We know already that Bitcointalk's table formatting is quite buggy.
For example we need to apply some tricks to get a proper size of the first column: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105539.0

But one of my tables is making issues.
It's not a big table but I can't enlarge one column in it:



If I add more _ _ _, it's resulting in a retun and my _ _ _ continue below... :





It's weird because preview is fine...  


It's not useful at all to have such a limited space.
Any solution anyone? Why does it seem to be a limited space per column?

Kein Problem, das wertvolle BTC habe ich an deine in der PN genannte Adresse gesendet. 

---

Ist notiert und habe mich mit GazetaBitcoin bereits abgestimmt.
Dass du den Ledger hier anbietest, ist sehr generös, mal sehen, ob sich wer meldet. An minerjones habe ich ebenfalls bereits eine Bestätigungsnachricht gesendet, dass er Becheid weiß und ihr alle Details mit ihm ausmachen könnt.

---

Danke für die öffentliche Info und die weitere Abwicklung samt PN an gbianchi.
Mal sehen, was gbianchi schreibt, entweder hier oder in der PN, dann sehen wir weiter. 

Das passt ebenfalls, habe ich als Nr. 26 hinzugefügt, allerdings etwas abgekürzt, damit es in die Tabelle passt.
Diese Durchhalteparole kann man sogar so abändern, dass man bei stagnierender Wirtschaft / stagnierendem Aktienmarkt einwendet, dass Bitcoin sich schon bald von Aktienmarkt lösen wird um in der Folge im Preis stärker anzusteigen.
Oft auch auf Gold bezogen. 

What our Universe looked like in the most early days is a very great analogy. From what science knows, it has been extremely chaotic. But could we have lived in such an environment? Very unlikely…
As most of the dust had settleted down, galaxies emerged, it still took a very long time until our solar system came into existance.

And after a long time, our planet finally got habitable. To reach that point, most of the chaos needed to be settled.
It’s similar to Bitcoin as a great example how to settle a space formerly known for chaos (or at least failed (but still important attempts or researches) like from Chaum) or we can also take our DT system to a lesser degree. It settled down chaos (scammers) and there’s a set of rules and these rules / DT1 members can be changed by the community if there’s consensus to do so. 

---

As someone living in a capitalist country, I believe we should arrange the shop like that, to make them buy the most expensive products and more than they wanted to buy.
It’s called product placement.
Just a joke, sorry. 

---

It's not unlikely that Elon Musk would end up as pirateat40 or be someone who's running 1xbit. 

---

Regarding governs / governing mechanisms:

As franky 1 has explained already very well, we should try to get an understanding of governs / governing mechanisms / government / governance and consensus.
I’m more used to it to understand "govern" as a verb ("to govern"). At least for our article, I’m referring to "governance" from lat gubernare, which can be applied to a nation state, a community, a sports club, a company, a protocol and so many more. Governance can be achieved in many ways and one important part of governance is to act accoring a consensus.
This consensus should be as fair as possible and involving everyone who’s affected by it. It’s not easy to do it and some people might consider authoritarian governances more efficient but efficient is not everything: It’s efficient vs. fair.

I’m in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one. Yes, an efficient one might have advantages but also disadvantages.
Bitcoin is efficient and fair, so it’s already a very special form of governance and I would of course agree to it to call it a fair governance.
Maybe I’m just too focussed on Bitcoin’s tech but that’s what so fascinating about Bitcoin. It’s a special form of governance itself.

To extend this a bit, maybe we can elaborate our current DT system. As you’ve explained, creating trust is essential here on Bitcointalk because (almost) everyone here is an anonymous actor. Scamming is quite easy because scammers can run away easily. So, we need to evaluate, who’s trustworthy to avoid getting scammed. Very early in Bitcointalk’s history, the community agreed to follow a member-based reputation system.
That worked well many years but it was very centralized because DT1 members were picked by theymos.
Some trolls compained that DT is just beneficial "for the elites of the forum" and that some DT members would abuse governance.
But still, DT has been very centralized and in 2019, theymos decided to improve DT by making changes, to make it more fair. Each Bitcointalk member could vote DT1 members in or out via their own trust list.
DT got much more decentralized which also enabled more scammers to get into DT because a vaccum of power always gets abused but overally, making DT more decentralized has been a success in my opinion because changes were evaluated diligently.

So, any opinions on what DT system you would favor?
-   DT before 2019 changes
-   DT after 2019 changes
I would go for a DT after 2019 changes because it’s more fair, more inclusive. More members can participate and be part of DT decisions.

So, yes, we should try analyze what’s a good (fair) governance and what’s a bad (closed) governance and we should try to support and improve the good (fair) governance. We should not oppose a governance itself because it will be replaced by someone powerful trying to seize any vacuum of power.
So, we need to make any system resistant against abuse itself and Bitcoin is achieving that, Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.
A similar issue will come up if we look at PoW vs. PoS. We can take Polkadot, for example, where dPoS (delegated PoS) is used. Polkadot’s inflation is 10% per year and these inflation coins will go to stakers, which are already rich and will make them even richer. In dPoS such rich stakers will be able to consolidate their power, which will lead to a massive centralization over time. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years. 

---

Yeah, that's an important point.

Barlow only supported Cheney before Cheney became known for supporting Bush's war. And then, Barlow stopped supporting Cheney, which, in my opinion is a honoroable move because Barlow didn't want to support what Cheney supported because it was against Barlow's ideals. I'm honoring Barlow's decision.
In addition, Barlow has been a vocal critic of Trump before Barlow unfortunately died in 2018.

Politics is not easy because many people come and go. People should always review their own positions and endorsement, which Barlow did. No many people are reconsidering their own positions and endorsements because often it's easier to stay in power by not changing anything, by making convenient decision.
But Barlow stood up for what is right.  

Great and very detailed prediction, I've added it to my list.

---

Since time for participation is running out today, I'll also make my calculation:

Time left until January 31, 2023, 23.59h:
24 days
6 hours


On average, each day will be mined (1 Block per 10 minutes) 144 Blocks per day (6 Blocks per hour x 24 hours = 144 Blocks)

Calculation if we won't see any hashrate change:
(24 days * 144 Blocks per day) = 3.456 Blocks
+ (6 hours x 6 Blocks per hour) = 36 Blocks
= 3.492 Blocks until our given date

=>

3.492 + 770.843 (current Block) = 774.335


Now, we need to adjust our prediction due to difficulty changes.
Difficulty changes are made due to hashrate changes, which are following BTC price.
I'm expecting BTC to make a nice move towards 25k and more miners will join the network (hashrate increase) => more Blocks will be mined.
It's difficult to predict, how hashrate will be affected but I'm adding a total of 5% more Blocks to be mined.

3.492 * 1,05 = 3.666,6 Blocks

=>

3.666,6 + 770.843 (current Block) = 774.335

My prediction: 774.510

It's quite common that his far earlier coin DigiCash, failed. Quite a few electronic cash systems were launched back then and all of them failed, until Satoshi launched Bitcoin.  
So, I don't blame Chaum for failing.
It's like try and error. He made valuable contributions despite failing.  

But I'm quite disappointed how he launched and designed his new coin, xx-coin. Because we know he can do better, much better.
He abandoned everything what made Bitcoin so successful.

I have thought a lot about it why Chaum's coin failed and a few explanations I got are:

- He didn't made the decision. Maybe he hired some stupid marketing guys and they don't have any clue about a good crypto currecy. And his marketing guys advised Chaum very badly (probably).
- It's a trap! Maybe he's just testing waters to see how to make a perfect launch (unlikely because he collected VC funds).
- He's just clueless himself how to compete against several 10k shitcoins and after Bitcoin was launched over 15 years ago, crypto industry has changed a lot. And he messed it up...
...

I don't know...  


Most likely it is, dear GazetaBitcoin.  

---

But Bitcoin is governed by its code. And that's a good thing. The rules are simple enough and preventing abuse at the same time. That's what we need and Bitcoin is achieving that. Yes, it can be changed via nodes (a democratic element) but similar to a constitution, the code is very difficult to be changed (what's also a good characteristic, especially compared to Shitcoins).
I would differentiate between good governance and bad governance. Bad governance includes governance which can be abused, for example in PoS. I'm very critical of PoS because it's going into a different direction compared to Bitcoin. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years.  
Of course, PoS is also having advantages but I'm not convinced yet.

---

If there hasn't been a free and democratic vote (like North Korea) of our current government, paying taxes is voluntarily.  
Or we should establish such a rule globally.  

---

I can agree here and in my opinion it's essential to be able as a citized to vote out your government regularly if you government is abusing power. Bitcoin can be a part of checks and balances. Independant courts, a strong constitution or transparency against corporate corruption.
For example in North Korea, there are no checks and balances at all. It's a failed Communist state led by Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un can't be voted out, he's a maniac. People are piss poor. I would not want to live there. Checks and balances are very important and Bitcoin can be part of this and should be part of this in my opinion.
But I'm not an economist, so I'm not qualified to make a suggestion here.  

Done, all changes are finished. 
Back then I've just copied the explanation from where it was suggested, so I've not changed anything but of course, I'l try to add it right away next time for consistency purposes. 
And maybe it's easier for you to implement in into your own topic if I'll comment on all changes here. 

---

Done, I've removed the entry:

Alt Account accusations incoming. 

---

There's a giveaway about it. 

---

It's a very cute couch, GazetaBitcoin has confirmed. 


We are definitely looking forward to it. 

---

It's foul play due to our repeated delay in arranging our giveaway, because it dates back to somewhen early September and when we drafted the rules, Berlin still had summer time. 
And as I'm always in a hurry, I haven't proofred properly as LoyceV already named the last Block of January 2022 correctly.

While it's mentioned CEST and current Berlin time, you can go for what's more suitable for you and it would be completely legal since I've forgotten to change it. 

---

It's because I hate winter time so much, it's getting dark very early...

---

GazetaBitcoin has a cat as well and I don't hope the couch will suffer...
Some cats really like to scratch couches. 
(I'm not doing this)

---

Yessss, let's make it happen. 


I've added all remaining entries, please check if your entry is listed correctly as I'm always in for a mistake. 
And icopress is in as well. 

Interessant, welche Partnerschaften Avalanche so erzielt.
Ist zwar "nur" NFT aber trotz dass ich nicht allzuviel Nutzen in NFTs (zumindest im aktuellen Zustand) sehe, könnte vielleicht eine tiefergehende Kooperation in anderen Bereichen daraus resultieren. Ist immer gut, wenn Avalanche bei so großen Firmen schon einmal eine Zusammenarbeit hat, da kann diese leicht auf andere Dinge erweitert werden.  

Die Forumssoftware stellt die erste Spalte automatisch stets zu klein dar.
Keine Ahnung warum, scheint ein Fehler zu sein aus den Anfangstagen des Internets, aus denen die Forensoftware offenbar kommt...
Daher werden im Forum of Unterstriche zur Problembeseitigung genutzt: _ _ _  

Checked it today again and it worked well...maybe it's my VPN being very slow sometimes...

---

Done. 

---

Maybe such a feature will get added somewhen later. 
If so, we could add it to our main list.

---

I've added an additional text pointing it out. 

*expected / projected future block. 

Ein Klassiker!
Wer kennt nicht die Grafik, wo eine kleine orangene Säule Bitcoin darstellt und eine große, gelbe Säule Gold darstellt und damit impliziert: seht her, wie viel Potential in Bitcoin steckt, selbst wenn Bitcoin nur die Hälfte der Gold-Marktkapitalisierung erreichen wird, wird es für Bitcoin zum Mond gehen. 

Und bei Bitcoin kennt man die maximal existierende Menge, abzüglich der unbekannten Menge, die irgendwann mal verloren wurde und immer wieder verloren geht. 

Durchhalteparole entdeckt! 

Was Bitcoin einfach noch fehlt, ist die Historie als Wertspeicher. Wenn man Inflation + Wertspeicher hört, denken wohl 95% aller Leute zuerst an Gold.
Aber mit der Zeit könnte sich das ändern und Bitcoin wäre eine gute Ergänzung zu Gold.

John Perry Barlow provided some interesting thoughts here.
It's always amazing to see how early he provided his declaration, similar to Satoshi coding Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still unchallenged today, almost 20k Altcoins (or even more?) were launched much later, while still no meaningful contender of Bitcoin has been created.
If we consider how fast technology has improved (just remember how much GB an average smartphone could store 10 years ago - and now). Big difference. When we consider Bitcoin's tech and if Altcoin tech has become better - we need to admit, Altcoins are no game changers. Quite the opposite: Altcoins are rather meh. 

John Perry Barlow just died 5 years ago but he and his generation left us very interesting documents, analysis and technology. I know, I've told you about David Chaum as he's also one of the early cryptographers doing valuable research. Wikipedia writes:  "He has been referred to as "the father of online anonymity", and "the godfather of cryptocurrency".".

And Chaum has launched a cryptocurrency, too, called xx Coin.
Since Chaum is a very famous figure due to his previous work, I've followed his coin but over time, I've expected much more from him.
He launched his coin explicitly as a privacy coin (I've expected chaumian mints).

First: since Chaum has been a fierce advocate for privacy, his coin required KYC to purchase. 
Yes, a privacy coin that required KYC... 
Well, since KYC is legally required and Chaum's company seems to be based in the United States, I can understand him and it's completely fine to do so, but then, why did he refuse to give our coins for early supporters for free, could even be small amounts. Aks people questions about his coin, the tech behind it and allocate some coins for such apurpose before ICO is done.
KYC is only required for selling coins - KYC is not required for giving out coins for free (like Uniswap did for example). Still, Chaum's marketing department didn't consider that and coins were only sold via ICO / even to VC.
I can understand that he needs to sell coins to aquire money for marketing of his own coin. I can understand, that you need to compete against various heavily-funded Altcoins like Polygon or Polkadot. It's legit to sell coins to aquire some funds but messing up a launch like that - what did he expect? What did his marketing managers study?
Do you build a community like that? For a privacy coin?! Really?
Huge disappointment!

And second. Chaum is very knowledgeable and I've learned about his coin not later than 08/2019, when I've mentioned Chaum's coin on Bitcointalk (probably I've even read about it in 2018, I don't know). It was called Praxxis, when it was announced and is called xx-coin now. But as time passed, praxxis (later xx-coin) disappointed so much. In 2019, Chaum's app was released but it has been so buggy, new functions were promised but never delievered and this app was really useless. It was just a collection of some links and basic information - disappointing. At some point in 2021 I must have just deleted the app because it was useless.
Deadlines were postponed, empty promises made.
There's been little to no community building.
Chaum might be a good coder but their community building has been horrible...
No coins for interested people, no coins for early followers. Only sold via ICO to KYCed people and VC.
We know from Bitcoin how important it is to build a community.
Right now, his coin isn't even properly listed, most likely having an adjusted marketcap of 100M only, which would place it around marketcap place 200...


Maybe you can provide more insights here or at least what's your impression because in my opinion, David Chaum is a very interesting person.
How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES? 

Interesting article, I've reached my 50-Merit limit for your posts unfortunately, so don't worry, I'll come back here later. 

It’s really difficult to "label" Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin is only code, I wouldn’t label it as anything. It’s just Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has so many aspects and yes, we could "label" some of these aspects but we won’t get a clear picture what Bitcoin, as a whole, really is:

-   Libertarian = it’s your own money, you only need to remember 12 words
-   Progressive = a completely new technology
-   Conservative = Bitcoin will help to conserve your monetary value (hard money, capped at 21M coins)
-   Anarchist = Bitcoin is anti-dictatorship money
-   Constitutionalist = Code is law!
-   Transparent = everyone can verify if a transaction happened, coins were moved etc.
-   Private = people can take some steps to protect privacy
-   Democratic = run your own node and participate in the Bitcoin network
-   …. (I could add dozens more)

And yes, some of these single aspects can be labelled as "anarchist" or "libertarian" etc. but for (most likely) everything I can argue for the exact opposite.

Let’s take "anarchist", implying that means "unchained". At the same time, Bitcoin is completely the opposite of "anarchist" because Bitcoin is indeed following the same rules- for everyone. The rules are defined in the code.
Bitcoin is "unchained money" and "coded Blockchain money" at the same time.

There are so many explanations, what Bitcoin is. We could write some educated books about it, we wouldn’t find the answer because such an answer does not exist in my opinion.


Crypto Anarchists, like Eric Hughes, Tim May, John Perry Barlow or David Chaum have been the earliest adopters but I’m in doubt if they want to be labelled from an economic side.


Especially, I’m in doubt if they would want to be associated with what some "Libertarians" are intending, as "what’s Libertarian?" is hard to explain: there are so many people who claim to be "Libertarians" but when they are explaining their vision, I’ve so far not come to a conclusion what their end goal really is:

For example, let’s take people like Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Jeff Bezos just constructed a new "support yacht" because his new Superyacht needs a support yacht, where he can land his helicopter. Sounds completely exaggerated? Yes – but it’s true.
How could that happen? By wrongly applied "Libertarianism" because people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Peter Thiel are seeing "Libertarianism": "Nobody needs to follow any rules".

But that will ultimately fail.

Jeff Bezos is buying a "support yacht" for his new sailing yacht because he has too much money...

Elon Musk is orchestrating a shitshow on Twitter as he has done for Tesla (Tesla’s stock is down 60%, so many people lost money).

Peter Thiel is CEO of a private surveilance company (Palantir), and that company is know for spying on normal people. At the same time, he’s calling himself a "Libertarian" while he’s openly opposing the free market because in his opinion, monopolies are better. That has nothing to do with "liberal / libertarian" values. A free and fair market
But in his "Libertarianism", he’s allowed to create a monopoly, to crush the free market because Thiel simply can do it due to his wealth (and get even more wealthy from his monopoly). There’s a great article about Thiel’s bullshit here.
And similar to Thiel, many rich people are pushing such a "Libertarian" strategy.

"Libertarian" has become a sponge word used by everyone and the people pushing this "Libertarianism" (which is exactly the opposite of that what would be really beneficial for normal people like getting rid of powerful structures abusing anything to their advantage) just want to replace currently existing rules with their own rules.

And that’s where I’ve questioned how to turn Libertarian theories into reality because always someone like Bezos, Thiel or Musk will come and abuse a vacuum of power.
It’s very important to understand the consequences of a vaccum of power.
Some Libertarian theories explicitly try to remove any rules but when there are no rules (vacuum), this vacuum will be filled by those who have or will quickly accumulate power (money).

Maybe you’ve also played monopoly (the game). There are some rules how to play but it always turns out when very late in the game one person owned all of the streets, placing hotels on it and everyone else goes bankrupt (because you can’t pay your rent). That’s a likely outcome how Thiel’s vision would escalate quickly.
On a much bigger scale than our monopoly of course, where the monopoly game could be your city.

It’s not a secret that when there are no rules, chaos will arise. Just imagine the forum where no DT would be active, no rules would be in place and spam piling up because it’s not getting deleted.
Some players filling this vaccum might be nice, get powerful but don’t do many harmful things. Some other players filling the vaccum might be the opposite and they will abuse any vaccum for their profit. And these evil players will crush everyone, nobody could stop them at one point.
Similar like Thiel intends to construct his monopoly: remove all rules and when all rules are removed, use your money (power) to establish your own (insane) rules (his monopoly). Netzpolitik.org, the site where I’ve linked the article above, calls Thiel’s vision "anti-democratic Libertarianism".
And that’s exactly what Thiel is trying to do: trying to dictate the rules himself.
That’s vacuum of power.

I can’t see in regard of Libertarian visions any concept of how the end game could suceed.
Libertarians (or what some people claim to be) have provided interesting visions and part of that are very important and also relevant for Bitcoin. But the end game from Libertarianism is similar like Communism, it just doesn’t work because it’s quickly abused by a small, wealthy and powerful group of people.
So far, nobody could address arising problems of these visions, both Communism and Libertarianism.

Most likely "Libertariansm" is an utopia itself and Bitcoin is what we need to understand, how to fix some flawed libertarian thoughts. Bitcoin is so powerful on so many layers and it will probably teach us to understand some flaws of Libertarianism and other aspects because Bitcoin is addressing the vaccum of power issue.
There’s a big difference between what Libertarian theories say and what Bitcoin says. Bitcoin is following clear rules, everything is certain. There’s no vacuum of power in Bitcoin.

So, to come back to my initial conclusion:
In my opinion, Bitcoin is a big mixture of different characteristics and the mixture is very well evaluated making Bitcoin so promising.
It’s libertarian, constitutional, progressive, conservative, digital and verifiable at the same time. But removing the flaws for what Bitcoin does.
Something like Bitcoin has never existed before because it’s completely unique.

And in my opinion, it’ll never be possible to "label" Bitcoin properly because Bitcoin is so unique.

LOL, was für ein Ding, PN-Sperre? 
"PN-Sperre" gibt es nicht... 

Temporäre Banns gab es in der Vergangenheit schon öfter und es hatte selbst einmal Hhampuz erwischt, glaube es waren 7 oder 14 Tage.

PN-Spam ist, wenn "überflüssige Nachrichten" massenweise versendet werden, in den Foren Regeln heißt das wie folgt:

Ich nehme also an, es geht dabei um Werbespam, war damals bei Hhampuz genauso.
Die globalen Moderatoren entscheiden dann, wenn es viele Reports solcher persönlicher Nachrichten geben sollte, individuell.

Hier Faden von Hhampuz: Hhampuz Ban Appeal
Es waren auch 7 Tage damals bei ihm.

Game 1:  45, 54'
Game 2:  40, 14'

Achso, ja du kannst auch direkt fragen, weil ich wollte ja eigentlich nachfragen, wenn ich alle Namen der Gewinner an Betnomi übermittle. Das würde ich dann in der gleichen PM machen und wir hätten dann zusammen mit der Gutschrift der Wetten eine Rückmeldung von Betnomi.
Also fragst du dann direkt, weil sonst würde ich per PM am Samstag fragen?

---

Ja, Sportsbet ist immer recht kurz, ich meine sogar höchstens 4 Tage bei mir letzt.
Aber die Info, wie das bei Betnomi ist, wird uns definitiv rechtzeitig vorliegen. 

Gebühren für Transaktionen kannst du hier einstellen: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-manually-set-transaction-fees/
Oder hier, ist aber eine etwas ältere Electrum-Version: So wählt ihr die passende Gebühr für Bitcoin-Transaktionen

In der aktuellen Version gehst du da auf "Senden", gibst Adresse und Betrag ein, dann klickst du auf "Bezahlen" und auf "erweitert" kannst du die Gebühr anpassen. Mittlerweile kalkuliert Electrum das aber sehr genau.

Grundsätzlich "liegen" deine Bitcoins ja auf einer deiner vieler Adressen in Electrum und Electrum kann dort nichts "intern" hin und her schieben, denn dazu wäre eine Blockchaintransaktion nötig. Ich nehme an, dass du einen Seed hast (12 Worte) und unter dem Reiter "Adressen" in Electrum findest du alle deine Adressen. Man nennt das dann "deterministisch" (viele Adressen sind Teil des Seeds).

Im Reiter "Adressen" findest du nun grün und gelb markierte Adressen. Grün sind Empfangsadressen und gelb sind Wechselgeldadressen inkl. dem Betrag an BTC, der darauf liegt. Denn immer, wenn du von deiner Wallet einen Betrag sendest, erhälst du das überschüssige Bitcoin auf eine deiner Wechselgeldadressen zurück, sofern du nicht den gesamten Betrag auf eine Empfängeradresse sendest.
Der überschüssige Betrag landet also wieder auf einer deiner Wechselgeldadressen und wird dann für zukünftige Transaktionen weiterverwendet.
Wenn du schon Transaktionen getätigt hast, siehst du hinter den meisten gelben Adressen in der Spalte tx eine zwei. Das heißt, dass diese Wechselgeldadresse 1x eingehende Transaktion empfangen hat (Wechselgeld) und danach 1x ausgehende Transaktion, wenn du wieder was aus deiner Electrum-Wallet versendest.
Für diesen Wechselgeldvorgang verwendet Electrum immer neue Adressen, durch den Wechselgeldvorgang sind diese aber nichtmehr "neu", wenn du davon versendest. Es besteht stets eine Blockchainverbindung deiner Transaktionen mit Adressen deines Seeds.
Das ist bei Electrum Standard, weil dem zugrunde liegen die sogenannten UTXO (unspent transaction output, siehe Bitcoin-Wiki) bei Bitcoin. Diese unausgegebenen Transaktionsausgänge "liegen" auf deinen Adressen, bis sie in einer neuen Transaktion irgendwann weiter gesendet werden.
Dabei werden alle UTXOs auf deiner Adresse stets gebündelt und der ganze Betrag auf dieser Adresse wird versendet. Das ist Standard für Bitcoin und daher normal. Daraus resultiert aber immer, dass du einen Wechselgeldbetrag hast, der bei deterministischen Wallets von Electrum als Wechselgeld auf eine neue Adresse deines Wallets gesendet wird.

Was du vielleicht suchst, ist die Funktion "Coin-Control". Damit kannst du verschiedene UTXOs auf deinen Adressen ausgeben und andere gleichzeitig zurückhalten.
Es wird allerdings wieder eine Wechselgeldtransaktion erzeugt, die bei späteren Konsolidierungen ggf. mit deinen anderen Coins wieder in "Berührung" kommen könnte.  
Aber so kannst du von einer spezifischen Adresse in Electrum Coins versenden.  

Den Reiter "Coins" musst du gff. unter "Ansicht" und dann "Coins einblenden" sichtbar machen.

Danke für die Ideen, habe ich beides in die Liste mit aufgenommen. 
Bezüglich Spenden und Bitcoin passt ja dieser Text ganz gut und bezüglich des Zitats von Warren Buffett habe ich direkt das Zitat genommen, es in Anführungszeichen gesetzt und so in die Tabelle eingefügt, da das einfach am besten passt.
Habe lediglich ein "und" entfernt, da es sonst nicht in die Tabelle passen würde aber der Sinn bleibt unverändert.
Punkt 6 von hZti war zwar ebenfalls in die Richtung gemeint aber das Zitat von Buffett noch einmal separat aufgeführt passt trotzdem ganz gut in die Liste.

Alles gut, Preisdiskussion ist hier gern gesehen, es geht ja um den Bitcoin-Preis Ende 2023. 

Ja, das ist die Frage, welche Ereignisse Bitcoin am meisten geschadet haben. Ich hatte das hier schon einmal herausgearbeitet, dass der Bitcoin-Kurs bis Ende Mai 2022 eigentlich noch ganz gut aussah aber dann kam Terra Luna und das hat Bitcoin offenbar sehr getroffen. Im April 2022 gab es sogar fast ein neues Jahreshoch für Bitcoin.
Scheint so, als ob die kryptospezifischen Pleiten Bitcoin sehr stark im abgelaufenen Jahr beeinflusst hätten.

Heute sah der Markt ja schon wieder positiver aus aber bekanntlich kann sich das schnell ändern...