Then protect your private key, because it is far more probable than you will screw things up with the paper wallet, than the entire Bitcoin network with itself.

For the sake of the potential confusion: Bitcoin Core is an implementation of Bitcoin. It is not Bitcoin itself. I don't understand why you're concerned about Electrum going extinct, but not about Bitcoin Core. Both are equally reputable and maintained for more than a decade. And both are parts of the Bitcoin network.

And I strongly recommend you to create an Electrum wallet instead, as it's more user-friendly and contains less complex terminology.

OP, note that with current fee rates, you'll have to pay quite a lot. Spending 30 inputs takes up about 2000 vbytes. With fee rate at 45 sat/vb, that will cost 90,000 sat at least.

Technically speaking, the transaction fee is not considered an output. From the perspective of the protocol, the sum of all the outputs minus the sum of all the inputs is the transaction fee.

I swear I've heard it in a negative tone before.

It's just sad how quickly this company sold their principles. I remember using Wasabi in 2020, before 2.0 was released, in their lightweight client. I was honestly impressed by how easy and cheap it was to do coinjoin. I must have suggested it a couple of times in this forum.

But everything began going downwards after the blacklisting update. I remember the people's comments on their twitter. Seemed as if they lost a lot of clients. Then, n0nce sent them a letter, and at this point, I knew we had to do with clowns. The rest is history.

Let me try answering the questions.

My opinion is irrelevant. If another person wants to lock their bitcoin in a centralized platform, then who am I to tell him do otherwise? I'd rather want from the overwhelming majority to respect self-custody, but it is part of the Bitcoin spirit to respect freedom of choice as well.

Again, what I want is irrelevant. However, if my opinion holds even the slightest value, I prefer to allow each individual to determine for themselves the optimal perspective on Bitcoin. ETFs will definitely not destroy Bitcoin as currency, same as with any other centralized platform.

---

The following quoted sentences are not questions, so I guess I have to comment them.

As it already happens with centralized exchanges.

As it already happens.

Pseudo-anonymity is the last thing an investor will look when buying an ETF. Nonetheless, it won't affect Bitcoin's pseudo-anonymity in the slightest.

The Bitcoin network has long been congested without any ETFs. We've been at 30-100 sat/vb months now, before ETF was approved. There are countless of reasons why there will be on-chain transactions.

Sent you 0.01 tBTC. I hope they are enough. 

I hope this is a worthless token; testnet bitcoins are worthless themselves. As far as I can see, it is an Ethereum token which is based on the Bitcoin blockchain. I had read about it in this thread, but it still hasn't convinced me it has to go through Ethereum and can't just built itself in a second layer. Smells like the creators wanna make a few quick bucks.

It is safer in the sense that an Internet connected computer is prone to be compromised by an attacker via the Internet, whereas it is simply physically impossible for this to happen on an airgapped device.

My instinct tells me that you're about to make a mistake. Would you like to try out testnet first? I can spare you a few testnet sats.

I don't think we should endorse it. As I already said, if Electrum does not approve this method of recovering a seed phrase, then nobody should recover it likewise. There are different normalization steps followed by these two standards, and I severely lack the confidence to even have an opinion on that matter; I haven't even studied their precise terminology. I only know that my improvised "Iancole-electrum" is untested.

Even in HCP's repo you can see a giant "Run at your OWN risk!!".

For the sake of the discussion, I don't believe Samourai devs are saint either. I mean, they are orders of magnitude more trustworthy than Wasabi, and I'm a whirlpool user myself, but we frequently notice Samourai vs. Wasabi disputes which ruin the reputation of both.

Praising someone's death is undoubtedly one of the easiest ways to tarnish your reputation. However, there are numerous red flags associated with Wasabi's reputation. Even if you overlook Wasabi as an entity with all the falsehoods surrounding fungibility, address reuse, and the fact that zkSNACKs funds blockchain analysis, there's still a significant concern with Kruw himself serving as an alarm bell for Wasabi.

Deliberately disregarding every argument against Wasabi, resorting to whataboutism, and repeatedly using the same soundbites, accusing signature campaign participants of stealing users' coins without providing any evidence, believing that blacklisting in Bitcoin is sometimes necessary-- overall, his ethics seem to be a perplexing area.

He has public stated he is a Wasabi contributor. If you check his Github page, he has worked on Wasabi.

In general, don't import an electrum seed phrase in a non-electrum software, unless it is certified by Electrum team. Let's keep it simple as that. You wouldn't attempt to ever restore a Bitcoin Core wallet outside Bitcoin Core, so why would you want to restore an electrum seed phrase elsewhere? Both are equally reputable.

Do you mean that it removes diacritics and CJK in the optional extra passphrase?

Doesn't seem to me like modernization. As said by pooya, we already have banking apps, which are designed to be used by the dumbest. A central bank's job, at least as far as I understand neo-liberalism, is to control the extent to which banks can manipulate interest rates. The central bank of the EU is supposed to regulate and ensure the integrity of the banks, rather than introduce an app that circumvents their authority. It is an abrupt departure from their usual responsibilities.

And? It's not them who really make the decisions, it's the representatives of each political party. To me, the presidents are rather just an image needed to present the parties in the media.

Wasabi is operated by a team which is caught lying frequently, supporting censorship, providing questionable levels of privacy, doxxing their competitors, and as Leo would put it, directly funding the enemy.

I do not decide what's morally right or wrong for you, that's usually Kruw's business. If you find it morally acceptable to advertise Wasabi after all this information, then so be it.

Another theory is that a large holder switched to Monero, or simply makes usage of this internal function as a mixer. eXch is really attractive for an anonymous entity. No KYC and supports Tor. It reduces some risks of de-anonymization by just sending and receiving bitcoin via Tor Browser, than to use a less reviewed, more complicated software like Bisq. (And it might be cheaper as well)

How to gain 20 merits for free:

• Download bip39-standalone.html.
• Go to line 28611 and replace "return h == nh;" with "return true;".
• Go to line 28639 and replace "mnemonic" with "electrum".
• Open bip39-standalone.html in your browser and paste your seed phrase.
• Select "Bitcoin - Testnet" from "Coin".
• In "Derivation Path", select BIP141, P2WPKH and use: m/0'/0

Ta-da!

He surely didn't appreciate the invitation to the NSA, but I doubt that was the reason of his departure. In case you didn't know, that was their last conversation: http://gavinandresen.ninja/eleven-years-ago-today. 

Hardforking creates an altcoin. Even if the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin userbase switched to that hypothetical hardfork, it wouldn't really be Bitcoin.

They have to open a channel with a peer I would rather call.

From the sender's perspective, it needs to have outbound liquidity (the liquidity which allows to spend on the network). Respectively, the recipient needs to have inbound liquidity (which allows to receive).

If I'm understanding right, you're asking how the recipient can gain inbound liquidity. The answer is either someone opens a channel with them (which initially would grant them all the liquidity as inbound), or they open a channel with someone and convert their outbound liquidity to inbound (e.g., by selling LN-BTC for BTC).

What needs to be mentioned is that none of the peers forfeits their custody, at any point.

Here are a couple of reasons from the top of my head:

- There are no shitcoins, and usually people get into cryptos for getting rich quickly.
- They've spread their personal documents in quite a lot of places already, so they don't care doing it again.
- They don't know KYC might pose them a threat.
- There is less liquidity.
- There is no marketing, as with affiliate links and advertisements, which draws the attention.

You have misunderstood. There's no transaction intermediary in the same sense as with the banking sector, unless you have specified otherwise (e.g., using a custodial wallet). When opening a lightning channel, the funds remain on your possession, and you can close the channel either cooperatively or non-cooperatively. There are "intermediaries" in the sense that the payment gets through various routes until it reaches the recipient.

For example, if Alice wants to pay Charlie and they don't share a channel, they have to go through Bob's node that shares a channel with both Alice and Charlie, like this:

Wasabi dev praising for someone's death. Here is the moral gatekeeper I should trust on blacklisting my coins.

What a scum.

The poem gives me chills. We are all part of the island. And the sea... The sea just washes the coast. We never know when it's our time. It is both wonderful and terrifying. It pushes us to live, love, learn and effect change. Time is the only asset we truly can't afford to lose.

I once heard a saying about immortality that I simply can't forget. "If you were to live forever, you would never get up in the morning". Limited time is the incentive for an enjoyable journey.