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

[Satofan44]

Secondly you are using the same non-argument that I see so many using.  Calling your opposition a "retard".  That is not an argument.  It is an ad-hom character assassination tactic used by people with no argument.

You are a whiny little retard. You ignore every argument that destroys your bullshit and you only respond to the less relevant parts of a post. Mommy mommy please get out of your grave, someone called me a mean word. I don't want to play anymore! 

Calling for people's speech to be shut down because you disagree with it is cowardly, autocratic, and even a bit evil.

Luckily for you this forum is run by a ketamine damaged liberal so you can spew your toxic lies ad nauseam.  
Filter boys have no arguments. They mostly rely on creating fear and dissent. If you side with them then you are de-fact a retard yourself. It proves itself mathematically, in a trustless way without censorship.   The good thing about all of this is that the change is already live and we are not going back. Time will generate more proof for the Core side, but the filter boys will never admit that they were wrong because they are retarded cowards. You are the same as Roger Ver and his btrash forkers. You are behaving in the exact same way as them and you continue to do so once time proves you wrong yet again.  

[cAPSLOCK]

The ETF era Bitcoin Drama - 2025  Part THREE!

The basic arguments...




< big snip to the real points>



-100Kb is 1250x 80b
-A 100Kb DSC opens known and unknown exploits (like Taproot did)
-We should be REDUCING Bitcoin's attack surface, and this change enlarges it <snip>.  The philosophers, economists, and even some of the shitposters.
-Going that big is fishy
-This is a slippery slope.
-We need to take the time to consider as many second+ order effects before making a change like this
-There has not been a good explanation for why 100k

<snip>

To me we could have simply done six month upgrades

Core 30  80kb
 to Core 31 160kb
to Core 32 320kb
to core 33 640kb
To Core 34 1280kb
To Core 35 2560kb
To Core 36 5120kb
To Core 37 10240kb
To core 38 20480kb
To core 39 40960kb
To core 40 81920kb

No one has  said why a single jump from 80kb to 100,000kb is safer and better than a slow move upwards and onwards.


We have done 30 cores there is no need to do it in a single jump since we all know we will do many more core moves.

So where is the safety in rushing from 80kb to 100,000kb

When a more gradual approach was easy to do?

Actually I need to add this to the filter side list.  Many have pointed out that we could start at 160, and then reconsider after we are stable.  Thank you.  Many are making this argument.  Even Adam Back alluded to this approach.

Added!  And an extra merit!  
-Why not roll  this out via a series of gradual larger numbers? Much like Satoshi suggested for blocksize back in the day?

And perhaps you might notice that you got the ever present "you are too stupid to understand" rebuttal slightly hidden in a non argument that sort of sounds like an argument.

Because in the mind of normies and other less technical people this sounds like it does something. It doesn't do anything, it does not provide any extra safety that you think it does.

lol... Once you begin to see that sort of thing for what it is it really does make you wonder...

[OutOfMemory]

You arrived a little angry, but then you were open to dialogue, that's good.

I don't tolerate retards who believe they are independent thinkers while they continue to spread misinformation, a case example is cAPSLOCK. He is the perfect kind of parasite in Bitcoin who sits on the sidelines most of the times and has never contributed anything, but occasionally they awaken to create damage to it. That's all they do. He wrote again a big post where half of the content is lies or exaggerations.  

Reads a lot like stigmatization to me, which isn't less "retarded" at all.
I see criticism as a kind of contribution, by the way.
Pushing down on critical voices... Why do i have to think about censorship now?
But again, only my opinion.

So I'd like to hear from you, it's better a roots-to-peer electronic money transfer system, with all possible security to avoid double spending, or one more in the middle of many other protocols with numerous purposes?

The failure of this statement lies that you don't recognize that this is censorship and permission. You want to decide how I will use this system. You can design the system however you want, you can intend it to be used in whatever specific way you want, but you can't force me to use it that way. That is the beauty of Bitcoin. If I want to store images on Bitcoin, I will store them.

Is this your own interpretation?
At least Bitcoin is a protocol with a certain purpose in mind. Remember: "cash system".
Would just staying to this principle be censorship as well? (Asking for a friend.)

The aspect of permission would be valid exclusively inside the cash scope as well, or no?

The terms of censorship and permisson are existing inside a defined context. Putting them outside of it is more than questionable. Bad practice, when it comes to debating.

To sum it (my opinions) up:
- In the end, there are plenty of shitchains to store images and other shit stuff on, en masse. Why do this step downwards in the name of "upgrading Bitcoin", doesn't make sense in a P2P ECS.
- I think Bitcoin loses respectability by adding non-specific functionality.
- There will always be Spam. Spam is the problem, not the solution.
- Mapped to Gold, does engraving a bar of gold make it more valuable? (I admit, i'm bad at comparisons)
- However, the bar of Gold will become more useful as a scratchpad, to be honest
- The raging debate about this makes the developer community look like a Kindergarten as a whole.
- Too much ego involved, hence the aggressiveness and dividing character of the debates.

Last not least, it's just my uhm.. opinion. I didn't write a single line of contributive code, i didn't dive deeply into the technical documentation.
I'm not stubborn, i try to think openly, i think every opinion has value, as long as it is not intended to manipulate (which is pretty common, sadly).
Whatever stupid (from your point of view) things i may have wrote, discuss them with me in a serious way. At "eye level height", as the people in my culture like to say.

Secondly you are using the same non-argument that I see so many using.  Calling your opposition a "retard".  That is not an argument.  It is an ad-hom character assassination tactic used by people with no argument.

You are a whiny little retard. You mute every argument that destroys your bullshit and you only respond to the less relevant parts of a post. Mommy mommy please get out of your grave, someone called me a mean word. I don't want to play anymore! 

Calling for people's speech to be shut down because you disagree with it is cowardly, autocratic, and even a bit evil.

Luckily for you this forum is run by a ketamine damaged liberal so you can spew your toxic lies ad nauseam.  
Filter boys have no arguments. They mostly rely on creating fear and dissent. If you side with them then you are de-fact a retard yourself. It proves itself mathematically, in a trustless way without censorship.   The good thing about all of this is that the change is already live and we are not going back. Time will generate more proof for the Core side, but the filter boys will never admit that they were wrong because they are retarded cowards. You are the same as Roger Ver and his btrash forkers. You are behaving in the exact same way as them and you continue to do so once time proves you wrong yet again.  

Pretty revealing post.
Quoted for reference, too.
I don't think there is much of a point for me in continuing to discuss with you.

[cAPSLOCK]

Oh this is good...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562628.0

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Satofan44]

Reads a lot like stigmatization to me, which isn't less "retarded" at all.
I see criticism as a kind of contribution, by the way.
Pushing down on critical voices... Why do i have to think about censorship now?
But again, only my opinion.

Good criticism =/= stupid opinion. Should the quantum physicists ask your grandma for advice in regards to the development of quantum computers? Being a Bitcoin Core developer is already a very shitty role. Do you think listening to random criticism by any wannabe independent thinker will help them? Our "job" should be to make their work easier, not harder. We should restrain from wasting their time and instead only interrupt when we have something objectively useful or important to say, you know things based off of science and reality and not a fucking gospel?  

Is this your own interpretation?
At least Bitcoin is a protocol with a certain purpose in mind. Remember: "cash system".
Would just staying to this principle be censorship as well? (Asking for a friend.)

The aspect of permission would be valid exclusively inside the cash scope as well, or no?

How would this be any different from a traditional service provider then? They are also permission-less inside the scope of its intended use, outside of its use they are permissioned. Anyway, my point is this. You can design it and want it to be peer-to-peer cash. I want to use it another way. I will find a way to circumvent your design restrictions and do it. You can find a new patch and try again. I will find another workaround and so the game goes. Do you think that you can iterate safely faster then me? If I break something I don't give a fuck. If you break something you are risking the whole $2 trillion network.

This is a cat and mouse game that can't be won. As I have quoted earlier, the best that you could do now is strip Bitcoin down to something like GRIN and it still would not solve everything. So what can you do? How can you take away my permission ability without turning Bitcoin into a centralized network?

The terms of censorship and permisson are existing inside a defined context. Putting them outside of it is more than questionable. Bad practice, when it comes to debating.

This is why I don't agree with this part. Otherwise both banks and paypal are neither censoring nor permissioned within their own defined contexts.

- Mapped to Gold, does engraving a bar of gold make it more valuable? (I admit, i'm bad at comparisons)
- However, the bar of Gold will become more useful as a scratchpad, to be honest

For who? The wider market? No. The one doing the engraving or his cultists? Yes.

- The raging debate about this makes the developer community look like a Kindergarten as a whole.

Very few people are against it, but given how far the filterboys went with theories about Gloria that should tell you which side is right (you can ignore everything else).  

Whatever stupid (from your point of view) things i may have wrote, discuss them with me in a serious way. At "eye level height", as the people in my culture like to say.

Well, it depends. If a person purposely ignores inconvenient points that destroys their argument and only cherry picks other parts to respond to then they are arguing in bad faith. Should we also task the Core developers with spending time on these people instead of reviewing code? It is really a thankless job that fucking sucks, no wonder that so many have left over the years. How many times have the filterboys thanked the Core developers in the past? The number converges to zero.

Pretty revealing post.
Quoted for reference, too.
I don't think there is much of a point for me in continuing to discuss with you.

Will you admit that you were wrong when nothing happens or will you try to dismiss it with some misdirection? These are the pure facts:

• The change is live, and very unlikely to be reverted.
• Since it has been released nothing has changed. There is no data that indicates otherwise.

That would be an objective overview that some secret wannabe CSAM viewers don't know how to provide.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Thank God the religious nut job saved us from the big bad OP_RETURN! God probably whispered a warning to him.

[cAPSLOCK]

SO, this is worth mentioning in my opinion.  We are seeing a fantastic performance of what MANY MANY voices in the argument sound like.  Non arguments.  Character assassination.  Frequent use of words like "retard" "moron" etc.

The basic argument that you do not contribute, and are too stupid to have a valid opinion.  

It ALMOST begins to seem inorganic when you see so much of it. That said I do not really subscribe to the bots/shills theories.  While I DO think there are elements of this drama that bear to be treated to the "follow the money" treatment.

One of the most interesting parts of this was seeing how much of it was coming from the devs.  I got bloked on X by  Lopp, and Calle and Vortex(ummm not a dev I dont think).  I was not rude to any of them... just asking questions.  Well I did get a LITTLE spicy with lopp. lol.  And they were using this same sort of line of arguments.  "You are a moron."  'Too stupid to understand "filters dont work"'.  "You do not contribute anything."  And "we are going to ram this through whether or not you want it" which then morphed into "too late now.  we did it".

Along with the devs LOTS of big voices and OGs were doing some of the same thing.  Disturbing really.

I assume the blocksize stuff was like this too...  I was not really participating in any of that.

I think the next episode in my series might be the topic of politics and it's strange seeming correlation.  Samson Mow brought this up, and at first I snorted at it.  Of course not...  But then even those discussions did seem to reveal a correlation.  That said, I think there are bitcoinners all over the political spectrum who would support either side...   but it was at least an interesting topic.

[Satofan44]

Along with the devs LOTS of big voices and OGs were doing some of the same thing.  Disturbing really.

I assume the blocksize stuff was like this too...  I was not really participating in any of that.

People who were arguing on the right side of the blocksize debate are tired of wasting time on bullshit. There were infinite opinions by people who knew very little about the technological details of Bitcoin. They learned not to waste time with people, it is not worth it. They were right then, they are right now.

Should the quantum physicists ask your grandma for advice in regards to the development of quantum computers?

There is no disputing this in any way or form, there is nothing subjective about it. Filterboys are repeating the same thing that Roger Ver did. They think the same way that he did. He thought he knew better than the people who live and breathe protocols while he can't even write 1 line of code using AI.  

[ESG]

 Yes, it is answered, it is what I thought then, it is not impossible., but it is impossible on the part of the developers.

 Yes, it would be censorship, but it would be a way to preserve Bitcoin solely as a method of sending electronic money end-to-end.

 With Coinjoin mandatory for the entire network, no more images would be uploaded, and existing ones would be destroyed if they were sent. Being arbitrary, I can't imagine how anyone would be able to get around this, since another way to transfer to another public key without going through the mandatory Coinjoin could not be accepted.

   In short, this is not what the developers want, they want to turn Bitcoin into something else, except to continue being what was proposed in the beginning.

                                                            #
_________________________________\|/___________________________________________

[OutOfMemory]

Pretty revealing post.
Quoted for reference, too.
I don't think there is much of a point for me in continuing to discuss with you.

Will you admit that you were wrong when nothing happens or will you try to dismiss it with some misdirection? These are the pure facts:

• The change is live, and very unlikely to be reverted.
• Since it has been live, nothing has changed and there is no data to indicate otherwise.

I always loved to admit if i was wrong. I try to refrain from the concept of Ego.
Not admitting to be wrong (mostly to oneself) doesn't help here.

I currently run out of time, this is why i am keeping it short now.
The Bitcoin ecosystem relies on an important feature: Consensus.
This should be the correct, short answer to most of the points i removed from this part of my (future) full reply.
Even if Consensus fails, forking is a viable option. This is also what happened with Ver, Faketoshi and the likes. Bit risky for Core, imo.
And yes, my Grandma even made me think over some decisions in my life, even when she seemed to have no significant insight.

You can see it like this:
If you were up to decide and meet strong resistance, you're better off more questioning the decision and less the resisting ones.
Again, this needs certain control of your Ego, which you don't seem to have (i'm sorry).

[Satofan44]

 Yes, it is answered, it is what I thought then, it is not impossible., but it is impossible on the part of the developers.

 Yes, it would be censorship, but it would be a way to preserve Bitcoin solely as a method of sending electronic money end-to-end.

 With Coinjoin mandatory for the entire network, no more images would be uploaded, and existing ones would be destroyed if they were sent. Being arbitrary, I can't imagine how anyone would be able to get around this, since another way to transfer to another public key without going through the mandatory Coinjoin could not be accepted.

   In short, this is not what the developers want, they want to turn Bitcoin into something else, except to continue being what was proposed in the beginning.

Like I said, write the BIP and go into public debate. Come back here and link it. It is easy to say yeah just mandatory coinjoin and everything is solved. How? The details are where it is hard and the details are where flaws are found.

[OutOfMemory]

I think the next episode in my series might be the topic of politics and it's strange seeming correlation.  Samson Mow brought this up, and at first I snorted at it.  Of course not...  But then even those discussions did seem to reveal a correlation.  That said, I think there are bitcoinners all over the political spectrum who would support either side...   but it was at least an interesting topic.

Again, in short: Please do this. I see strong correlations too but don't have the time and focus to frame it.
Have a good day, y'all, gotta run.

[philipma1957]

Reads a lot like stigmatization to me, which isn't less "retarded" at all.
I see criticism as a kind of contribution, by the way.
Pushing down on critical voices... Why do i have to think about censorship now?
But again, only my opinion.

Good criticism =/= stupid opinion. Should the quantum physicists ask your grandma for advice in regards to the development of quantum computers? Being a Bitcoin Core developer is already a very shitty role. Do you think listening to random criticism by any wannabe independent thinker will help them? Our "job" should be to make their work easier, not harder. We should restrain from wasting their time and instead only interrupt when we have something objectively useful or important to say, you know things based off of science and reality and not a fucking gospel?  

Is this your own interpretation?
At least Bitcoin is a protocol with a certain purpose in mind. Remember: "cash system".
Would just staying to this principle be censorship as well? (Asking for a friend.)

The aspect of permission would be valid exclusively inside the cash scope as well, or no?

How would this be any different from a traditional service provider then? They are also permission-less inside the scope of its intended use, outside of its use they are permissioned. Anyway, my point is this. You can design it and want it to be peer-to-peer cash. I want to use it another way. I will find a way to circumvent your design restrictions and do it. You can find a new patch and try again. I will find another workaround and so the game goes. Do you think that you can iterate safely faster then me? If I break something I don't give a fuck. If you break something you are risking the whole $2 trillion network.

This is a cat and mouse game that can't be won. As I have quoted earlier, the best that you could do now is strip Bitcoin down to something like GRIN and it still would not solve everything. So what can you do? How can you take away my permission ability without turning Bitcoin into a centralized network?

The terms of censorship and permisson are existing inside a defined context. Putting them outside of it is more than questionable. Bad practice, when it comes to debating.

This is why I don't agree with this part. Otherwise both banks and paypal are neither censoring nor permissioned within their own defined contexts.

- Mapped to Gold, does engraving a bar of gold make it more valuable? (I admit, i'm bad at comparisons)
- However, the bar of Gold will become more useful as a scratchpad, to be honest

For who? The wider market? No. The one doing the engraving or his cultists? Yes.

- The raging debate about this makes the developer community look like a Kindergarten as a whole.

Very few people are against it, but given how far the filterboys went with theories about Gloria that should tell you which side is right (you can ignore everything else).  

Whatever stupid (from your point of view) things i may have wrote, discuss them with me in a serious way. At "eye level height", as the people in my culture like to say.

Well, it depends. If a person purposely ignores inconvenient points that destroys their argument and only cherry picks other parts to respond to then they are arguing in bad faith. Should we also task the Core developers with spending time on these people instead of reviewing code? It is really a thankless job that fucking sucks, no wonder that so many have left over the years. How many times have the filterboys thanked the Core developers in the past? The number converges to zero.

Pretty revealing post.
Quoted for reference, too.
I don't think there is much of a point for me in continuing to discuss with you.

Will you admit that you were wrong when nothing happens or will you try to dismiss it with some misdirection? These are the pure facts:

• The change is live, and very unlikely to be reverted.
• Since it has been released nothing has changed. There is no data that indicates otherwise.

That would be an objective overview that some secret wannabe CSAM viewers don't know how to provide.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Thank God the religious nut job saved us from the big bad OP_RETURN! God probably whispered a warning to him.

I have dealt with programmers since 1978 while in my it work in the Navy. Many are like you

"know it alls with huge fucking egos"  there are at least four or five on this site.

When time passes and nothing happens from the core 30 "upgrade"

I will be the first to say you were correct to argue that it is correct.

and if it becomes a huge mess you should be the first to come back here and say wow Phil you were correct and the developers are fuckups when it came to this.

Most likely you will make a denial and follow up by attacking the post I just made.

As I said I am prepped for this in both directions and It will be fun to see that you are correct and it all just passes by with zero issues.

Day one just passes and BTC is doing okay so far you are not wrong.
lets see if you are correct tomorrow.

[Satofan44]

I always loved to admit if i was wrong. I try to refrain from the concept of Ego.
Not admitting to be wrong (mostly to oneself) doesn't help here.

Good, that is what I like to hear. If you want to be fully honest, give me a time frame because people tend to use that excuse too. How long do we need to wait to declare that this was nothing and that time has proven it? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? You pick it, I give you full freedom.

The Bitcoin ecosystem relies on an important feature: Consensus.

Good point you bring up, because the reality of the matter is that we don't even have a definition of consensus in Bitcoin! That is why it is so hard or near impossible to subvert it, where would you even begin? You can sow dissent sure, but there is no formal definition of what constitutes consensus here. There are only vague ideas and approximations.

And yes, my Grandma even made me think over some decisions in my life, even when she seemed to have no significant insight.

Did grandma say to revise the mathematical formula and solutions or did she say something in the direction of just think about it again? There's a big difference between the two. One is good, the other one is terrible. Social media encourages the terrible one.  

You can see it like this:
If you were up to decide and meet strong resistance, you're better off more questioning the decision and less the resisting ones.
Again, this needs certain control of your Ego, which you don't seem to have (i'm sorry).

I just don't tolerate pure retards and misinformation, that doesn't mean that I am not dumb too. You'd never guess my real nym on IRC

I have dealt with programmers since 1978 while in my it work in the Navy. Many are like you

"know it alls with huge fucking egos"  there are at least four or five on this site.

The funny thing is, I am not a programmer. I am a systems researcher, programming is my weak side.  

When time passes and nothing happens from the core 30 "upgrade"

I will be the first to say you were correct to argue that it is correct.

and if it becomes a huge mess you should be the first to come back here and say wow Phil you were correct and the developers are fuckups when it came to this.

Let's make a deal then. How long do we need to wait to confirm enough time passed? We can't leave it up indefinitely otherwise you can bring up any bogus lawsuit 10 years from now and say look I was right! I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but I sure as heck hope that I am not wrong for the sake of the network.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

I always loved to admit if i was wrong. I try to refrain from the concept of Ego.
Not admitting to be wrong (mostly to oneself) doesn't help here.

Good, that is what I like to hear. If you want to be fully honest, give me a time frame because people tend to use that excuse too. How long do we need to wait to declare that this was nothing and that time has proven it? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? You pick it, I give you full freedom.

The Bitcoin ecosystem relies on an important feature: Consensus.

Good point you bring up, because the reality of the matter is that we don't even have a definition of consensus in Bitcoin! That is why it is so hard or near impossible to subvert it, where would you even begin? You can sow dissent sure, but there is no formal definition of what constitutes consensus here. There are only vague ideas and approximations.

And yes, my Grandma even made me think over some decisions in my life, even when she seemed to have no significant insight.

Did grandma say to revise the mathematical formula and solutions or did she say something in the direction of just think about it again? There's a big difference between the two. One is good, the other one is terrible. Social media encourages the terrible one.  

You can see it like this:
If you were up to decide and meet strong resistance, you're better off more questioning the decision and less the resisting ones.
Again, this needs certain control of your Ego, which you don't seem to have (i'm sorry).

I just don't tolerate pure retards and misinformation, that doesn't mean that I am not dumb too. You'd never guess my real nym on IRC

I have dealt with programmers since 1978 while in my it work in the Navy. Many are like you

"know it alls with huge fucking egos"  there are at least four or five on this site.

The funny thing is, I am not a programmer. I am a systems researcher, programming is my weak side.  

When time passes and nothing happens from the core 30 "upgrade"

I will be the first to say you were correct to argue that it is correct.

and if it becomes a huge mess you should be the first to come back here and say wow Phil you were correct and the developers are fuckups when it came to this.

Let's make a deal then. How long do we need to wait to confirm enough time passed? We can't leave it up indefinitely otherwise you can bring up any bogus lawsuit 10 years from now and say look I was right! I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but I sure as heck hope that I am not wrong for the sake of the network.

that is a fair offer lets give it til Feb 2027 which is about 15 months.

 I figure that is long enough to see if an attack causing a huge mess will happen due to expansion to 100,000kb.

I know you could be correct and it is a non issue

although maybe I am right and caution would have been better.

[Satofan44]

that is a fair offer lets give it til Feb 2027 which is about 15 months.

 I figure that is long enough to see if an attack causing a huge mess will happen due to expansion to 100,000kb.

I know you could be correct and it is a non issue

although maybe I am right and caution would have been better.

The pick is more than fair and a honest one. I accept it. I will bookmark this post. Of course it is better that I am right about this in terms of consequences for the network, but let's wait and see.

What about you OutOfMemory? Do you want the same date or do you want more time?
If the Core side is proven to be right again, I hope that some of you will take that as a lesson to stop siding with the doomsday side in the future (regardless of the topic). The stories that Core is corrupt, that Gloria fucked her way to the top, that OP_RETURN will be the end of us all are easy to believe because of narrative bias. They are all appealing and juicy stories. The opposite of this is "everything is fine, nothing is wrong"; it is just very boring. Most people tend to be biased towards some juicy stories, even if they consider themselves "independent thinkers" (which is not possible for those that easily fall under this spell).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

that is a fair offer lets give it til Feb 2027 which is about 15 months.

 I figure that is long enough to see if an attack causing a huge mess will happen due to expansion to 100,000kb.

I know you could be correct and it is a non issue

although maybe I am right and caution would have been better.

The pick is more than fair and a honest one. I accept it. I will bookmark this post. Of course it is better that I am right about this in terms of consequences for the network, but let's wait and see.

What about you OutOfMemory? Do you want the same date or do you want more time?
If the Core side is proven to be right again, I hope that some of you will take that as a lesson to stop siding with the doomsday side in the future (regardless of the topic). The stories that Core is corrupt, that Gloria fucked her way to the top, that OP_RETURN will be the end of us all are easy to believe because of narrative bias. They are all appealing and juicy stories. The opposite of this is "everything is fine, nothing is wrong"; it is just very boring. Most people tend to be biased towards some juicy stories, even if they consider themselves "independent thinkers" (which is not possible for those that easily fall under this spell).

thank you and lets stop fighting over it .. It is done while I would have preferred a multi step approach to get there maybe  this is better.

Worst case scenario it sucks and there is a reset backwards to a lower number.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com