As you said, think of it from their perspective. They're a company, known as privacy-oriented, that believes privacy is a human right and should be preserved at all times. "At all times" means regardless of who, which, what, when, where. Their focus is on everybody's privacy, not on yours nor on mine nor on theirs, but everyone's.

If they're threatened to not be private, while that's the only principle they follow since the development of Wasabi, what do you think it's reasonable thing to do? Besides, there wasn't such pressure. Nobody forced them do nothing. This happened voluntarily, which shows that the fish stinks from the head.

Translation of the above: "I don't have any other arguments, I desperately need you to shut up, 'cause I know I'm right".

Πάντως, υπάρχουν πολλοί Ελ Σαλβαδορίτες που δεν το θέλουν.

Why isn't this true for fiat currency, again?

To merit or not to merit, that is the question.

The thing I can't give you, because I've already sent you 50 this month.

I don't know if that applies, but if we're talking about ways to generally lose money in Lightning we have:

• Loss of your partner's revocation keys.
• Loss of your commitment transactions.
• Loss of money by going offline for a long time.

The first two can happen if you lose backups.

The times he's whinnied about Lightning, definitely exceed both.

Everything related with decentralized coin minting is inefficient. You can't have a blockchain if you don't have decentralization, and you can't have decentralization if you don't have inefficiency. However, nobody said that bitcoin should be the default payment network. In my opinion, bitcoin is the hard money, re-invented, but, Lightning is the key to efficient payments.

For dinner? The ever-inflating currency. For anything in the web that I can't pay with cash? Bitcoin. Simply because I want to pay in cash, whether that's USD, EUR, BTC or gold.

Sure you do. If nSequence is lower than 0xffffffff - 1, it allows replacement. If they're using RBF, you can ask them to broadcast a new non-RBF transaction, where they spend the RBF's outputs.

But, you're the only one who sees no resources. You've limited yourself purposefully. I use bitcoin everyday. I purchase stuff with bitcoin; gift cards, servers, other web services, premium features etc., no matter what you think of it, I show you the exact opposite with my actions. And it's not just me. There are thousands of merchants willing to accept it as a currency. All these things demonstrate how incorrect you are.

And that's because it's useful. It provides things you can't otherwise have.

Don't do him good, that's a meat and drink for him. The moment you enter, demand rises, but supply remains the same.

Oh, wait, you meant literal reuse of the change address? Which wallet does such thing?

It can't be interesting if it doesn't make sense. To begin with, what's "investing value"?

What's hyperbitcoinization, again? Mass adoption? If that's so, I don't think we'll ever see it, definitely not as the main currency of the society. That can't happen realistically. Most people don't understand money. They're the same people who only see bitcoin as an investment. Most people are fine, having their privacy invaded; confirmed from the abrupt rise in the demand of KYC. So here's one principle violation.

Bitcoin will not be used for what it was intended for in a global level. Not until the mob understands what's that. Part of the problem is that they don't understand there's a problem.

I've never heard of Edge Wallet, so I would avoid it. The most anonymous way to purchase cryptocurrencies is hand-in-hand with a person from your country. The second most anonymous way is using a decentralized exchange such as Bisq.

The process should be the same: You find another person who's willing to sell you bitcoin. You talk each other. You settle the trade without any intermediaries. You then send your coins from Bisq's inner wallet to a non-custodial wallet.

Lots are lost, but much less than 3-4 million and only a fraction of those are provably lost. So, in the far future, they can re-enter the circulation. Especially the early P2PK outputs that have revealed their public key; those are likely to be accessed with quantum computing overtime.

It's simple. Both have store-of-value characteristics. You don't compare them as metals nor as "networks", but as hard money.

There are two things I don't understand from your response:

• What's "untainting mixer outputs"? Haven't we already made it clear that "taint" is an arbitrary rule? Mixing and trying to have your outputs "untainted" is contradictory.
• What's the benefit of mixing with BTC <--> XMR <--> BTC compared to mixing directly with BTC <--> BTC? If it's time, which is the only think I can think of, that's where vouchers and chips take place.

True, but doesn't this answer on why you shouldn't keep change at all? As said by Leo above, whenever you're going to have a decent change left over from a transaction, send them to ChipMixer instead. Or, if you're thinking of buying in bulk, make your purchase and send the rest to ChipMixer.

What I said is: If you have change in x outputs, which are essentially linked from your previous transactions, it doesn't matter that much to broadcast 1 transaction where you spend them all, or x transactions where you spend 1 in each.

Pretty much what NotATether said. I'm going to add another counter-argument to this pointless conspiracy by asking this: Why would a government want to create something so revolutionary, unstoppable, freedom-seeking and transparent? Whoever did this, whether he was a Japanese man, Putin, an alien, Craig Liar Wright, Ash Ketchum, or whatever, it doesn't matter at all.

There's no tangible benefit from a government's perspective to make such thing, because it gives the financial power to the people.

Tracing wallet sizes? Like?

It's a big privacy risk if you can trace what I'm doing with it. But, if I just mix all of my change in one transaction, I don't think it's so bad. Making it official that I'm the owner of those UTXO's doesn't harm much, and you've pretty much already known it.

Of course, if they appear to be a lot, then you might not want to reveal you own that much money. In any case, it's better to split your inputs in several transactions.

Neither do I, but I yet fail to understand why is running a full node such a difficult thing to do. I mean, you've put yourself into buying all those hardware, build a mining rig, make effort to ask questions/read answers, trying to do this as much efficiently and profitably as possible, and you can't just do the only verification that is vital in this system?

The problem is the double-spending. An SPV could set you up, if say, another miner paid them so.

Lightning works like staking, but there are two important differences:

• No coin generation.
• Actual usefulness. (Routing TX)

Median fees? There's no realistic scenario wherein people pay, regularly, thousands of dollars worth of BTC in fees. Even with Binance charging 200+ sats/byte.