make a multisig of X+1 surviving relatives..
EG if you have a wife and 2 kids = 3 surviving relatives. have a 4 of 4 multisig

you keep 1 key secret which goes into a will and give other 3 to your family upfront.
they can only unlock at the reading of the will to complete the key set. and the lawyer with access to only one key cant steal the funds alone

there are many sections of the bitcoin ecosystem
starting with most decentralised to least decentralised

key owners: decentralised milllions of keys, millions of devices, hundred countries+
full nodes archiving blockchain: decentralised tens of thousands of nodes, tens of thousands of locations, hundred countries+
asic miners: decentralised thousands of locations dozens of countries
pools: semi centralised dozens of pools handful of countries(cloud hosting services)
hashpower: semi centralised though lack of majority(<50% in one pool)

decision makers of the base network rules: centralised 6 lead maintainers working within one brand sponsored and lobbied by corporations

the weakest point of failure is the code developers that manage decide and implement the protocol level rules and no im not talking able the other brands that just follow rules and have different coded GUI, im talking abot the main rules of the networks decision makers.. and again for the multiple time that common sense needs to be mentioned. bitcoin was not created by god or AI. it was created via devs. so we need to watch review and scrutinise them and even have ways to veto them should they do shady crap

anyone saying dont scrutinise core devs and dont petition/protest against them are they types of people that want totalitarian control . we need to decentralise the decision makers

you mentioned active nodes. but ignored the question entirely.. the ability to propose network upgrades without getting REKT

its time you do some bitcoin history checking and see the term REKT and see how the core religion treat any proposal not part of the core road map to be an enemy and where all attempts to offer anything not part of the core plan was treated as something that should be forked away into an altcoin rather than an "even fair fight" or even a community option to upgrade uniting brands in unison with something the wider community would want.

it is funny how you admit though the other brands just "follow" the current ruleset. but again you ignored the part about which other brands can openly suggest network ruleset changes without being treated like an enemy..

i do laugh how you want to defend core devs honour by saying its not their fault all the time. yet bitcoin core code didnt write itself and the path bitcoin has moved to follows the core roadmap path.. it was not some god/AI to done this.

learn how bitcoin evolved and how certain features were activated, hint: it was not done by magic or a natural event

you might want to check your bitcoin history. the red line was crossed with a blackmailed unnatural 100% fake vote 6 years ago..

things like that should not be standard practice ongoing. and no its not the false perception of an even fight. learn tricks like backward compatible meaning users dont get to vote. and tricks like REKT like rejecting anything not core

tell me a brand of active node today thats not core that has a method for individuals to propose a network feature upgrade or change to the rules.. you wont find one because the centralisation has already occured. now we should be making sure devs dont fall foul to their power and realise they do have power instead of pretending "not their fault"

it was their code that allowed these tricks to be played to give them the control.
lets not just act like religious freaks saying dont blame them, its divine intervention and the way the world works.

we should hold them accountable and ensure they dont abuse their power consistantly

miners do not control the network.. miners dont write the code. it is really funny how people want to avoid discussing the developers and try to point the finger at miners

did you not realise that the last few updates made by core did not even require pools to have upgraded their nodes to be ready. all they needed to do was to change one bit of header data to say they wish to remain allegiant with cores path or else have their block rejected if they dont flag unity. it was not a case of rule checking. it was silly flag event activations. forcing miners hands to comply

ASICS do not have a hard drive to store the blockchain. asics do not have a CPU to verify the blockdata.. all an asic does is hash a 256bit length of data.. that is it.. miners are not a central point of failure or a point of control

the rules change due to developers. and when there is one empirical group of half a dozen lead devs self reviewing and not wanting independent review outside their club. then when you notice who makes the rules, you should start to see where the central points of failure are

EVERY lead maintainer that retired left with a resignation note that they fear the central point of failure being the development
satoshi left becasue people relied on him too much for decisions. gavin left with messages about how core maintainers were gaining power. and even wlad left with concerns of the central control core had gained

we should scrutinise the core devs actions and hold them accountable to any bugs they implement and get them to fix the flaws they create. we cannot pretend they are gods to do as they please to add things in. and then pretend they are just janitors, powerless to do anything when bugs appear.

they need to be accountable for their actions while in power and we need to make it so other brands can be part of the network on an EQUAL bases to cores power thus decentralising core power. where many brands can offer proposals and they all share their proposals and contribute and consider and even compromise to get something the majority will accept. then release code to be ready to verify the new rules. then activate the rules thus able to understand the data they receive. none of this crappy miscount, ignore, default valid without checking nonsense. actually have majority nodes ready and able to secure and validate the data and unite on a set of rules that decentralised and diverse node brands can all accept

people dont wait. they notice they can get more for their money and stock up


deflation of bitcoin has caused bitcoins price to increase over the last 14 years. so dont worry about bitcoin prices tumbling

what happens in reality is as long as wages do not decrease(has not happened yet) people get to buy more goods and have more spare cash to buy other things for the same income. thus they buy more items, including investing more

china last month did not decrease its minimum wage and wont change things +/- again until next years budget..
which shows people are getting more income and more products for that income.. a double win. meanwhile businesses had their last year greedflation of 14% extra profit and now doing an out-of-season clearance sale of -5% which is normal business range for seasonal goods provision whilst remaining in profit.

its not just exchanges.. even bitcoin devs are trying to push for a system where bitcoin is a reserve network for businesses/services to settle their reserves periodically and people are suppose to now use subnetwork bridges involving routing middlemen for their daily spends. yep routing that requires pass-the-parcel of reserve borrowing to hop along subnetworks paying a fee per hop

lets fight against the corporate agenda of holding bitcoin onchain development hostage where they want to offer middlemen services as a convenient alternative to the hostile stagnation of bitcoin onchain development

im saying bitcoin is not coded by AI.. im saying the code and the rules are decided by real world developers. by which you can pinpoint them down as the core maintainers.. and when you review them you get to see its only half a dozen that have a status to merge in any code changes to the reference client that everyone relies and follows. and they are also incharge of the moderations of what actually gets consideration

look at the core github and see who exactly has the merge/maintainer ability. its not that many

we no longer have a place where different brands of nodes propose their own upgrades to the protocol. instead its cores mandated activation date stuff that does not even need user nodes to upgrade first to be network supporting a new change. yep these days a change happens before the network is ready to support/verify the new stuff, thus a majority cant even veto or prevent a bad change.

they have not broke bitcoin* so people trust them like a religion and hate anyone speaking bad about them. its got so toxic that some treat it like a religion and think its blasphemy to even scrutinise or review the devs.
yet we should be scrutinising and keeping an eye on the rule makers and protesting when they propose something the  community does not benefit from. instead of giving them a VIP blind pass to implement anything thats been lobbied/sponsored by corporations to change the rules, where their religious follows dont like anyone teling them to not do x,y,z

*(but they have introduced some cludgy checks, unfinished features and features that have caused issues)

long story short. we should not give devs an all access VIP pass to do as they please. we should not have blind faith, belief and trust in their humanity.. we should always review scrutinised and protest/petition devs when they are not benefitting the wider community. if anyone says no one should tell devs what to do, those types of people are part of a centralised adoration religion.. and remember core devs are not god

we need to get back to a decentralised development of the network rules.. meaning multiple brands of nodes. and multiple brands sharing idea's where the best idea's get shared to all brands and all brands then accept it as the new rules and ready to verify data using new rules

goods deflation is good. its when they start lowering minimum wage or reducing salaries that you then see TRUE deflation that harms people

the silly thing is we see what western news is calling chinas deflation all the time.. most retailers call out "end of season sales", 'clearance sales'

whats not highlighted is the start of 2021 was "greedflation" where producers raised their wholesale costs by 14% and so they made profit and also excess stock......
.. which they are now selling the excess stock at 5% below 2021 prices this is standard practice

overall 2 year average is still profitable

it would only be true deflation/news worthy economically when it starts affecting peoples wages

controlling the spot market is difficult as there are many countries with many spot markets(exchanges)
however even though some countries have ETF markets everyone is waiting for the 'first mover advantage' of a US ETF

having an ability for everyone to see the banking laws is different to who gets to activate new banking laws.
having the ability to see everyone elses bank statements, but still control your own fund spending control is different to who sets the rules of what format of payments or financials tools can be used or not.

when you look at bitcoin history. you will see there has been many conflicts over new rules and every time there actually has been a small elite class of devs that do make the decisions and to activate new rules and new financial tools without needing the majority of users to upgrade first to vote/understand or accept the rules. the backward compatible trick means nodes dont need to be network ready to activate a new rule(that alone is a network security risk). thus new rules can be added without network readiness of majority. this means that a certain group which has dominated development has/can and will continue to change thing without mass consent (consensus) or readiness to verify new data types
this has been proven by their actual events of faking a 100%(unnatural but they managed it) compliance even before the actual network of nodes were even ready to understand and verify the new data.

certain people want others to just trust that devs are good hearted and 'just believe' in humans rather than actually scrutinise and verify code/data. however this has not played out well in the many conflicts where anyone not obeying the religion of core dev allegiance is to be treated as the enemy. thus giving ultimate control to core to be the sole proposer of new rules and sole brand to propogate the new rules without requiring majority users abstaining to vote out any potentially bad buggy/cludgy code

the block data is decentralised.. yes
users private key control of their own fund movement is decentralised.. yes
asic mining is decentralised.. yes

but the rule making decisions is done by half a dozen core dev maintainers who make the decisions and they are a central point of failure. their name 'core' is not by accident. nor is their REKT campaigns against anyone not in their allegiance group brand
we should always be reviewing and scrutinising them. if anyone tells you not to worry and just trust a dev, you are ignoring bitcoins main feature. verify, review and check

AI can analyse dta faster than a human brain. but it depends on what other information it has access to to then link it to a human or business that has access to the keys to move the funds. also AI cant demand a scammer return funds. thats for courts to do

AI wont brute force keys to return funds. because although they have algos to understand data better then humans. they dont have the power to brute the number of possible keys to get the private key to sign funds back to a previous spender

totally agree with this part in green

not quite accurate about this part in red

value vs premium is a range..
value itself is at the bottom it sits below the market and is not to be confused with price. value is the lowest most efficient mining cost on the planet. this sets the 'bottom' no one wants to sell below.. the speculation is then the volatile PRICE on spot markets that can range from value(bottom) to premium(ATH)
the market PRICE speculation is difficult to calculate because different people have their own different costs so willing to buy upto or sell down to certain amounts... however you can calculate the bottom value on the planet of the most efficient cost to know the bottom below market support
dont confuse value vs price

i am a bitcoin maximalist. however i am a realist, meaning i do not fear speaking of the bad side to make people fully aware of risks and facts of bitcoin ( i dont do the fluffy utopian dream crap)

a. individuals do not have a vote.. due to a trick invented in 2017 called "backward compatibility" users do not become part of a vote of which direction bitcoin goes, they do not need to have to upgrade their node to trigger a new protocol change activation. that option has been taken away from the wider community.

b. miners/mining pools do not write the code/changes/proposals. its the devs not the miners. infact any and all asics do not even have a hard drive to store the blockchain or bitcoin protocol code. all a miner does is hash a block header hash. that it

c. mining pools manage miners and mining pools can if the devs allow it do a flag day event to allow miners a choice to vote in an activation. or not. however devs can activate or code a change that just activates at a certain date no matter what

d. the devs have control over the change of direction of bitcoin. and they have many tricks up their sleeve. they can mandate a new proposal to activate where by in conjunction with partnerships with ECONOMIC NODES (those run by most famous services) choose which path to follow making users and mining pools follow as sheep, else not have their funds seen transact with those services if they dont comply with the rules the services use.

over the last 8 years we have seen a centralisation of a group of 6 main decider devs called core maintainers. they have moderation control to decide whos code even gets popularised in discussion or ignored, and what gets given the privileged to be merged into the release candidates of the sole proposal making reference client

even previous lead maintainer devs have admitted when they retire that core have become like their namesake a central point of failure which should decentralise.


..
that being said. your funds on your key belong to whomever has access to that key. so as long as you own that key and not told anyone. no one can steal those funds. however the small risk of possibility is if some altcoin scammer sues cored evs and wins to open a back door to remove funds ownership without signature proof.. or some government sues the core devs to make a code alteration to ignore certain addresses or blacklist addresses from being allowed to transfer coins. where governments can do the same to the economic nodes too (famous well used services such as regulated exchanges) then thing can change, but most of the time these abusive changes occur from the core dev involvement first then the wider community second, third fourth place

the previous paragraph is objectionably a small risk to individuals. but whilst certain groups are shouting "blame asic owners if things go bad" the truth is to keep an eye on core devs code decisions in concert with economic nodes allegiances where they change things for the benefit of corporations more then individuals, and or just brutalise the rules for their personal internal reasons, and/or if any legal actions are held against them for governance/regulation reasons to brutalise the rules

there is no single individual/group that has all-access to the blockchain data or everyones keys to just delete the blockchain or sign their funds away from them. the data is safe from any individual, group, entity, corporation, government abuse.. however the future code changes are subject to decisions done by core devs. so they are the ones to keep an eye on, review and scrutinise. and not be blindly trusting of.. there are some code changes that can be added(and have been) to cause issues for users

The OP explained exactly the experience of RBF in his own question. no need to beg him to supply TXID as the vanished $1k version is gone(rejected) so no investivation or new info can be gathered

the 20min wait for the $1k to be left unconfirmed shows there was an insufficient fee paid, thus later the $100 appear with a priority fee(higher) and so at the 20th minute the $100 confirms thus completely making the $1k rejected.

in short yes the sender done a RBF scam on the user and the user should demand the remaining $900 from the sender if the receiver required $1k

as for others warning about not to blindly trust zero confirms. this is true for amounts more then the price of a soft drink. pizza of something small. and especially true for the subnetworks that mess around with unconfirmed 'smart contracts' that dont settle when received, but days, weeks months later. as they too have many ways to switch around which tx gets confirmed finally later on

the usual loose guideline of risk tolerance has been (before RBF existed)
zero confirm: <$30 (0.001)
1 confirm:>$30 (0.001+)
2 confirm:>$300 (0.01+)
3 confirm: >$3k (0.1+)
4 confirm: >$30k(1+)
5 confirm: >$300k(10+)
6 confirm: >$3m(100)

some still use this loose guideline but be sure to keep im mind that RBF has made it easier to steal from zero confirm and also from certain subnetworks that have badly developed mechanisms

even if a US min wage is $10, meaning a month(160 hours) is $1600 meaning 0.05479452
even if 3rdWLD min wage is $0.10, meaning a month(160 hours) is $16 meaning 0.00054794

if bitcoin 4x in a couple years both do not get 4x returns

this is because with a average 6800sat ($2 today. $8 later in tx fee)
3rdWLD withdraws only 0.00047994 from a cex
and then later deposits into a CEX 0.00041194
meaning 4x price would be $48 (25% loss due to fees of ~6800sat x2) instead of ~$64 expectation

where as US withdraws 0.05472652 from a cex
and then later deposits into a CEX 0.05465852
meaning 4x price would be $6384 (0.25% loss due to fees of ~6800sat x2) instead of ~$6400 expectation

a much better stat is if they looked at how many working age individuals achieve a income of 'living wage' which usually is 160hours a month of 1.5x of minimum wage

and how many achieve just the minimum wage of a full time job(160 hours a month)

most CBDC have national reserves in a multisig style. between the central bank and commercial bank. this is the distributed ledger controlled and distributed between the central bank and commercial bank, where its less of a blockchain and just a chain of UTXO updating the last state.. which this distributed ledger of an updated multisig  is where they invent new money and control total supply
below that is a separate network of the commercial banks having "payment channels" re-organising the IOU of the reserves between each other
and below that is the communication channels between customer and commercial banks that then have customers request their bank to route the balance through the commercial bank channels to other banks and thus other customers(destination)

both in law and in practice(if people researched CBDC and FIAT) central bank does not just shut down a citizen/user
in both old fiat and CBDC the commercial bank(middlemen) monitor its customers.. report those bad customers up the level and then if a court order tells them to freeze and seize a customers balance then they will

no bank just steal funds for no reason. a commercial bank can have its own policy to stop servicing a customer but has to give the option for the customer to remove funds and go elsewhere. again only if reported for suspicious activity and then receiving a court order allowing the courts to seize the funds would a customer be at a loss..

do not confuse this with situations where unregulated boiler room scammy services that just shut down or steal funds..

its also worth noting even china's CBDC is not where the chinese PBOC has control of citizens funds nor watches them all. instead then china has a list of a dozen commercial banks that have the commercial banks managing their customers and only reporting the suspicious customers. chinas CBDC even has accounts that dont need KYC, achieved by having a set limit on the im bound(balance) for a customer, thus people can still transact between different people and services without thinking its just one bank controls all

its worth people actually looking into this stuff to find the real flaws of real prototypes rather then sounding like idiots making up false fears of false problems thus by unhelpful in actually raising the real points of issues and functions

windfury.. you have never said anything at all in this entire forum that was not first instructed to be said by your mentor or his forum wife.. so please try to for once get a mind of your own so you could possibly come up with idea's, and also where you can learn from the community instead of your forum daddy and mom admirers

secondly. if you continue thinking the only teams are core vs bitcoin unlimited/ABC then you really have been indoctrinated into dumbness.. there are hundreds of thousands of dev in thousands of teams some are not even in teams.. LEARN the words independence. diversity. decentralisation. zero points of failure

thirdly you dont need a monarchy/tyrannical style of organisation.. which core has made for itself..
instead individuals can be individual and have the ability to individually propose stuff without a centralised sanitised moderated system of mandated control. instead idea's should flourish and have levels of progression when they get recognition whereby for instance instead of one node brand owning the network. there would be multiple brans and even individual options. and they all have a pathway to propose upgrades to the network. where by those proposals are shared with other brands/individuals. and develop in both progress and compromise into something all brands like and enjoy and all offer..
thus achieving a majority acceptance to then activate

you think the only option(well your mentor taught you to think) the only option is core and anything else is a rival.. as your quote portrays your ill-conceived notion that its core vs enemy notion
..
you are so deluded about bitcoin history, bitcoins ability and the path bitcoin could go and the path bitcoin went, that you are not even seeing who is behind the decisions. because if you did know you would see the corporate puppetry which you then cry about in this topic

as for this topic. you have even less clue about CBDC again you seem to be getting your info from an idiot source and not from any real research. you lack even the basic understanding of how any of the current CBDC prototypes in existence function.

its time you spend less times sounding like your mentors echo and spend some time actually learning how things work and how things progress and make some decisions for yourself without your mentor informing you of an opinion you should follow.

if you really want to learn about CBDC then go to the sources, the BIS with their M-bridge and prototype connecting CBDC's and the hyperledger project

and ill give you a tip
even a central bank of current fiat and new CBDC fiat do not have politicians or central bank CEO sat at a computer watching everyone..
in old and new fiats they all support delegating that task to partnered(licenced) commercial banks. where is the commercial banks that monitor their own customers and only report the bad ones to the higher levels

learn this stuff

then learn how bitcoins controlled development went a certain direction in 2017 and the causes and who paid for the sponsorship of that direction.. and the tip is.. it was not "the community"

"core devs maintaining" is not decentralisation.. even their brand name debunks your theory
CORE=CENTER

core(2014-18) was blockstream managed, whom received hundreds of millions of dollars. this money was not random generous donations from hoards of random individuals. its was a structured investment deal from corporations ..

also the community did not decide.. all user nodes did not need to upgrade to vote. the "backward" trick ensured the community didnt need to decide. but for the false vote of UASF, they did not even achieve a 20% vote

instead it was cores sponsors (NYA) that made the decisions and that also relied on a MANDATORY activation method.. dont play dumb now.. over many topics you have been shown the charts of the blockdata flags which reference what caused what. dont play ignorant or forgetful.. the blockchain is immutable it cant be edited to fit your silly narrative nor anyone else's.. the data is the data.. the best source there is.. use it

its better you use data of the immutable blockchain and code as a source, not your social drama buddy group to put gas into you and then fear someone else burning you when others enlighten you

again its time you do your research

have you even bothered looking at blockdata, code, the sponsors, hyperledger. if not then you are not great at seeking the connections and data.

learn something, escape the gas chamber then you wont get gaslit or burned.