


HQC and ivermectin are parasite killers. they have ZERO effect on the virus.
however the side feature of them is they are IMMUNE SUPPRESSORS
they switch your immune system off.
taking these as a daily supplement before you are even sick means your body wont fight anything when you are infected. so the virus will ravage your body and the only time you realise it is when suffocating and coughing blood

taking these post-infection is a tricky balancing act. if taken during the incubation period. thten your body wont fight the incubating virus

taking it after the viral load has come down to acceptable levels.. where what the person is then suffering from is an over active immune response. then dampening that down is acceptable

but finding this sweet-spot in time when its best to take it. is a in-precise guess, so its full of errors of judgement, thus not effective treatment

there still is not an effective treatment that attacks and handles the virus direct to quash it quick

correction
from the false claim:
 josh whogivsacrap reported on the recent nonsense that peter daszak refused..

to the accurate fact:
peter daszak has given information to congress that the virus was zoonotic transfer
(animal to human)

of course peter cannot give info about wuhan cause.. because there is no info

its like asking for info on blueprints for a time machine.. demanding that refusing to give blueprints is a conspiracy/psyop
reality is time machines are not a thing and thus no blueprints to give.

if you think that drugs are meant to be food(nutrients). then you have been really pushed into the deep hole of being sold herbal scammery as a daily ingestional need

drugs are different than nutrition.
drugs help ailments : nutrition is for metabolic energy

so yes drugs do not include 'food'(to dumb it down)

painkillers are not a nutrient. but have an obvious ailment solution
if your chewing on painkillers instead of a steak.. your doing it wrong

with no pre-infection to have built immunity. the symptoms wont include a runny nose or sneezing as your body has not learned to use such immune tactics on a pathogen it is unaware of.
so if you were infected. it would be in your lungs doing damage and not triggering a runny nose/sneezing to get rid of it.
so blow your nose as much as you like but the virus is still in your lungs

its not about informing badecker.
its about correcting badecker and ridiculing him so that he cant recruit more idiots into his conspiracy cult community

badecker only believes what he believes because he has been recruited by radicalised radiculous idiot influencers
so its about breaking the chain.
giving other readers an objective counter-point to badeckers points. so that they see badeckers idiocies before they have a chance to even think he has a point

Cnut you also forgot to add the issue that there are some obvious people who avoid doctors and instead seek guideance from herbal voodoo and conspiracy cults. and so they dont know they are vulnerable and only know the price of sage and witchcraft

so its hard to make policy to protect only the vulnerable when most of the vulnerable with mental issues(badecker and jetcash types) will never admit/know of their own vulnerability.

its funny because the main complainers about the lockdowns are the ones most likely to get sicker than average due to the avoidance of seeking healthcare/checkups, medicine when they needed it in the past, by their own claims

after all if they are suffocating but have their principals of avoiding healthcare. then they will less likely to survive.

covid vaccines do not have mercury or mercury based products in the ingredients
let me spell it out
covid vaccines do not have the chemical element mercury(Hg)
covid vaccines do not have the chemical compound thimerosal(C9H9HgNaO2S)
covid vaccines do not have the methylmercury(CH3Hg)
covid vaccines do not have the ethylmercury(C2H5Hg)
and while we are at it

covid vaccines do not have chicken eggs
covid vaccines do not have baby fetuses
covid vaccines do not have  magnetic particles
covid vaccines do not have nano transmitters
covid vaccines do not have alien anal probes

no you dont multiply 7k deaths by 100

what you realise is that there are 7k deaths. 411k 'injuries'
and there are 149million missing reports of the minor things like a 2second pain in the arm

yes most people are not cry baby to complain about every minor/insignificant symptom
if i sneeze. it might be a symptom but its not what i would call an injury so im not going to report it
however if im in hospital then there is records of me being in hospital and records of me having a vaccine.
and where the symtoms cannot be explained by obvious cause. EG a gunshot wound.
where it looks like a symptom linked to infection/allergy/toxin. then that would be reported

so its not that there are 600k deaths.. its that there are 150million unreported symptoms of 'ouchy that needle hurt'
thats the kind of reports harvard is saying is missing . the minor stuff no one complains about
(well 1% are cry babies and would complain about such insignificant stuff)

governments didnt "take their jobs"
governments of most countries gave out stimulus for employers to PAY THE BILLS
meaning businesses could without being operational. be in limbo of still running and still have employment contracts.
however businesses decided instead of using the funds to pay the bills/leases/electric to be in limbo. the business owners took that cash and put it in its own pocket. and when the freeholder wasnt getting paid and when the utility company wasnt getting paid. they switched off the electric/water. and told their leaseholders/tenants their occupancy was in jeopardy. and so the employer decided to shut down the business

yep greed of business owners taking advantage of the events for personal gain was what "took the jobs"

without any stimulus. more employees would have suffered.
but if business owners were not greedy. less employees would have suffered

in short if there was no government. everyone would have suffered financial loss.
the government did not cause the loss. the business management decision of greed caused the most loss

if i was running the economy, i would have only stimulated the utility companies to keep the water flowing and the electric running and the internet streaming(zero the bill to businesses/residents).
froze all mortgages/rents/leases only paying out the LEGAL interest payments(more zero bills)
and then give individuals a living allowance.

basically where its a true limbo. of zero loss and just stagnant waiting period. where no "debt" is created

however trying to 'keep the economy alive' by giving businesses funds but with no pre-requisite of how the funds should be used wisely.. greed took over which reacted onto employment losses
i guarantee you in all the businesses that layed off employees. the CEO/boss still accrued more income in 2020 than its employees got. and in most cases more then what the 'bills' would have been, even when claiming "we didnt make any money in 2020"

might regret saying this..
but doomad is right for once

its WESTERN media, mis-reporting events of china

pretty much everything said about china's 'control' 'influence' has been wrong

if you are only going to have channels direct with the retailer. and avoid routing
then you are going to have a channel PER retailer

meaning your say $2k monthly salary is split over say 20 channels
where you have to pre plan how much each channel deserves based on guess of next months spending habits
landlord $1k
electric $60
water $20
gas $60
internet $40
fast food retailer #1 $40
                         #2 $40
                         #3 $40
grocery store #1 $200
                    #2 $200
coffee shop $80
sweet treat shop $40
clothes shop #1 $30
                   #2 $30
diy shop $40
hobby shop $40
games/entertainment $40
computer gadget shop $100
ebay $50
amazon $50

then yea. you can pay them direct..  as you are only relying on your liquidity direct to the retailer
so now your at the point of, well setting up 2 transactions per channel (open and eventual close)
so your paying 40 onchain fee's each month

but remember in this scenario, each allotment of fund is then locked into that utility partner. (if avoiding routing)
costing you alot of onchain fee's
meaning you better make it cost effective by having enough for multiple purchases within the month to dilute against the onchain fees

so under the premiss of splitting value over channels to pay direct and avoid route liquidity bottlenecks, you cant really change your mind midflow and guarantee to be able to decide you would want your clothes budget to be used to buy coffee or the opposite
because before you set up the channels. you have no clue if the 2 shops even have a partnership
(cough sarcasm lightning privacy promotion)
..
the other idea is if you want to avoid liquidity stalls/bottlenecks of a 'independent decentralised' route. and you want to avoid the 40 channel 'split funds direct' channels

that leads into the game of depositing funds into custodians which have the liquidity and let them manages the routes on your behalf

which then leads to a hierarchy network. with the inner circle being the high elitist serves/exchanges the outer rings retailers the outter outter rings hubs and the outmost rings users
with liquidity descending out (ascending in)
which has already begun where elite exchanges refuse channel openings of less than x value

meaning people cant exactly just connect direct to an exchange to deposit their small penny investments direct, but have to connect to a local hub several hops back

EG          min channel xxbtc                    min channel 0.xbtc              min channel 0.00xbtc
exchange[xxbtc><xxbtc]regionalhub[0.xbtc><0.xbtc]localhub[0.00xbtc><0.00xbtc]you

viruses spread.. fact
best way to stop it spreading into another country is stop it at the border
no border crossing = no border cross contaminating

any country that done "repatriation flights" are bad countries
any country that done "stay in place" with its abroad citizens are good countries

lesson to learn. when wuhan closed in january, countries should have just compensated its citizens in wuhan to shelter in place in wuhan, and then do proper quarantining (well compensated) where by it could have been eradicated by May

australia is a good example of a non asian developed country that done the right thing

its more about. if there is another pandemic. they can request all spanish mask/PPE factories to make PPE for spain and not continue sales for other countries

there was alot of times where spain had low supplies, yet spanish companies were selling supplies to other countries.

other examples are where europe had a bad start on their vaccination program. with low production for euro citizens, yet a vaccine production facility in europe was making and sending vaccines to the UK,isreal and other countries. and europe didnt like that

the last economic crisis was the housing market
the next economic crisis is obviously the pensions

so knowing pension funds CANNOT just hoard bitcoin
(higher standard of investment regulation: insurance: audit: checks)

so what they will do is people will lose interest in the fiat portfolio pensions. (fiat pension crisis)
and instead use bitcoin ETF portfolio as their value store/peg of pension funds

its why so many companies are spending billions trying to get first acceptance of ETF rather then just hoarding coin for coin trades

once one ETF is accepted and regulated. the others will take that application template to get their own ETF set-up
and then they need to buy bundles of bitcoin to be their bitcoin ETF collateral to then offer their ETF shares to investment companies that only trade with other regulated companies