i understand that "proof of keys" campaign will never get popular enough to have a 90% bank run..
that was not my or your debate..

we both agree that PoK is an uneventful insignificant impact. i showed a chart and you bracketted a 'will never happen' so that is not in contest/debate..

the debate was your mention of "if every person withdrew, the exchange can just loan for one day"

here ill quote myself quoting you saying this as YOUR!! scenario..


an exchange cannot just "borrow" bitcoin .. there is no magic mint that can raise 500k coins in one night.
only altcoins can.. again something you admitted to also
again ill quote myself quoting you


..
if you were a scammy exchange owner with 100k btc deposits of customers. and you STOLE 90k. leaving only 10k for possible daily withdrawals.
if PoK event exceeded the 10k withdrawal amount.. you as a shady scammer are NOT LOANING ("borrowing") extra coins FROM YOURSELF!!(facepalm).. because you are you.
loans in the fiat world like credit cards and mortgages are not taking value from one source. they are MAKING value.
research how fiat 'money creation' works

edit to answer below:
seems oeleo is on a personal defence "i never said" ramble. totally missing the point of the scenario he did mention and my response to the scenario, he seems more interested in 'he never said' rather than discussing the scenario

so one last time the scenario was if EVERYONE did do a bank run on an exchange.. where value is not some small XXk  but massive XXXk request, the exchange cant get hold of massive amount of coin. especially because unlike real banks, that can just magic money into existence, you cant magic up value in bitcoin.

the fiat banking sector got bailed out through loans which were government backed printing of new money.
this money printing bail out loan is not a thing that happens in bitcoin.

a thief returning the funds he stole is not a 'loan' its a return of stolen assets, with a possibility to steal again a day later.
there is a difference

(im not going to continue his silly side track of 'i never said 500k'.. so lets just say "massive value of 100% bank run" to void debates about questing silly who said what amount debates)

point being if an exchange only left 10% and stole 90% (note avoidance of actual unit numbers) if a 100% bank run occured. an exchange wont 'just'(making it seem easy) loan itself 90% to fulfil withdrawals and then take back its loan a day later.

..
as for the silly argument about separeting the businesss entity from the human entity.. (facepalm)
if someone crashes a car into you and you are injured. you dont care about diagnosing the two physical bodies of the car vs its driver, as to who is responsible. its common sense to treat the owner of the car as the perpetrator and the emphasis is on the car owner being responsible.

a business brand name is not an AI robot that steals and spends money on its wife and kids.. its a business entity. not a human. the human steals and spends the money on personal lifestyle. the human has the brains and arms and legs. a brand name has no brain or arms or legs.. as a doctor you should know this..

take this weeks 'theranos medical blood test' scam, .. the 'theranos' logo(brand) is not on trial, you wil never see a logo act as a defendant.. however, the CEO is on trial. and SHE(human) just got slapped by the courts

in car accidents. you will never see the car drive into the defendant seat. nor its licence plate say an oath to speak the truth in court.. the driver will

always assume that they will at some point report.
always assume even if they do not. THEIR bank (you deposit fiat into them/withdraw fiat out from them could)
always assume even if they do not. YOUR bank (you send fiat from/receive fiat to could)

assume all your fiat income and fiat outgoings is monitored.
assume all value that touches your 'accounts' registered in your real life name is monitored

.. as for tax liability.
if you were to think that an exchange is reporting. they can only report on the info they have,
for instance if you hoarded coins since 2012 at $6 a coin.. and then deposited into an exchange in 2022. and sold same day for $50k

all an exchange can do is report they received a asset valued at $50k today and sold it for $50k and you withdrew $50k in fiat today.
meaning its not treated as a 'gain' from the exchanges prospective ($50k in $50k out=0). as all they can report on is todays activity as its all they have seen. an exchange does not know about the 10 years of hoarding

but separately you would have to explain where you got that coin before the exchange.. to file YOUR tax/income forms to explain the possible 'gains' the tax office might want to know about, to explain the origins of the $50k in your bank.

this will require knowing the tax law/loopholes.
EG not a acquisition from 2012 at $6 meaning $49,994 'gain'(real event) but some other 'loophole' of tax free income method some anonymous time before 2022.
but this can also be risky to change the real event for a story that fits a loophole.
especially if you never 'mixed' your coins during 2012-2022 to pretend the 10 year hoard was not you, where you only received assets in 2022, line with your stories tax loophole

bitcoin does not need more woman.
bitcoin is neutral and doesnt care what genitals you have, nor cares how you use them genitals.
bitcoin does not favour any colour, flavour or shape of human.

bitcoin does not favour men more. its that women dont favour bitcoin as much as men

what this topic should actually be is "more women need bitcoin" or "women need more bitcoin"

LOANS are where the loan giver creates new units of account. (learn how bank loans and mortgages 'create money')
bitcoin as a network accounts for all of the ~19mill coins in circulation.. there is no other mechanism to magic up new coins on the blockchain. its not like altnets/exchange mysql databases that can magic up 'credit'.

an exchange cant 'loan' real bitcoin to withdraw to users in a bank run. if the exchange no longer has control of 500k of coin. they cant hand 500k of coin to users.

thats the whole point of proof of keys. to make an exchange insolvent if it cant honour real bitcoin withdrawals.

exchanges internal balance and its altnet fake token credit is not part of proof of keys. but could be an exchanges escape tactic to pretend solvency if they dictate to only allow altnet withdrawal.. [fake token credit]

but again the point of proof of keys is to have users withdraw their actual bitcoin on bitcoin, not altnets.. because having funds on exchanges and in some wallets of altnets does not prove solvency of the parties involved in these 'agreements of custody'.

as you have already mentioned. altnets can loan. but the bitcoin blockchain cannot.
bitcoins blockchain rules for 'minting' is secure and audited by the network peers. an exchange cannot just mint new bitcoins on the bitcoin blockchain outside of the coin reward rules

also i only mention altnets, when someone before me has mentioned altnets(them derailing first using their silly confusion of features rhetoric)

bitcoin has no loan system.. offchain does(exchange balance and altnet tokens). hence avoid offchain to avoid fractional reserve risk. hence why proof of keys became a campaign(although many dont listen/try to do it/think its a risk)

nonce is only 4bytes.
the timestamp is only 4bytes whereby part of those bytes is used as an extra nonce
timestamp can only be adjusted by 70 minutes = (upto 4200 permutations) = 12bits (1.5bytes of timestamps 4bytes)

5.5bytes is not enough nonce and extra nonce to write "The Race To 4B is On"
the best you can get. assuming it uses 6bits per character (64 possible characters of lower uppercase alphabet and digits)
44bits = 7 characters = atbest 'daRace4'

let alone for ASIC miners to have been able to create a block where the nonce/extra nonce fulfills a resulting hash of acceptable difficulty AND just happens to spell out a readable sentence when said nonces are converted to human readable characters

so im calling BS.
...
however what is possible is a pool or even random user transacting can put one of their output UTXO's as not a spendable bitcoin key but instead a random phrase.

but the topic creator has not returned to show proof of this special block/transactions existence.

but definitely not possible to have the nonce of an acceptably difficult block be also a human translatable phrase of the said length the topic creator mentioned

if a exchange was fractional reserving its users exchange balance by spending 90% of the real coin deposits on the exchange owners personal endeavours. and users ran a 500k coin "bank run" of their balance. ofcourse the CEO of an exchange would have to try and claw back 450k the ceo spent/stored elsewhere to make the users whole at their withdrawal request.
this is not a 'loan'. this is to undo a theft of coins..

if the CEO cant make good on the customers bank run because he spent 450k coins and no longer in his control. . the CEO cant do a 1 day 'loan' to find 450k from other sources. there is no special reserve of insured/premined coins set aside for such loans.
all bitcoin on the blockchain are audited and noted. thats the point of blockchains.

what actually happens is a MTGox event. where customers simply get informed that the exchange has lost their coins and customers cant withdraw.


oh. but it was good that you mention the tokenised/wrapped 'btc' of altnets.. hint hint to other topics.
yes CEO's of exchanges can make multiple 'channels' with users and credit them all with millisats, and pretend the channels funding lock 'peg' is one customers when the same pegged funding lock BITCOIN transaction is used as 'proof of peg' over multiple channels.
the CEO setting up the channels can just make many many temporary_channel_id and because there is no network wide audit system in altnets/offchains. they can abuse this

but again. this is not "loan" of real BTC this is theft/fraud of BTC by handing counterfeit/fake tokens

(a few wallets hide the funding lock info of channels, outside of the channel partners whereby user in channel X234 does not talk to user in channel y745 to compare pegs) because some altnet wallets have privacy to not reveal the funding lock(peg) outside of their channel partner.(use of temp channel id instead of funding lock derived ID)
yep even altnets like LN can fractional reserve.

now do you see why altnets without a blockchain. and why exchange balance are a risk.

multisig did not exist since the day bitcoin was created
it started as a Bip in 2012 and not introduced into wallet software until 2013. bitgo was the first wallet to embrace multisig


but my point was about.. taproot is not a thing that makes existing multisig/transaction formats smaller. its not a thing that make all transactions smaller

its a thing where people have to move their current bloaty multisig and bloaty 'scripts' and bloaty 'smart contracts' over to a new tx format only activated november 2020. whereby after putting funds into this new format. when they then want to move funds again after that. the transactions bloat would be less bloat than its previous tx format counterpart

meaning taproot doesnt make all transactions smaller, meaning peoples very next transaction will not be smaller.
it just makes people that usually use bloaty smart contracts/multisig have a option where they can move funds to a new format (same bloat next transaction) to lock into a special contract which has a smaller signature/script area for future movements, after that.. as long as the movements stay in the new format.

EG there is not much point moving funds from a legacy multisig, to a taproot if the taproot just then pays back out to legacy. because although that 1 TR->legacy was less bloat..  the legacy->TR was not.. and the future legacy there after wont be.

it only has a significance to overall bloat of blocks if a significant amount of users move into TR multisigs and stay in them when transacting.

it means people that used to post their mail in A4 envelopes. can decide in the future to start folding their contracts to fit into smaller envelops. it does not mean all A4 envelops are suddenly smaller. it just means for those that decide in the future to fold their contracts to fit into a smaller envelope. will get to pay smaller postage. as long as they keep folding their contracts up into smaller envelopes. and the postage saving only really works with contracts(transactions) that usually have more then one signature in the first place

so in your theory. for the main exchanges that have 500,000 coins associated with their cold wallets EACH.
if every user withdrew their coin from exchanges (lets say 1.5million btc(conservative random number)) came out of large coldwallets.. it would be a simple thing for exchanges to "borrow" 1.5mill of bitcoin..

um no.
bitcoin has no debt/loan feature. there is no bitcoin creation/hidden premine waiting to be borrowed.
every coin is accounted for on the blockchain.
its plain and easy to see where the coins are

what actually happens is the market orders flatten to small amount of orders. draining the 'supply' side of market orders for bitcoin (near zero 'sellers')

exchanges would just 'circuit break' (close trades) for the day to 'lock the price' and prevent massive price spikes.
yep less coins on a market =price rise.

..
with all that said. it appears that "proof of keys' has been an initiative/campaign that has not really been adopted
out of the 79.1million utxo's on average for the last 4 days. january 3rd only seen a small 'blip' increase of 50,000 utxo's
meaning less people moved coin on the 3rd. (not all 50,000 are proved to be lined to coin withdrawals from exchanges for the reason of 'proof of keys')

yet on christmas eve 250,000 utxo were created. which shows more decisions to move coins happened due to christmas than to 'proof of keys'

definition of paperwallet is a piece of paper with a private key/seed key wrote on it.
much like a brain wallet is simply remembering the seedkey

andrea's definition is of 2011 "bitnotes" not to be confused with actual paper wallets which are basically any private key/seed wrote on paper

as i said in earlier post andreas is saying paperwallets are complicated.. but he is describing "bitnotes" not paper wallets

also worth noting. bottom of the 12 page settlement document release.. giuffre(V.roberts) didnt sign or date it.
so p. andrews defence has no proof the deal was finalised or settled.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60119368/32/1/giuffre-v-prince-andrew/
again NDA not applicable

for years people paid for cheap walmart(asda) economy 'basics' meat.. but more recently people are preferring to buy the more organic premium meat.

i personally stay away from the cheap own brand crap. their ready meals taste of cardboard and their 'basics' range of frozen meat is tasteless..
i prefer a real joint of beef or real fresh chicken breasts from a proper butchers/farm shops, even if it is a premium.

by the way. the 'lab' meat wont be producing a whole 'breast' of chicken it will produce chicken cell lumps which then become nuggets or chicken burgers.

you are not going to get a 'lab made' T-bone steak. but you will get lab made burgers

even if they can recreate the cells. they will have other additives and stabilisers to combine it into form.

take alook at them cheap turkey 'rounds' you can get (reformed and binded turkey meat)

which use potato and rice starches to bind actual breast meat together..
these actual breast meat with bindings to form it into a 'round', taste worse compared to a proper turkey/crown.
so dont expect lab meat to be exactly the same as their equivalent steak, breast, crown proper counterpart.

after all who buys walmarts 99p pink sludge economy 20 nuggets, when there are actual breast meat nuggets at £3 for 10
many people prefer to spend £6 on mcdonalds 20 piece breast meat nuggets instead of getting walmarts 99p pink sludge equivalent, since the "pink sludge" saga become commonly known. even mcdonalds stopped doing the pink sludge variety

for you to think covid only effects the news, means that YOUR only ignorant and limited source of info is said news.. maybe you should turn off your source first. and then get out of your house and speak to doctors and nurses in ICU wards actually dealing with sick people

no i dont mean your homeopathic witch doctor offering herbal supplements and back massages as cures for cancer. i mean real medical doctors treating real patients on real icu wards

i really laugh if you think the only experience anyone has of getting sick from covid is watching tv.. utter moron to think thats the only place people experience things.

if the news is scaring you then yes switch it off.. or atleast do some research.. but dont think that switching off the news makes the virus vanish.. a cure for the virus is not a flip of a button on a remote control.

in the UK during september-november there were ~850 average a day admissions to hospital.. in december this number was rising to 1900 admissions a day.

if you think that omicron is less of a problem than delta or alpha or beta,  then you really are looking at the wrong sources of information

yes 3x people are getting infected and so far only 2.2x are going to hospital.. but those numbers are not 0

a. she can only name names to reduce sentance BEFORE those names are convicted with their own crimes by other victims.
    EG if prince andrew is found guilty of the giuffre civil case. its then too late for maxwell to then name p andrew for a sentance reduction. so she has a short window to decide on loyalty or liberty

b. she is already found guilty. there is no legal harm that can increase her sentance by naming names. there is only personal loyalty harm of losing friends by mentioning them.

..
with all that said. P.andrews case this week is trying to dismiss the giuffre case due to a 2009 'settlement' disclosure that giuffre cant put any legal actions against anyone linked to anything related to epstein maxwell...
this is a weak defense for p.andrew as the clause does not mean that if p.adrew done any random crime of burglary or murder or tresspass or [insert unlimited crimes] that guiffre cannot sue him.. so guiffre just has to say that p.andrew did not pimp/traffic her.... so nothing to do with the clause.. instead p.andrew raped her. (which she already is accusing him of)

worse case she has to pay back $500k to break the contract. (something she can easily raise via many social donation sites, if that is needed).. oh and guess what. epstein is dead. so he cannot enforce his contract anymore to try to stop her talking or claw back the $500k for talking

its like medical privacy. (doctor patient confidentiality) it stops applying after death because the patient is no longer alive to fight a breach of contract.

its like the national census released 100 years after date of report. as its believed all those within old census are now dead and so no one can fight any invasion of privacy.

meaning in short.. the 2009 NDA is no longer applicable. epsteins dead.

(buzzwordatory:)the path finding gossip is not part of invoice exchange messages
(laymans speek:)finding routes is not part of payments

(buzzwordatory:)
pathfinding gossip uses
"node_announce" message which reveal which channels it owns.
    type: 257 (node_announcement)
    data:
        [signature:signature]
        [u16:flen]
        [flen*byte:features]
        [u32:timestamp]
        [point:node_id]
        [3*byte:rgb_color]
        [32*byte:alias]
        [u16:addrlen]
        [addrlen*byte:addresses]

"channel_announce" which reveals the partners of the node
    type: 256 (channel_announcement)
    data:
        [signature:node_signature_1]
        [signature:node_signature_2]
        [signature:bitcoin_signature_1]
        [signature:bitcoin_signature_2]
        [u16:len]
        [len*byte:features]
        [chain_hash:chain_hash]
        [short_channel_id:short_channel_id]
        [point:node_id_1]
        [point:node_id_2]
        [point:bitcoin_key_1]
        [point:bitcoin_key_2]

"channel_update" which reveals the fee's of the channels

    type: 258 (channel_update)
    data:
        [signature:signature]
        [chain_hash:chain_hash]
        [short_channel_id:short_channel_id]
        [u32:timestamp]
        [byte:message_flags]
        [byte:channel_flags]
        [u16:cltv_expiry_delta]
        [u64:htlc_minimum_msat]
        [u32:fee_base_msat]
        [u32:fee_proportional_millionths]
        [u64:htlc_maximum_msat] (option_channel_htlc_max)

htlc_maximum_msat is not the live available liquidity left. its the first 'state' value of the channel creation without revealing anything about liquidity/payments performed to adjust the balance available.

none of these three messages have anything to do with the payment. but everything to do with route discovery and choosing the cheapest route.

there are no payment fails at route discovery as no payment is 'locked' temporarily at route discovery

when building the route graphs its just a spam of "node_announce" and  "channel_announce" and "channel_update" messages back and fourth. and the software then looks at the possible routes that lead to the desired node

(laymans speek:)
like building a map of a road network and finding out the toll fee's along certain roads
the software then makes a decision about which route has the cheapest total(combined) fee of the route.

your debug log has nothing to do with the process i have mentioned about about the path finding stage..
so lets now explain the nest stage.. (separately)

SEPARATELY AND SECONDARY
then it performs the invoice exchange telling the route how much the payer wants to push forward including a public key(htlc) that requires a secret.(buzzword: update_add_htlc)
then the channels along the route lock up the value into this public key and send back a funding_locked response to say their LN iou msat promises are set..
 
when the payer receives the "funding locked" response(in regards to the LN iou promises) meaning everyone else along the route has also had the same, its deemed a valid route to complete a payment. and the payer sends the "secret" and this pass the parcel forward until the destination gets it.

an error at this stage IS a payment fail

as for your other comments in your post:
do not confuse the 'payment' temporary iou promises of LN with the open/close channel contract of bitcoin format when you try to refer to your version of understanding of the use of "funding_locked"

the open/close session contracts measured in sat are a different format to the temporary LN payment locks measured in msat.
"funding_locked" is used by both the open/close contract... and the temporary LN iou promises. but dont pretend they are the same thing or that the LN payments dont do this because you only know about the bitcoin open/close contract part

i know you cant tell.. but one thing you should learn. and understand. is that the fail is not due to the route discovery/path finding gossip stage. and not due to a payer just not choosing you because your fees are too high

it is not the case of "payment failed because they simply chose a different route"
the LN pizza example in 2018 was not scenario of 150 pizza orders with a spam of 1500 'payments' that never complete.

FOLD actually said they had 1500 food orders through dominos portal. but only got 10% payment
meaning 1350 pizza's were not delivered to peoples mouths. who had made a pizza order.

they DID NOT have 150 domino's orders and 1350 spam payments (10x the payment attempts than domino order requests)


a payment failure is not due to:
not establishing a full route to destination (meaning those intermediaries, halfway through map get forgotten)
deciding to try route A (meaning B is declared fail due to simply not taking that route) for reasons of less hops
deciding to try route A (meaning B is declared fail due to simply not taking that route) for reasons of less fees

a payment failure is a fail due to:
delays in messages expiring
   such as not sending the secret before htlc expiry
liquidity issues
   such as the liquidity being 'spent' by other pending payments before the current payment completes
wallet errors
   peer communication issues. loss of keys, going offline. bugs, faults with nodes, ddos

the path finding gossip. does not 'lock' invoice amount
there has never been or ever will be a 'payment fail' at the path finding gossip stage
a 'payment' attempt is not part of the path finding.

the route finding stage as you have just admitted does not show the active balance(available liquidity) of each channel along the proposed routes, it only shows the amount the channel had when it began. this amount never changes.

if it was able to lock funds at the path finding stage with no intent to pay.. then this would be an attack vector people would abuse to lock up all value on the network and never pay out.

the path finding protocol does not in any way set aside value in each hop of the route at the path finding stage.

what happens is a number of possible routes are found, where by recipient (pass the parcel hops) see how much is wanting to be sent. and they respond if they can deliver.. WITHOUT LOCKING THEIR OWN VALUE by passing the request on.
if they cant deliver they dont pass on the request. and so they don not become a viable route.

when viable routes are discovered, where origin payers software decides the cheapest fee route to follow. and then separately, then a payment is attempted. through that route it decided on.

no "payment fail" is caused by not choosing YOU as the route at this stage.
 payments dont fail at the path finding stage, because funds are not locked at the path finding stage.

as for the established route the payer does decide on. it begins a separate process of locking funds along this route. getting a return message of "funding locked" and then sending the channel_update after that.
channel_announce is completely different than channel_update
the path finding messages do not include any HTLC stuff, so no funds are locked, a response to a path find is not going to include a "funding_locked" message.

you are trying too hard to make it sound like (using bitcoin analogy) that bitcoin transactions in a pools mempool fail to confirm because peers failed to peer-handshake at the relay stage.

sorry but thats not why bitcoin transactions fail to confirm when in a pools mempool.

its now very clear that you dont know why payments fail (your admission).. but atleast admit that payments are not 100% successful every time. be a man

imagine anytime hundreds of people want to talk about BITCOIN scaling.
idiot altnet fangirls turn it into an advert for their altnet, trying to convince people to stop using bitcoin and start using their altnet..
.. well no need to imagine it.. it happens every time.

a funny part is that altneters think i am the only one that wants BITCOIN scaling and even funnier that maybe 12 people of the altnet variety keep patting each other on the back thinking the whole community of bitcoin want altnets..
even in topics made by hundreds of people that want to discuss BITCOIN scaling (not LN)

there are thousands of topics regarding BITCOIN scaling and only dozens of topics about LN development

and its funny to see how angry the altnetters get when they get called out and their advert opportunity is wasted. they really hate it when they fail to convert people. and their PR campaigns get ripped apart.

its funny that even now you think this topic thread is related to lightning network.. maybe try to read the title

edit: to reply to below
well you prove the opposite. its obvious you beat yourself every night.
its not an insult to your manhood. its an observation of your flip flopping contradiction that end up debunking yourself

im still laughing.

389 fails is still 389 fails.

imagine you made 200 bitcoin transactions waiting to confirm. and 140 just never got confirmed.. people would call that a failure.

Rath_ might call it a 'test of mempool' or a attempt to see what acceptable fees are. but just having a system that doesnt make 70%-90% of payments shows its not the 'instant payment' system

Rath_ knows that the 'network gossip' part of route path finding is completely different to the invoice/payment things. so i truly laugh that he wants to pretend the fails are 'route finding gossip'.

as for my wording of my explanations.. just because i dont use the altnetters silly buzzwords in their silly PR campaign format, and instead i use average joe analogies. does not mean i am flip flopping anything i say.. nothing i say is contradictory from one of my messages to another of my messages.. however altnetters contradict themselves and flip flop all the time.

if you want to cry because i dont call channels 'edges' and instead i use joint-bank-account analogies, then go buy yourself a warehouse of tissues. or grow up.
i dont try bigging up my ego to pretend to be elite by using special words of a boysclub.. i explain my thoughts using words average people can understand.
so keep crying if i dont speak your buzzword language. its not proof i dont know the language, its proof i learned the language and can think outside of the box to translate it into normal-speak. i dont play the ego game you guys are obsessed with

oh.. and by the way.. the 90% fail pizza experiment.. was where the pizza recipient got X amount of orders but x-90% of payments
it was not a case of re-routing and paid seconds later in full via different middlemen. it was pizza orders but no funds to pay for it.

as for Rath_'s 70% fail. Rath_ admitted he has no clue why they failed. but he assume, presumes, guesses possible causes. and has then took an extra step off a cliff to use a guess to try selling the utopian dream cause. rather than being honest and tell people that LN has many causes for fails

time travel is real..
forward only.

by the time i post this message a whole minute has been traversed.
however philosophically just 3 days ago was also a previous year.

..
but with that said.
if you are spending time thinking about the past. you are wasting your future.

in two years time you may well be looking back to this date remembering your saddened thoughts of missing the 2009 opportunity. but also saddened that in 2024 you missed the 2022 opportunity too.

part of the tween was about the $100k

just some economic theory to add to this point:
at the moment the most expensive electric price on the planet puts mining costs at $80k a coin.
right now those countries are not mining but happily buying. keeping prices from going down by countering those with coin selling
if the price reached $80k then EVERYONE on the planet can afford to mine. which means then selling at profit. meaning less buy pressure and more sell pressure, so no a sustainable price to reach

to establish a sustainable VALUE (that lasts) at and above $100k the hashrate has to exceed and maintain atleast 230exahash to really make it difficult and costly to mine and make even $100k worthy of some buy pressure.

yes we might see some speculative hype social drama move the price up. but social drama is never a sustainable metric of value. its just a pump and dump temporary price glitch

....
as for two other countries..
well it only took El salvador 7 months from trialling the 'strike' remittance system to then get the country to legally acknowledge bitcon as legal tender. so anything it is possible in the next year that other countries might do too. but expect a few months delay between announcing a countries interest vs actually achieving it.

and as we all know by now, announcements of 'interested in a possible acceptance' is not actual acceptance, and remains gossip until it actually becomes legal

in fiat. to get rich. you need alot of chances.
whether its passing certain qualifications to get noticeable credits to put on your resume, to then get you a job that can pay you fairly and support you to accumulate wealth.

whether its being picked at an interview amongst the hundreds of other applicants that meet the job role requirements

whether its fulfilling your duties in work to such a high standard you are awarded promotions

..
in crypto. there is no need of a resume. you dont even need to have a elegant business plan shown to a bank manager just to open a business bank account to start a business. in crypto you just need a 32byte scrabble of digits as your private key.

starting a crypto business is easier than a fiat business. you dont need to have a business account and then pay a PoS system for their commerce software, nor their Visa/Mastercard terminal. you just need to convert your public address into a QR code to show customers. thats it.

people can sell literally anything, clothes, devices, touristy stuff, gadgets gizmo's, fluffy bunnies (anything)

if you can find something alot of people want and you can source it cheaper than average retail prices. you can sell it for crypto and not have the hassle of the old banking system applications crap.
you can literally start up within minutes.

as for accredited qualifications. there are not really any. just learn via practice. think of what niche service/project is needed most and learn how to do it yourself. save yourself 4 years of your life and save yourself from the college debt.

display your learned skills by examples/portfolio of work/github commits.