This is even a more ridiculous possibility than the idea that you sold your laptop with an entire Bitcoin stash in them and completely forgot about Bitcoin until you saw a site that sells wallet.dat files.

Posting consecutively is against forum rules.
You should merge your new post into the initial reply.

The topic on "renewable" is focused on the electricity which the mining rigs consume.
The societal perspective is that if it cinsimes much electricity them it's contributing to climate change as the high electricity demand requires more supply.

Miners can switch to more renewable sources and provided their own electricity, using wind or sunlight which would not cause damage to the environment.

One of my favourite is not from a very popular user, but one who made a thread I have very so often referred back to when looking for simple solutions to seemingly complex issues;


I find the quote particularly useful cause so many people claim to have missed the top or are too late to benefit from Bitcoin and while the post was made some years back, it applies to any year regardless.

Such cases can of course be analyzed. And that can only be done; on a case by case basis.

I can't give a general opinion on whether or not an action would fall under abuse of the trust system without considering the words used in the feedback as well as the evidence provided, if any. Such an action would throw lots of feedback ratings into a gray area and some users would not know if they are properly using the neutral tag option.

This is a topic that has been discussed several times on the forum and the general outcome is that no one can predict how the scenario would pan out.

Over 99% of Bitcoin have been mined already and we can already catch a glimpse of how the network would pan out over the next two halvings where about an extra 5% would be added to the total supply.
The response to this situation cannot be determined now.

Miners regularly shut down their rigs or equipments due to unprofitability, although not at a scale when there's a global situation, but if the current market is any indication, there would always be miners who would replace those who left.

In my experience the school system does not provide "perfect" education and graduates still have a lot of unlearning and relearning to do after exiting that system.

---

Op, do you plan to teach the technical aspect of Bitcoin (as much as the students can understand) or the area of financial literacy and independence? Or perhaps a combination of both.
You'll have limited time to impact knowledge as this would fall under extra curricular activities, so the beginner courses you talked about and some follow up lessons should be alright for now.

Sadly, there are a lot of such people in the world today and Wikipedia may be looking to pander to the general public by this action. I could interpret this action to mean; "we were not getting enough Bitcoin donations for the gamble we took to attract Bitcoin users and have decided to drop it in a way that makes us look good"
Would be nice if they actually returned the little donations received in cryptocurrencies.

If half the energy and awareness put into the perceived danger of PoW mining was directed to actual climate dangers, it would truly benefit the planet.

One big factor which would influence this is CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency).
If more countries adopt Bitcoin or launch their own blockchain related currencies to function alongside regular cash, that would draw in lots of users and spark more global adoption. With contribution from general growth of awareness about cryptocurrencies and new trends popping up like NFTs, then 1 billion in that timeframe is very reasonable.

What could be the effect of such wave? Well, it could dilute the number of users who actually use crypto covertly and remove the "crypto" in cryptocurrencies, as more centralized platforms emerge.

Yes. If RBF is enabled and the first transaction is still unconfirmed.

Both transactions cannot be in a "mined" block. Once one gets confirmed the other is invalid and if it has already been added to a block, so would the block too.

Two transactions from the same input cannot get confirmed. Once the first one is confirmed, it is considered to be a spent transaction output and cannot be spent again. That would be a major flaw.

You don't have to apologize for asking a question. Everyone in this community is here to help and learn from one another.
Okay, maybe not "everyone" 

So the parent UTXO is already confirmed in this scenario. Basically what you are suggesting is a double spend, when one tried to cancel out an initial transaction by double spending it.

Miners would likely favour the transaction with the higher fee. If the first transaction used a really low fee (in comparison with the surrent ferrate) it could get stuck in the mempool and remain unconfirmed, up till the time the second transaction is created, then the second one would likely be confirmed first if the fee paid is significantly higher.

Edit: missed the last part, as pointed out by BlackHatCoiner, this would only work if RBF is activated when creating the first transaction.

I believe you meant "bliss" in the topic title and not bless.

Do you only express concern about the situation in the world or actually take actions (no matter how small) to try and solve them?
If it's the former, then you could as well just maintain ignorance, but if you actually contribute to try to make the world better, then you are indirectly helping out someone and creating a healthier ecosystem.
World policies and activities affects everyone irrespective of whether you are aware of them, ignoring the problems would only make them larger until they would have to be noticed.

To store up something basically means to keep in a safe location while you're not actively using it. Day traders are actively trading and as such they are using the funds sent to their wallet, this does not count as storage. Using an exchange account to keep bitcoins you're not using overtime is storing and is not advisable

Exchanges are necessary for trades. Except one has a trusted individual they can trade with, you'll need them.

Note that your offline wallet is the best option, but it puts all the responsibility of safeguarding your address on you. You are responsible for;
• Your private keys (seed phrase) back ups,
• Your choice of wallet software or hardware.

Before I discuss this hypothetical situation, I should point out that no singular asset can be completely stable, it can experience reduced volatility and price fluctuations, but cannot maintain a singular value, especially as each asset is or can be compared to all other assest.

Now, if Bitcoin for whatever reason becomes stable next month; There would be a bit of restructuring around the utilities of bitcoin.
• Speculative value would reduce with volatility. Trades would still be possible, but longer term futures and shorting trades would not be as popular,
• Bitcoin would be more used as a hedge fund and store of value ,
• Bitcoin would be more used in daily transactions, without the need for processors.

NO.

Volatility has been on the decline over the past years.

When choosing a material for storing your seed phrase, it's advisable to go for a durable, yet malleable one, which can possibly survive accidents like fire, floods and is also not obvious, to avoid detection.

Paper wallets are called so, but that's not the safest material for storing the seed phrase which accesses ones portfolio, it is prone to so many accidents that can render it invalid;.
• Engraving on a metal sheet (like steel),
• Laser printing etc.

---

It is also always advisable to have your recovery phrase stored in more than one location.

In the event of this, there is an option of plausible deniability where you can create an extended passphrase to serve as an extra layer of security.
In this instance how much Bitcoin you own is not known, so you can keep a relatively small amount stored on the regular seed phrase and protect your full stash with an extended passphrase of which you know nothing about when interrogated or harrased.

---

By wipe out, do you mean delete the address and carry the seed phrase on you, to recover it on arrival.

If you operate an offline backup method (as you should), there is no extra required to store your used addresses and the corresponding seed phrase. You likely still own bitcoins and have a safe area where you store them, you can always keep your previously used mnemonics there as well.

The chances of one receiving bitcoins randomly to an address they no longer use is slim and making a mistake when sending should ideally not happen, but if there's no cost to save it and there's a potential downside of not doing so, no matter how slim the possibility is; It is best to keep it.

Thinking of it, I do not follow notable names in the Bitcoin world, a few names pop up like Hal Finney, but overall I do not really look up to anyone in the Bitcoin community. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of notable members who have cobtributed immensely to the growth of Bitcoin many of which would not be k own publicly.

This forum and all the members who keep it going as the most reliable resource for Bitcoin discussions after quite a number of years would pass as my Bitcoin heros and heroines.

Can I add "not using the search option before posting" to the mix?"

Reading through the same update on trending issues twice or having to read through a similar kind of post about merits, how to get them or some other generic stuff can be off puting to most.

There has been tons of posts and threads made in the forum, and there's a high probability that what you want to discuss has been takes about before, it does not hurt to do a quick search and maybe use that as a reference for your post, so it's not just a repetition.

I'm usually skeptical about any action taken to discourage posting in the Off-topic board, mostly because those members who contribute to the spam would not just pack up and leave, they would rather look for alternate boards to spam easily. This would greatly increase the job moderators do and add to the growing spam around the forum.

It's easy to not visist a certain board if you don't find it interesting, but if the same activity spreads around all the boards, that's not so easy to ignore.