I do not actually CARE who you are.  As long as you are playing that sort of game.

Maybe you are someone I respect or at least used to... dunno.

lower fee do not cause more centralisation.. its actually the opposite way round

when fee's are high users lock their value to middlemen, causing more centralisation of fund control

when mining pools get too much profit. they buy more asic farms to centralise the hashing. but the distributed hobby miners due to not having great deals on electric and hardware cannot buy as many asics in one go to compete.

when pools take a 2% cut of reward + X% of fee's they can expand their single location asic farm faster than hobby miners distributed around the world getting only 0.000x% share of reward+fees

it doesnt matter how high the fee's go the individual independent asic owners cannot compete compared to the pool owners

its the economics of any industry manager-worker relationship
if general income is X but manager gets 2% and worker gets 0.0002% the more income the business earns the manager profits the most

think about it.. (asic costs $4k)
if a manager gets 2% of $270k ($5375) he can add 4 new asics every 3rd block
if a worker gets 0.0002% ($0.54) he can get one new asic once every 7400 blocks

@BritishHodl
This is what a Spot ETF in the USA did to Gold for 8 years.

8 years of up on an asset with a flexible supply schedule.

What do you think is going to happen to #Bitcoin  which has a fixed defined supply, that halves every 4 years, of which people that own the coins HODL 80% of them?

These bearish on #Bitcoin  ETF people are either the stupidest people on earth, or have an agenda to be bearish.

Like the Gold sellers did when I was telling people to use GLD, they hated me because their business was dying.

Just on price - how can you be bearish on a Spot #Bitcoin  ETF?

We can argue ideology and philosophy.

But we can’t argue financial physics of supply and demand.

https://x.com/britishhodl/status/1738294151869862253

miners dont see the transactions!!

mining pools decide on the transactions
stop using the scripted PR campaign shown to you by dumb-dumb group to try to make it as if its the miners are the cause

miners dont handle transactions.. they just SHA256 hash
miners are not making political decisions on code
miners do not write code
miners did not open the exploit
miners are not the ones to fix the exploit
the exploit has nothing to do with asic firmware
thus has nothing to do with miners

the core devs opened the exploit the core devs can close it.
adam back is not even a dev. but a manager of the devs and he has commanded that they do nothing..
he hypocritically then says devs should work on other networks and promote other networks instead.. as the things bitcoiners should use (facepalm)

core devs should fix bitcoin issues not be subverted into helping subnetworks become popular due to their employers politics

bitcoiners should not be made to move over to other networks

bitcoin devs should concentrate on bitcoin issues not the politics of their employer

It appears the writer of this news article does not read between the lines hehehee. Luke Dashjr did not capitulate on his criticism on Ordinals. What Ocean Mining is only doing is it will recommend 3 block templates for their miners and let them decide what they want to use. I speculate that this is only the beginning. Luke Dashjr might have a roadmap already created to minimize Ordinals' effect on fees.


Sarcastic Luke

Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr fought the rise of Ordinals, which he called "spam," but now his mining pool is allowing them.

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

With the update, Ocean says, miners can choose from three block template policy options: Ocean Recommended, focusing on what the company calls “real” financial transactions with minimal spam; Bitcoin Core with the “Ordisrespector” spam filter; and the unmodified Bitcoin Core, mirroring other pools with fewer financial transactions but more “spam”—meaning Ordinals and BRC-20 token transactions.

Source https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions

Bitcoin mining company Ocean has announced a change in its stance on Ordinals inscriptions, allowing miners to decide whether to process Bitcoin blocks containing non-financial transactions. Previously, the company prohibited such actions. This move comes as a surprise to many, given the company’s and Luke Dashjr’s hardline stance against Ordinals in the past.

There's no easy way to undo ordinals at this point. You are going to need to gather enough capital and mining power involved to basically push for what would be a BTC hardfork without ordinals, and this would need to be done in a way that guarantees no future ordinals are possible, but then again, how do you this without causing another hardfork civil war, and how do you do it without getting rid of taproot? because if taproot is possible, I believe there could be ways around any restrictions put into ordinals to come up with alternatives.

It appears the writer of this news article does not read between the lines hehehee. Luke Dashjr did not capitulate on his criticism on Ordinals. What Ocean Mining is only doing is it will recommend 3 block templates for their miners and let them decide what they want to use. I speculate that this is only the beginning. Luke Dashjr might have a roadmap already created to minimize Ordinals' effect on fees.


Sarcastic Luke

Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr fought the rise of Ordinals, which he called "spam," but now his mining pool is allowing them.

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

With the update, Ocean says, miners can choose from three block template policy options: Ocean Recommended, focusing on what the company calls “real” financial transactions with minimal spam; Bitcoin Core with the “Ordisrespector” spam filter; and the unmodified Bitcoin Core, mirroring other pools with fewer financial transactions but more “spam”—meaning Ordinals and BRC-20 token transactions.

Source https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions

It does hit really hard for people who like DCA and do not keep their money in centralized exchange, in fact because this F*cking ordinal is really hard for everyone except the miner who get 3-6 Btc in a single block.

Merchant or a freelancer like will be also hit by the high fee because they should consider the fee and must to add to their service for a freelancer and merchant might see less people using bitcoin if this not allowing down

I have used some XMR and LTC recently ( which were quite fast and cheap), it is almost impossible to move btc now. Curiously, those coins are not performing well...

I don't the correlation between in-cash and paper BTC. Bitcoin ETF will be a highly regulated product, given the position of the SEC.

I don't see a problem with "in-cash" settlement, considering most in market participants would be entering in cash, would make sense from a financial/accounting side to exit in-cash as well.

Some drawbacks floating around is fees/fees and more fees. Given the state of the mempool, i think settlement in cash maybe more of an advantage, given the cost to sell on an exchange is less than 1%

We have each said our parts, and I don't really disagree with anything that you said in terms of various ways to play both sides, and sure, you have to have something at stake in order to make money in those kinds of presumptions that you have, and even if some of the pre-ETF type discussions were likely a lot of the run up from $26k/$27k, that does not even mean that complete denial of such an ETF would mean that we would have to correct down to those kinds of levels or that they would even be reasonable, including the idea that they might have  already been quite suppressed BTC prices as our starting point... so if we are starting from quite suppressed prices (just thinking in terms of the 200-week moving average as a kind of guideline for what bottoms tend to be and what is reasonable for possible bottoms), then going back down to either those low prices of $26k/$27k or even $24k/$25k - which was also not that long ago that we were there, but even more so your expectation of $20k-ish just seems like similar kinds pie in the sky expectations for sub $500 that were being made in March 2017, and sure anything is possible, but sometimes, we get to a point where that ship has likely sailed and you are being a bit of a dumb ass to be considering 30% to 40% below the 200-week moving average as any kind of base-case possibilities of something that could happen, even if some bad news (regarding ETF rejection or whatever) ends up happening.

"When you're buying this much, it could take 3 or 4 days. It takes a day to accumulate 50 million dollars worth of Bitcoin. If you're buying it every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day, it takes you a day. Every 5 seconds. So, while I'm doing that, I've a lot of time to stare at the screen and think about it, and, you know what I'm thinking while I'm actually buying every 5 seconds, for 4 days in a row? I'm thinking, who are these people that are selling this to me? And I feel sorry for them. What are you going to buy with the cash that I'm giving you, that's better than what you're selling to me? I hope that they're getting married with the money, or they're buying a yacht, or a jet, or something that they really love, because if they're trading it in order to buy another asset, I just pity them."

— Michael Saylor

[Source]

Stonks got smashed today...so, maybe, bitcoin would get it's own "smashing" in the next day or two..or, instead, some overheated sh-tcoins would get smashed and btc declines peacefully or stays flattish.