Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[coins101]

...
a) The fee market
.

The idea of an forcing / manipulating an increase in the fee market is a complete load of bollocks.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

[JayJuanGee]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community). 

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

[adamstgBit]

...
a) The fee market
.

The idea of an forcing / manipulating an increase in the fee market is a complete load of bollocks.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

+1

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community).  

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

[aztecminer]

just posted this into pms forum in regards to Peter Schiffs reply regarding bitcoin:


"it seems as though only the govy can make money anymore. when taking 30-40% of an entities money, it makes it hard for them to make a profit.


bitcoin has become another manipulated joke. the blocks are 95-100% full. within a couple weeks the fees will go up because no one will be able to send bitcoins anywhere due to the blocks being full. and in the middle of that fiasco bitcoin pumped $200.00 during the Marshall’s Auction.. bitcoin was obviously manipulated by the US federal govy to maximize the profit of their bitcoin auction. now we are floating around $400.00 even though there is a major league flaw. you MIGHT maybe be able to make a short term fiat profit, or you might lose big due to the risk.


they want everyone out of pms and into bitcoin. that is partly the reason for the big pump to $400 that happened in November last year … if u are chasing bitcoin then u are not buying pms ….think on that for awhile before u decide bitcoin is a bonafide place to stash fiat currency . bitcoin is nothing more than a glorified manipulated fiat currency THAT IS CURRENTLY BROKEN."


if you want, u can pump bitcoin some more prove how wrong i am ... maybe this time it will actually get me to change my mind .

[ssmc2]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

[adamstgBit]

did someone forget to tell Peter Schiff the blocksize debate is all for show?

[JayJuanGee]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack. 

Don't you have better things to do with your time? 

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts? 

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary? 

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

[ZyclonRacerX]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

[adamstgBit]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

you can't put a price on the good feeling you get using bitcoin, silly nub.

[JayJuanGee]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community).  

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

You may be correct that it is good to take more off of exchanges, but I was not completely considering removing my coins because of exchange risk.

It is true that some people have been suggesting that Coinbase actions have been weird lately, but I was considering taking off coins more because of the seemingly unfair and unnecessary political actions of Armstrong... seemingly aimed at causing and/or exacerbating political divisiveness within the bitcoin space.

[BitconAssociation]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack.  

Don't you have better things to do with your time?  

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts?  

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary?  

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

So trying to get you to post like a human being is not merely an exerciser in futility, it also makes me a paid shill?
I suppose i shouldn't mention all








the





fucking

blank lines either. Might turn me into a witch, so I won't.

[adamstgBit]

unnecessary political actions ... seemingly aimed at causing and/or exacerbating political divisiveness within the bitcoin space.

this was my gut reaction to his latest blog posts too...

he's only human, and one of us "big blockers" going apeshit as we watch fees climb and TX times get longer as price suffers while we should be in a glorious bull market.

he using his company's status as added weight to his argument, hard to blame him.. but not exactly professional...

[ZyclonRacerX]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

you can't put a price on the good feeling you get using bitcoin, silly nub.

Dwugz and kiddy pr0nz, yes. For everything else, there's MasterCard.

>but not exactly professional...
If it was, it wouldn't be Bitcoin, n00by n00b.

[adamstgBit]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

you can't put a price on the good feeling you get using bitcoin, silly nub.

Dwugz and kiddy pr0nz, yes. For everything else, there's MasterCard.

>but not exactly professional...
If it was, it wouldn't be Bitcoin, n00by n00b.

[billyjoeallen]

These smallblocker arguments are demostrably stupid. If You were a malicious spammer, your goal would be to cause the most amount of damage, to achieve the most amount of service disruption for your buck, right?
So why the hell would it matter if you paid 10,000 1 cent fees or 5,000 two cent fees?  If anything 5,000 two cent fees would be slightly easier and that's what you need to do with small blocks.  Effectively there is no difference in the cost to disrupt service.  

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap. Think about it: would it be easier to cause a traffic jam during rush hour or at 3 AM?

If your goal is to make the chain so bloated that nodes drop off, your challenge is to cause more damage than it cost to do it, but hard drive space is really cheap and getting cheaper, so it's always gonna cost you more to harm the network than the damage you produce.  So bloat the chain, morons. You're making us money.

So what WOULD discourage a malicious spammer? Only one thing I can think of: make the network so shitty and unreliable, so pathetic that it's not worth the effort to harm.  This is apparently the Core dev's strategy.

There is no cryptographically sound way to distinguish between spam and legitimate transactions. You cannot discourage one without also discouraging the other. Spam is just a cost of doing business.  The sooner we learn to live with it, the sooner we can get on to real problems that need to be addressed and CAN be fixed.

Problems like:
1.Mining being overwhelmingly concentrated in a single communist country.
2.Faulty code that actually gives those miners a selfish mining advantage for having limited bandwidth behind the Great Firewall.
3.Developer governance rules that give any small group effective veto power over any upgrades
4.Emerging altcoin competition that has applied the lessons learned from Bitcoin's problems to develop superior cryptocurrencies.

[adamstgBit]

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap.

LOL well put.
I'm going to keep that one in my back pocket.

[jertsy]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community).  

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

Isn't there a cryptographic attack that makes it possible to guess a private key if you have access to half of it? I'm sure it says somewhere that a private key can be considered compromised if an attacker gets a proportion of it. If an attacker gets hold of the half key in your ass you lose, or if a corrupt bank clerk gets the half in the bank vault you also lose.

[AlexGR]

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

If I want to move money around, why do I care what it is, since it does my job quickly and cheaply.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

It is to miners. And speculators. And investors.

Yes, well, gold is not a business either. It's an element: [Au] 79.

Sure, it can be business for miners, speculators, investors, but that doesn't mean it is a business.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

Right now, we cannot have blocksizes that can do VISA-level txs - not in any decentralized way. Some day we will. This is not an economic decision. It's a technical one that arises from the differences of how VISA is set up (centralized / efficient) and how bitcoin is set up (decentralized / inefficient).

And even if one thinks that BTC's tech nerds are idiots, then is there any other cryptocurrency that can do what Bitcoin can not and scale to VISA levels, and do so in a decentralized manner? The answer is no.