not really a precedent

its much the same as
"this guy stole my lawnmower"
judge: "give him back his lawnmower"

not all compensations/debts/thefts/frauds or orders to honour loans/agreements/returns need to be honoured in fiat

but still. atleast it shows that spanish judges accept bitcoin as a item of value that needs to be returned as is in the same condition as it was taken(plus extra for inconvenience caused). rather than some judges just dismissing cases thinking its two kids fighting over monopoly money

he hoards bitcoin. but he wants everyone to stop using bitcoin and instead deposit their bitcoin into his custodianed "factories" of another network to get "inbound balance" of a different unit of measure to be locked into playing with on this other network.. (i would mention the other network by name*(triggering their bots) but the usual 'other network' lemmings usually crawl into the discussion and spout their broken promises of why people should ignore me and instead use their network.

if saylor cared about bitcoin he would be sponsoring devs to fix bitcoin exploits. not sponsor the creation of exploits just to annoy bitcoiners in the hopes they shift over to his prefered other network he pretends is bitcoin

*it begin with L and is the flashy zap of electric in the sky that causes thunder sounds

the standard fee rate has not always been sats per byte
there was a min fee rate of 0.001 no matter the bytes used. so it never "always" started at 1sat.byte

also there was later introduced a fee formulae that had a score rating where the age of the coin and the amount spent rated at a score and if you had a good score you had priority witohut paying a fee. if you had a bad score you had to pay a fee to multiply the score to reach that score..

that fee formulae was later removed

it was only after the "core take over" that things changed again.

and for your information core did not do the miscounting of byte to make fees cheaper.. if you read the code its actually made the original formats(legacy) 4x more expensive. yep was a X4 not a /4

the measurement not actually sat/1kvb or plain 1kb.. the cludge of miscounting bytes is where legacy gets a x4 rating of weight units
yep when a block of pure legacy transactions, which only take up 1mb of REAL blockspace of REAL bytes stored in blockdata and hard drive. they are treated as 4mb of weight and given a fee price 4x more

have a nice day checking out block data to see segwit does not get a discount. but its that legacy that gets the premium.. there is a difference

fees have not become cheaper since 2016. they are actually more expensive as you have learned this year with blocks spending over $1 per tx and even upto $70 per tx.. yet the fees in 2023 have been the highest fee's ever paid in the whole history of bitcoin.. thanks to taproot

yep a exploit of taproot allowed fee mania to cause bloat and misuse of the network to make fees the highest fiat cost EVER.. so try not to pretend that taproot caused fees to be cheaper than history

and try to remember taproot was meant to be invented with the pretend promise of a new scripting standard of one signature length.. but again as we all know taproot actually allowed longer scripts.. and junk data be added.. not less

code is great because.. guess what its code.
core actually can write code that looks for rules/formatting requirements of tx/blockdata,, as it should do.

EG if something is in a witness it can actually be set to actually need to meet a specification/format/structure, where the witness has to serve a purpose such as proving the spend of a utxo (its purpose)

its not about "just cut off a witnesses head" its actually to make sure the witness has a proper recognisable head rather than a dead weight corpse with a monkeys face stitched on.
speaking of cutting off witnesses heads. you were the one advocating for prunning data.. which in of itself is centralising the blockchain by having less nodes collating and keeping full bloackchain data to serve out to other peers.


just letting junk in is not helpful to the bitcoin network. and again code can be made to actually do things. stop pretending its impossible to use code in a digital network.

but i do have to laugh that you want people to continue to be able to spend 1sat plus a monkey meme to not be examined for formatting standards, nor rejected..  and just allowed to proceed into a block..
..yet you dont want actual bitcoins wanting to spend less than 100000sat($27) on a pizza or 10000sat($2.70) on a coffee to use bitcoin, you want those people to be rejected and not seen in the blockchain..

but here is the funny part.. you pretend its about byte bloat of too many people transacting $27 or $2.70 values
but guess what

someone spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 10000sat
                                    outchange 99990000sat
vs spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 99990000sat
                                    outchange 10000sat

is the same number of bytes
yep each value is the same number of bytespace no matter how much value is in those bytes

so when you are the one trying to censor someones "small payment" pretending its about "conserving" blockspace. you have no clue about the bytes used per output value

you also seemto go against your own pervceived conservatism by not caring if a 1in 2 out tx with the "small value spend" then attached 3.96mb of bloated meme. so that debunks your whole byte conservativism game.. when you then flip your narrative your your dumb and illinformed version of "censorship resistance"


so here is a game for you to play..

look at any transaction whether its as far back as satoshis spend to hal(10btc). or more recently someone buying a pizza..
look at a Vout payment and take the "value" amount and look at it in byte form

all values are the same length of bytes used no matter how much sats/fiat value it is in human readable display format
yep the bytes of units in a tx is the same..
so stop with your mantra of wanting to censor pizza/coffee spends and yet be anti-censor about 3.95mb junk memes. because it makes you look dumb

then realise code actually can check and validate tx data meets specifications/format where witness space is to be used for proving a spend of a utxo.
stop pretending bitcoin does not need code to run. and realise bitcoin should use code to run. to keep it clean and efficient

..
i know you want to argue that it will make future features not be able to just trojan in .. but that too is a good thing. we need to get back to having nodes ready to validate new features BEFORE new features activate so that the network stays secure with node readiness to validate the data.. as that is how the network stays secure. by having nodes fully ready to validate active rules
not some hodge podge network where that are a dozen different tx formats hardly any nodes understand but just let through as "is valid" without any format/specification/validity checks, or even not knowing if they have proved they have spent the value they were meant to(being treated as anyone can spend)

back in the days of the NY bitlicence. many businesses done all they could to stop operating in NY and stop servicing NY citizens(banning access of users whos IP geo location showed as NY).. however the NY authorities set up honeypot traps of them themselves(ny authorities residing in ny) registering with non NY licenced exchanges using proxies to by pass the IP bans.. registering as customer and then making a complaint that they were able to register with the exchange.. this was back in the days where KYC was not really a thing so the exchanges did not really know who their customers were. but suddenly became required to KYC their customers to then ban those revealing they were NY residents

things like this also happened to seller on localbitcoins. if they were found selling coin to NY residents they got slammed too with not being licenced to serve NY residents

1.3eh/s
using for instance the asic rating of efficiency of 140thash for 3kw
30kw=1.4peta
30,000kw(30mw)=1.4exa

so 30mw of the 240mw may not seem much usage going towards hashing..
but.. that 240mw is not based on the power produced 24/7 its actually more like 240 in a 8 hour daytime which is stored and then consumed through the day. to be a ~70mw constant if you follow the logic of solar limitations and window variability

this 1.3 exa at the moment is about 0.3% of hashrate. or
if a block is 6.25btc reward with ~144 blocks(900btc) a day= 3btc a day income (~$80k a day before cost deductions)

what its more about is creating rules that make it easy for US domestic institutions to jump over the barriers of entry for operating a business in crypto but making it a pain for non US companies or small scale businesses to be US approved.
this is their meaning of "US crypto friendly"

they want to set the barriers of entry so that little guys or guys not in the US, to have a bigger ordeal to be legitimate businesses in america. trying to get international companies to move their HQ into america so they can then tax the hell out of those businesses and then be in the jurisdiction for other legal compliance stuff like tax reporting on their customers.

its also why the US is stalling for as long as possible any regulatory template for a ETF. because they do not like the current line up of candidates wanting to operate an ETF. so they are hoping one of the well known top wall street institutions offer to propose to be a ETF service so they can set the barriers of entry to that level to ensure little guys and international guys cant offer ETF cheaply

you have been around long enough to know this stuff

firstly never measure your "SAVINGS" based on the volatility of the market price because the market price is indeed controlled by exchanges..

instead if your a long term holder stop caring about the market price. and just remember its volatile..
instead remember this simple fact
there is always a periodic BOTTOM that the markets refuse to sell below. set that as your "savings value" per coin per 6 month period

the bottomline value is almost like the guarantee minimum return.
yes the speculative market can swing up above this and you can get temporary opportunities to sell higher then the periodic bottom. but if you are not in a selling mood dont care about the temporary prices

for instance late 2022 saw the bottom at $15k
early 2023 saw it at $17k (even when temporary market prices were over $20k)
now the bottomline value is over $20k (even when the market prices are over $25k)

knowing you would get a minimum of $15k late 2022 and now $20k in 2023 is much more relaxing though then daily worrying about the daily speculation and volatility of the markets that sit above the bottomline value

if you want to calculate the bottomline value.. take about 6 months of average network hashrate.
calculate the cheapest most efficient asic to work out how many asics are needed, how much electric and the cheapest effective electric of prominent mining farms. to then calculate the cost to mine most efficiently on the planet per btc

that there is the effective bottomline cheapest way to acquire bitcoin on the planet(below market rate) meaning no one wants to sell below that amount because no one on the planet can acquire bitcoin via mining, otc trading or CEX trading to get bitcoin any cheaper. so no one on planet will sell below that. which is where the bottomline support steps in to re-inforce that cex markets never correct all the way down to that level

once you know the number. you can then be rest assured that unless bitcoin really breaks you have a minimum value for your "savings" and anything else the speculative market wants to sell for is a bonus above the savings

firstly people need to learn alot of things about crypto

bitcoins "store of value" is not based on its volatile market price nor any "high" . its based on an underlying bottom (non zero) value that gets periodically tested during times of dips. the speculative market above the bottomline value is always speculative and volatile. it moves up and down alot. so dont get too excited or exhausted by monitoring all the 5% swings.. its normal to see these.

this store of value is not some reserve amoutn stored in a bank of fiat money. its just a bottomline number statistic of non zero where the bitcoin price wont go down below unless bitcoin truly breaks

when a market price moves by 5%. this does not mean that there is some bank account of reserves that "disappear" .. there is no $XYZmillion "disappear" event

market prices are based on the events of small amount of coin offers that trigger price changes of small amount of coins.
a "market cap" is not a reserve of fiat money either. its just a BAD MATH of multiplying the current price by circulation of a currency.. but this still does not mean that fiat money has gone missing or disappeared. its just a bad math stat. nothing more


as for binance the main target is the "binance coin" which is being titled as a unauthorised security. so ofcourse anyone holding "binance coin" are going to sell it and get rid of their stash of it when the SEC says that its not a authorized security. they dont want to hold onto a bag of crap if binance are forced to stop trading it. becasue then where can people trade it to get out after its shut off.. in short they cant. so they will sell it before that possibility occurs

first of all people did not have the ability to choose between paying by address or paying by IP. it was always address based payment.
the confusion is this
the IP feature was not about payment destination inside a tx data.. it was about communicating with someone directly via their IP to get their bitcoin address from their node using a communication connection in the node. to then input the bitcoin address into a transaction.

secondly the fee was fixed at a low amount in the initial years. and it stepped down when there were halving cycles and a and large bitcoin market price changes..
people paying random amounts to outbid each other did not come about until much later
where the fee market game began

which is where the first fee wars started. where fees extended above a $0.20 range and have not really gone back down since.. even with years of promises that new features will bring fee's down, we have yet to see bitcoin (yes i speak of the bitcoin network and not other networks pretending to be bitcoin) offer fees below $0.20 for 8 years now


thirdly
a bitcoin block holds about 2500 tx per block on average. and there are about 144 blocks a day so theres normally atleast 360k transactions a day...

fourthly the fee back in 2010 was about 0.001-1btc which was at the time, the price of one whole bitcoin was ~$0.004, making the fee then not even 1cent because the price of a whole bitcoin back then was not even 1 cent and the fee was below 1btc

point is.. you can register a number. and use it once..

.. its only mandatory to use the phone everytime for sms if you enable the 2FA meaning you end up having to move around to hide home location if you use 2FA

ive done it myself.. bought a simcard used it to register. and then took out the sim card and never used it again. because i dont use sms 2FA. thus i dont need to move location per use to obfuscate my home location

for me the better security is to not use an exchange as a custodian. if you never leave funds on an exchange. there is nothing to steal

most people that see the word "open source".. just end up trusting the devs and not actually reading the code themselves.. so even open source can employ exploits and bugs which are not found until the attack happens.. and its only then that people then look for the cause and call it out as a fault

alot of people in this topic think:
open-source means serverless control.. its does not mean this. it means you can read the source code. that is it

non custodian means serverless control.. it does not mean this. it means you hold the keys. but the software can still make API/RPC (remote calls) into the software where by a remote user can control what the software on your device does

take for example the exchange feature of this wallet. the user handling their phone device just selects an altcoin to trade with. but does not do anything like choosing a bitcoin address to send funds to..
.. instead its the server that hosts all the bids/asks of the exchange and holds all the recipient addresses of all the coins of a trade. its the server that tells a users device a bitcoin address to send funds to and gets the device to sign the transactions and takes that transaction and sends it onto the peer to peer network to bet into a block

just owning the keys is one security. but if that software has remote access to commands, which tell the software/device how to spend funds.. that is a security vulnerability.

things you still need to learn.. its not just the length factor. its the content of that length
for instance. there used to be an expectation that when doing a multisig the redeem script used to need to specifiy how many keys were involved in the funded address creation, how many of those keys are needed to authorise a signature to then spend those funds. and list those keys and sign using them..
but now any junk can go in the space untested, unverified, unrequiring of any format or specification of content, not requiring a purpose when using certain opcodes

so learn this stuff.. dont just say "there is no limit so i dont need to learn about opcodes"
there is much more you need to learn. its not just the space its the opcodes for content rules thats been relaxed too

the exploit happened you know this. thousands of users know this..
and one week a month doomad remembers this. however 3 out of 4 weeks a month doomad and the cult following dont want it to be fixed. deny its a new thing and pretend bitcoin has always been that way and should not change or be fixed becasue they love bitcoin being to expensive to use..
.. and we all know why they want bitcoin to be expensive to use for the unbanked..(to promote users to other networks)

doomad pretends 75% of the time that the exploit existed since 2009. even though 25% of the time he admits there were rules that were softened and then softened some more and then softened again until there was no longer any implied limit. and he idolises devs for causing this exploit because of the softening events. he loves the chaos caused. heck even nutildah loves the chaos

its a shame that doomad cant stick to one narrative and instead just wants to act like an idiot to then earn the title of idiot due to his actions.. but you should try to not act like him or you will continue to earn his title of idiot too..
doomad changes his narrative depending on if he is gaining or losing recruits, and sets his narrative to fit the curent trends that will win him most recruits.. . that alone should be a sign that he doesnt care about the truth and doesnt even want to know the truth. his game is about recruiting people into his onboard an altnet strategy

if you truly like bitcoin, care about it and want it to actually continue to work and not have these exploits continually happen. dont just trust that when a dev says they are doing an "BIP" that you auto consider it as an improvement.. dont just trust that what they do is an improvement. actually be willing to review and scrutinise them. dont blind trust them as gods

just becasue they write something as a BIP. does not automatically tag it as being an improvement. it does not mean that it should just be force merged into activation without consensus super majority readiness.

learn what has happened before without super majority readiness and learn how it has weakened the network security and caused exploits because of it.

then decide do you want to help defend the bitcoin network. or the human devs that have changed it over the years, not always for the good

try to stop being an obedient sheep just following the religion of core dev god idolism. instead think of them a s an authority that should be challenged and scrutinised if they wish to remain in power.


no its upto the network to verify transactions. .. seems you need to learn more about that process..


i have mentioned it many times. ive talked about the byte limits. ive talked about the opcode usage. ive mentioned many things about how opcodes should come with formatting requirements and expected data of opcode content that can be validated/checked, without the "isvalid" bypass tricks. i have mentioned about super majority readiness before new features/opcodes are activated.
i have said many things. but it seems you have bypassed the many posts i have said all these things to just instead reply with your mantra of defending core dev decisions..

..
but if you only care about the social drama.. here goes
the exploit can be easily fixed.
the core devs refuse to do it becasue right now they dont want to be seen as bitcoin maintainers of the sole reference client and decision makers of the bitcoin rules.. . they want to pretend they are just janitors of one brand of unimportant software.. and not want to be seen as THE core reference of bitcoin rules.. (facepalm)
they want to pretend to be just janitors and that users can do as they please and make changes.. (but secretly get their fans to REKT any attempt).. they do all this in the hopes that by not showing their power at this current era, they hope they cant be sued by a conman of an altcoin. they fear if they do fix an exploit the conman of the altcoin will sue them and want them to make other changes to the network in the conmans favour.. so they are playing hard to get

they are soo paranoid about this that they are pretending the conman is the cause of these memes and json junk. however the truth is that these memes and json junk is being performed by the same guys that were part of the blockstream/chaincode lab funded devs that idolise lightning network
(yep the other network pretending that it too is bitcoin)

so all this junk is actually a game not to help the core devs get sued. but instead to annoy bitcoin users to offramp them to another network

when using a mobile device with a sms 2FA, the exchange then has your phone number. which if requested by authorities they can then ping that number and see all of the locations it was spotted on the cellular network.
if you are seen each night to ping at a certain address they can learn that you live(sleep) there and so found out where you live

2FA and use of exchanges is the easiest way to get found especially if you use a mobile device

for those extra paranoid. never use phone in the same location and never have it turned on for more then the time to make a payment. and use a phone where you can remove the battery and simcard

(or dont use this security risk method the OP calls a security feature)

blackhat

you think core have been working on bitcoin from the very start
(facepalm)
seems you are trying to exaggerate cores god like ability by pretended they created bitcoin
let me guess you want to now say that blockstreams CEO is satoshi due to hashcash

yea we know that fake narrative script already.. core now control bitcoin but it was not always that way.. unlike what you were wrongly taught

also if you think that the majority of nodes should not be ready to verify stuff and things should change without readiness. then you dont care about network security

again you seem to have not even looked at all the issues of the cypherpunk days of trying to create payment systems and how and why bitcoin was first seen as a novel solution to alot of things..
and then see how core are ripping apart those novel solutions

and now you want to say the only option is "they're free to separate themselves. "
again you are not forming your own thoughts or doing research of how bitcoin worked in regards to solving the byzantine generals problem. you instead are just repeating doomad nonsense of "f**k off"

the thing you ignore is this:

bitcoin was more secure. to ensure no junk bloat went into a block, there were stricter rules..
rules that would only change when a super majority were ready to understand the new feature to be able to fully verify the new format.. becasue that was the whole point of full nodes and decentralisation.. to hold up the integrity of he block data by super majority agreement of fully verifying the data..

recently things have changed without network readiness. meaning junk gets added when majority of full nodes dont evne understand what they are receiving.. they dont understand it but are made to accept it anyway.. because of the trojan bypass trick that just treats junk as "isvalid" without having the code to verify/understand any of the content.

it used to be the case that nodes had to upgrade to include new rulesets that had format requirements and specifications... and then a new feature activates ONCE SAFE to assume that the majority of nodes would understand the content..

however this is not the case now
we see more times then ever how the core devs "force merge" their own edits to the code and where they dont even get full review ACK comments when proposing.. they have been seen to just force things in with just "concept ACK"
so even their own peer review process is broke.

they even admit that have compartmentalised their github where they say its not cores responsibility to review every line but instead the project managers of certain parts of core self review /test their own parts of their project

where by instead of a peer reviewed and scrutinised codebase where even at code release to the public should wait for the public to review and then decide to run the software and then after that the feature only activates when there is majority network readiness to verify the new feature.. all of that has been replaces and dismantled into a stupidly insecure reliance on "trust a human"

it especially gets worse where they want to REKT any efforts of no core devs reviewing/scrutinising them or offering an open option that different to core

that block reward went to a address 3KZDwmJHB6QJ13QPXHaW7SS3yTESFPZoxb
that address has received over 1600btc in 7 months

thus it is a pool or a asic farm with alot of hashpower. it just did not announce its name/brand/company to the explorers tags

based on some basic math of ~200 days and 1600btc. thats more then 1 block a day. meaning about 1% of the hashrate of the network was used to get those block rewards
..
technically there are pools(well lets just call them self managed asic farms) where they do not host for outsiders. where they only operate for their own devices.
..but now we are getting into the semantics of where is the line of whats defined as "solo"


...
as for those shouting about the CK pool.. no its not a real solo mining, because its still uses a pool with a pool manager.. and so its not a solo effort where people make their own individual blocktemplates and transaction selections.. its instead simply that the CKpool manager does the transaction selection and hosts communications with the workers and its ck pool that assigns that each of its workers gets a header with a coin reward that rewards the pool worker the majority of funds.. but the ckpool manages the rest.. so not really "solo"

in short there is still a pool involved.. its just the reward share which handled differently

the last time someone(home hobbiest) actually solo mined (ran their own software to make a blocktemplate, collate transactions, set their own reward address and broadcast the result to the network from his own node.. .. with no pool/server/manager remotely).. was a long long time ago

you do realise that the ordinals v0 (rare sats) are miscounted and dont go to the destinations the ordinals explorer pretends it does

you do realise the inscriptions (memes and json) are also miscounted and are also just appended after the tx signing process and thus not actually part of the signed tx data.. thus not assigned to any output. thus doesnt actually move/transfer with the transaction.

there are actual mechanisms that could assign hashs of inscriptions to a output. but the ordinals project manager is too dumb to use it. thus the whole ordinals project of all versions has no real transfer protocol or proof of ownership mechanisms, so is broke

he could employ a simple fix, for instance create a multisig of 1-of-2 where by the multisig is a destination owners public key + the hash of inscription.
thus the multisig address the creator uses as destination is the recipients proof of receiving the inscription becasue the creators destination is an address that includes the inscription hash to make the multisig address. thus assigning the inscription to an output/spend

 thus when recipient later want to spend it, the recipient of first(now owner) uses his public key (1-of-2) and as part of the redeem script, reveals the multisig address holds the hash of inscription thus show it owned it.
where by when spending it. he would too combine the inscription hash + his buyers public key to make a 1 of 2 multisig for the destination address. so that the buyer can then claim it in the same way

atomic wallet is not just a wallet. its a built-in exchange. and im GUESSING that the exploit is more to do with the mechanisms of exchanging funds rather than just the wallet function.

after all even though the user chooses a altcoin to swap with and presses send. the user is not choosing a destination address or manually choosing where his funds go to.. (he doesnt communicate with the swap recipient to get their address)

behind the scenes alot more has to happen in the actual exchange process like choosing destinations of who gets the btc in that exchange for an altcoin. thus details are transfered/received with a central server....
a phone wallet is not a node that makes connections to 5million other phones. it connects to a central server which hosts all the bids/asks offers and manages the swaps by the server supplying/setting the destinations for the swaps and making the signing process calls.. its not as decentralised as people think.

so a guy at the server or a hacker can simply make the destination addresses of a swap become the "hackers" address. because users doing swaps dont manually type in the address of whom they are swapping with.. the server does all that