Oh, but they can! The only thing is that you need more than 500 000 a day, if we look at block 788766 which had nearly the same fee/reward ratio you will see the median fee was 20$. So in order to get the same revenue that would guarantee the same level of protection you will need to have 4000 users paying on average $20 since the reward is gone.
OR!!!! You could have 40 000 and pay $2. Or 80 000 pay $1.

But that would imply every node would need to spend $100 on a 2 TB SSD, so let's go with a $20 per tx cause it's cheaper!
 

1. Would Ordinals and other method to store arbitary data on-chain remain popular after next few halving?

2. On long term, would usage of Ordinals have good impact on Bitcoin price?

And why would people do that when the fee could be >2% of amount they're going to send?

yes it is a trust.. learn what the T of ETF means
but ontop of being a Trust, it's a trust based on Funds. (rather then property like real estate, art, IP, cars)
so thats the F part
and they have an Exchange system too which explains the E part(as oppose to just being a locked value trust, storing value until a richguys offspring/relative reaches a certain age)

edit to respond to below

exchange and traded mean the same synonym.. most people in the finance world treat the T as TRUST

If you check the tweeter's previous post, you can see that he linked this GitHub page: https://github.com/osarjuhcnus/atomicwalletsdesktopource#readme

So apparently, someone who lost money from this hack decompiled Atomicwallet and posted its source code for people to try and find the vulnerability.

As others have said, I'm smelling rejection from a far, there is going to be a big resistance from Gensler himself.

On the other hand, why not just those wealthy directly invest on Bitcoin itself, just simply buy a hardware wallet and put their investment simply as that. I guess this is one reason why old and traditional investors are into into Bitcoin because of too much technicalities involved. And the same reason why BlackRock created this Shares Bitcoin Trust, so that their customers wouldn't go on the intricacies that I have mentioned.

windfury..  read more

basically they will follow the majority of the community in regards to;

majority of community agreement based on
hashrate
services(exchanges, merchants)
and yep follow the chain core devs are authoritarian of

Nobody's supporting mass surveillance here. Quite the opposite in fact. Delivering a Bitcoin privacy solution that's lightyears ahead of the others, is the best testimony to that. zkSNACKs operates with utmost transparency, pushing for a future where privacy is respected and mass surveillance becomes increasingly difficult. The folks at zkSNACKs are dedicated to this cause and tirelessly work on innovative solutions. One of these solutions: Wasabi Wallet, became so successful that the people behind it do not have the luxury to live in lalaland anymore. Working on privacy is risky and it does no good for anybody to go head first into the wall.

you do realise the name of this topic..

i know you love ordinals and dont want it to stop.. but there are many people that see it as junk that should not be in the blockchain and should be fixed

i have more then you think but it doesnt matter how many i have because its none of your business.
and my hoard has no impact on code or features or this topic.
so waste months playing guess the number if thats what entertains your distracting mind, but it will just make you look more stupid
or
concentrate on the topic of ordinals and how to fix it(code) and why its not technically difficult to fix(code) but it is politically difficult to fix(core)

i know you and your cult clan dont want me to talk about cores political challenge against change to fix it.. but thats the stumbling block of why the fix has not occured.

i know you want to pretend code has nothing to do with it and somehow you think coins has something to do with it. but your wrong. its all about the code and politics

reading into the filing.. blackrock are trying to be vague about the conversion rate..

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares.
 
In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

I'm tired to read all the comments in the vein of "the SEC is threatening the crypto world" or "the SEC wants Bitcoin to stay small".  

The SEC's action against Coinbase and Binance has quite clear accusations: these exchanges allowed trading of securities without being authorized to do so. And they offered services like "staking" which are quite similar to bank products and thus also need authorization.

Is any of these accusations related to Bitcoin? No. The SEC has already clarified that Bitcoin is not a security. So the accusations have nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Instead, the accusations are deeply related to the mess the altcoin world has become in the last years, mostly since the "ICO craze" of 2017/18. More than 95% of all altcoins, I would estimate 98-99%, are managed in a completely centralized way, with a team in charge of everything collecting large profits. The most notorious example are the premines. These businesses create coins out of thin air - just a "bug" of the fiat world many Bitcoiners want to "fix" - to pay for marketing, bounties and shills with tokens. These tokens and coins are ... securities.

You don't have to be even a Bitcoin maximalist - I tolerate altcoins with decentralized components and ICOs which are clearly focused on a non-crypto product - to see that these developments have nothing to do with Satoshi's ideal of a decentralized peer to peer cash.

So let's calm down. This is not against Bitcoin. It's against shady business models where companies pretend they are decentralized but aren't, and want a cheaper and less consumer-protecting way to finance their businesses (or directly run away with your money). And it's also about crypto exchanges pretending they aren't banks - but they are, as long as they offer products like so-called "staking" (which nothing has to do with real proof-of-stake).

It brings me hope that Bitcoin seems to be the least affected by the last price drop after the SEC accusations. People seem to begin to understand

So everyone who's part of Bitcoin, one way or another. So mining pools included.

You can't kick anyone out of a censorship-resistant, permissionless network.

Completely agree. That's why I made this thread. I just don't think it's entirely against their benefit to pretend there's network congestion.

The "community" can't kick mining pools out of the network, only revenue-sharing miners who are mining at their pool can do that.

But the problem is, why would they have the incentive to do that, if they too are earning a bump in pay rates from the increased transaction fees?

Ultimately, the game theory design of Proof of Work only includes miners as participants in this game, as how it was envisioned in the whitepaper. So for full node users to wrest control of fees, they would need a second layer to govern. But however it ends up, it is certainly much better than using PoS (where only exchanges and rich entities have the absolute power).

I think someone or people who are smart enough to to control that much hash rate won't be too dumb to know that this won't be economically viable long-term unless they aren't motivated by profit but to attack the network.

Your topic has certainly identified a key weakness in Bitcoin's centralisation as a network. Few people want to acknowledge it, but even the idea of "mining pools" as a concept is a form of centralisation that was controversial in the early days and still remains a threat today, with a few pools holding the majority of the hash power as you pointed out.

All it would take is collusion either way for malicious activity. The one reason pools became accepted and popular is because they were more profitable, as well as obviously allowed access to the market for individuals with low hash rate that would rarely ever gain any block rewards otherwise.

If they screwed up enough to have people get access to the users private keys then turning off their servers will make 0 difference.

And people can already get their keys, import them into other wallets and move their funds.

The rest really does not matter at this point.

Like I have always said, I have some coins in another multicoin wallet that is closed source.
The amount of funds I have in it are worth less then the phone it's on, and I use cheap(ish) phones.

-Dave

Usually people committing tax fraud.
If they were moving stolen money wires are easy to trace.
If they were laundering money wires are easy to trace.
There are much easier / simpler / out of view ways to move $2.5 million then a very easy to follow / trace wire.

But, we don't know how smart they really are when it comes to finances and moving money.

-Dave

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Both have demonstrated other acts of incompetence, for which Charlie went to prison and Roger has never been forgiven, so I'll chalk this up to incompetence.

* Roger Ver -- According to the DHS laundered money for the mtgox thieves

* Charlie Shrem -- According to the DHS laundered money for the mtgox thieves

This is a total nothing burger as 1,432.93 BTC or $37.8 million would barely move bitcoin's price; and in the first place it would be a total dumb move for a "whale" to dump all that in one market order — assuming that was the person's intention in the first place.

imagine this scenario

for 18 blocks the total fee is 10sat/byte. meaning an average block is 0.15btc in total fees for 1.5mb block
meaning over 3 hours they get 2.7btc

now imagine for the next 18 blocks the pools collude by creating their own self confirming transaction paying to their own destination where because they do not broadcast pre-confirm to the network. they are the sole includer of their transaction in their block meaning their fees come back to themselves. so no cost
the asics of their pools still get shares of the main 6.25btc so they are happy

and now the colluding pools create a 3 hour situation of only including fees of 40sat/byte of their own self paying transactions)again reminder NO COST)
thus in that 3 hours . USERS start to see delays in users getting confirmations and so users start to do RBF to increase their fee to 40sat+/byte min

now the pools dont have to fill their blocks with only their own transactions when users are now starting to pay that minimum.. so they can include some of there own and users transactions of 40sat/byte plus until its majority users transactions of 40sat/byte tx in a block

now they are starting to earn again from users. but still ensuring they set min confirm fee of 40sat/byte. which continues to make users pay that amount.

and soon you are realising when user pay this amount, the pool is getting 10.8btc per 3 hours instead of 2.7btc and the pool does not have to bloat a block with their own transactions becasue now the users are paying their collusion high fee requirement

---

as for "can the network stop this"

arnt you part of the idiot-speak cult group that dont want to stop high fee's.. you know the guys that want cheap fees rejected unconfirmed and want a "freemarket" of paying premium..

arnt you also part of the same idiot brigade that doesnt want to reject dishonest stuff.. such as ordinals scams that has caused a fee mania via a different technique but your cult wants to continue

yes technically there are many ways to stop it but i am 100% sure your cult and the core devs wont implement it