Thank you very much! Yes the second command worked.  I certainly appreciate your quick support! FYI I'm running a Windows node version 20.2 in case that helps.  Thanks again and have a great day!

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to scan multiple addresses simultaneously with your own node rather than querying each one independently in the console such as the below command:


scantxoutset "start" "[\"addr(bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw)\"]"


The above example is done with a BitWise address for reference only and is not mine however I would like to be able to figure this out as this command takes a very long time to perform as it has to scan the entire UTXO set so it would speed things up immensely if there was a way to add a list of addresses to scan a single command rather than having to enter one address at a time. 

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

Here's the log output of my node which seems to show it knew the address was associated to the wallet:

2024-02-20T13:27:05Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26  new

2024-02-20T13:56:21Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26  update

2024-02-20T14:00:20Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac  new

2024-02-20T14:01:14Z [default wallet] AddToWallet 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac  update

2024-02-20T14:03:13Z [default wallet] AddToWallet efa697ee815ee0d2b4840c436836efd5c94fc550d0da55a9513ecfef2562e68f  new

That would make sense to me but my thoughts are that if it was in fact as you described, then why would my node's log show the above transactions added to the nodes watch only list at the specific times rather than wait to add them ntil post transmission to the bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw address? 

Update: As of 13:27 UTC today my node now shows an inbound transaction of 403.46540998 BTC received to address bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n

I am however a bit confused.  How exactly did my node associate the new address to the watch only list in my node as the last command I entered was only the following and so it did not include the new address that shows this inbound transaction.

importmulti '[
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qxyzs02t7gdd9n203ucy03m0yw5zzllyn2k49hm" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qznvrh6eq0k88hwu9g44hk4mw5kemap3pmmljza" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q0gepug33c0tp6hf7l2f23ve9m0a0t7sv5ylwdx" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qgfqd5dyj6l9s2djwjjhg87tjjtzlshw5egkfct" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qdeurgks0dfqdeetvelhykuh90753swsy8k9kaz" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qzq39c6k0k3mxtqyuz342u774csrtljk4xhjvql" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qadu6va2re2slfxf7wxxrj30aknj954h7w6zh0g" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q46dggcuwgftce2uywx23fp4jq6xqda4xa8tuwh" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qxaqt6jynlh2z4c5ajhdwyr5qa3yqykytwvuml0" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qfa5x969js5lxn2vetql8ajerjcrn43hja56ex9" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1q4x6el3tkests79gvf2vkz2revw47r2n5s50uku" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""
},
{
  "scriptPubKey" : { "address": "bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw" },
  "timestamp" : 0,
  "label" : ""

}]' '{"rescan":false}'

Clearly somehow the node understood that this new address is associated to this group of addresses in the watch only list but I don't understand how it was able to do so.  Furthermore I see that the following transactions occurred in the following order which further confuses me but perhaps makes sense to others here:


Status: 28 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 13:27
From: unknown
To: bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n (watch-only)
Credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Net amount: +403.46540998 BTC
Transaction ID: 808400b94672ec7231371432706cda38f2356e9b5435917d287349d223578d26
Transaction total size: 1113 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 548 bytes
Output index: 0


Status: 27 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 14:00
From: unknown
To: bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n (watch-only)
Credit: 0.00006048 BTC
Net amount: +0.00006048 BTC
Transaction ID: 1ae01f4f3d68a08658fbf03149ed20dab83e8a775d6e412e23ded991e4de85ac
Transaction total size: 246 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 165 bytes
Output index: 0

Status: 25 confirmations
Date: 2/20/2024 14:03
From: watch-only
To: bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw (watch-only)
Debit: -403.46540998 BTC
Credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Total debit: -403.46540998 BTC
Total credit: 403.46540998 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.00006048 BTC
Net amount: -0.00006048 BTC
Transaction ID: efa697ee815ee0d2b4840c436836efd5c94fc550d0da55a9513ecfef2562e68f
Transaction total size: 340 bytes
Transaction virtual size: 178 bytes
Output index: 0

The last transaction seems to be an address that their site has already posted to previously ( bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw ) and it seems like that's where the current 403.46540998 BTC are located and as such my node's watch list currently matches the total amount of BTC that BitWise shows on their site (https://bitbetf.com/) however as I said I'm confused how my wallet knew to associate the transaction today to address bc1qh9xvgsqh648q7kyq2d0uu90e7tv6ph46rjjy3n  when it was never imported into the node as watch only address.

Any input here would be much appreciated.

Ok so has anyone else noticed that within just a few days after they moved their Bitcoin from their Coinbase custodied P2PK address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) to their current SegWit address lists that are posted to https://bitbetf.com/ that there's already a discrepancy?  I guess Wall St is going to try to Wall St even if we know they're fibbing.  I mean as per my node currently the addresses they've posted (as of 17 Feb 1700 UTC) are as follows:

bc1qsshluxkwzf3ksnm5gh8wpzt453x75f2gn6dlqw
bc1qjjwhdve94cvg3d69shjrczn7wgqc8esujm72w8
bc1qxyzs02t7gdd9n203ucy03m0yw5zzllyn2k49hm
bc1qznvrh6eq0k88hwu9g44hk4mw5kemap3pmmljza
bc1q0gepug33c0tp6hf7l2f23ve9m0a0t7sv5ylwdx
bc1q9nzr8tzsx8pyk25ufps22p6un4k2y3ymh9lmze
bc1qgfqd5dyj6l9s2djwjjhg87tjjtzlshw5egkfct
bc1qdeurgks0dfqdeetvelhykuh90753swsy8k9kaz
bc1qzq39c6k0k3mxtqyuz342u774csrtljk4xhjvql
bc1qadu6va2re2slfxf7wxxrj30aknj954h7w6zh0g
bc1q46dggcuwgftce2uywx23fp4jq6xqda4xa8tuwh
bc1qxaqt6jynlh2z4c5ajhdwyr5qa3yqykytwvuml0
bc1qfa5x969js5lxn2vetql8ajerjcrn43hja56ex9
bc1q4x6el3tkests79gvf2vkz2revw47r2n5s50uku
bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw

Total value shown on my node as of this post is a value of 22,114.33078249 Bitcoins vs. their site bitbetf.com that shows they have 22,517.79 which is a difference of 403.45914782 Bitcoin.  This is a substantial difference!  If you look at it in USD then the amount of difference is $20,576,416.54 at $51,000 per Bitcoin or rather 740,292.0143486239 shares of the ETF assuming the amount of BTC per BitWise ETF is in fact set to .000545 BTC per share as indicated on the bitbetf.com site.  Either way I think it's important to watch these folks as closely as we can and to report any discrepancies ASAP for community awareness and vetting.

From my standpoint it's more likely that they either somehow posted the wrong total, or forgot to add the new address however that seems unlikely as it seems pretty clear that they're stacking 1500 Bitcoin in each address and the last one (bc1qgrjjf3xaf9ejmm5lcsfl0e2ep63t6zcxf7h9sw)  currently has 1114.33071307  BTC.  Any thoughts?

Update: I'm now seeing the transaction in both of my node mempools.  Funny however it took weeks and weeks for this to show up and it only did so after posting here 

Correction to previous post, the time the transaction hit my German node was 21:04 yesterday 11 February 2024.  Not today as it had earlier been suggested.  I've yet to see it hit my Canadian node as of this post.

Additionally, I'm not sure if this is beneficial information or not however I noticed that when the transaction hit my German node it was timestamped between blocks 829990 and 829991 whcih were mined by Foundry USA and Antpool respectively. The only unexpected transaction as per mempool dot space was in block 829991 which was TXN ID 015bd7aca8f853fdce9ce241667ad47ee6a0c08d2d9aa32402fa2af7232c5d53 that seems to have features of SegWit, Taproot, and RBF.  Also to reiterate my node will not see taproot as it is core v 20.2. 

Thanks for any feedback on this one as has me a bit concerned regarding transaction propagation through the pleb node network.

This is interesting.  I'm just now seeing that transaction (73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25) has showed up in one of my nodes mempool today as of 21:04 UTC.  The node of mine that is now seeing this TXN is the one in which I ran the decoderawtransaction command after copying it from the mempool dot space site.  Interestingly however my other node has yet to see this transaction in it's mempool. Perhaps noteworthy is that the IP address of the node that is seeing the pending transaction noted is located in Germany and the one yet to see the transaction has an IP address located in Canada....

I've been watching the mempool dwindle lately and it looks great as it's now under a gig as per mempool dot space!  Perhaps its the filters being properly applied on the node runners using their filters (permitbaremultisig equals 0 datacarriersize equals 0) or perhaps the ordinals / inscriptions teams have lost their appetite or been persuaded for other reasons to scale back.  Regardless however I'm noticing another trend with the mempool dot space goggles lately.  While the amount of inscriptions has seemingly dwindled based on these goggles, the amount of taproot non inscriptions transactions has drastically increased.  Perhaps they've found a way around the goggles of mempool dot space to use taproot for transmitting these images?  The reason I ponder this is that during the ordinals / inscriptions peak, almost every single taproot transaction in the mempool was an inscriptions transaction(in fact I couldn't even see one that wasn't) yet now it's seemingly half or less the volume of taproot transactions are inscriptions.  I wonder what would have changed over these last few weeks to have such a profound impact on the taproot transactions.  Anyway I wanted to put it out there to everyone to see if they too had noticed this change and if anyone knows what all these recent taproot transactions of late are as they seemed nonexistent a few weeks ago during the inscriptions / ordinals peak.

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Have a great weekend fellow Bitcoiners!

I wouldn't have thought so either however this particular transaction has been pending for several weeks according to mempool dot space and blockstream dot info and yet it has not showed up on any of my nodes.  Very odd and I hope someone who has a better understanding than me about it could try to take a better look into it and provide some feedback.  Thanks again to all for your replies.

Since this isn't my transaction I honestly don't care to rebroadcast it or whether or not it succeeds from a financial standpoint. My concern rather is that it is seemingly a valid transaction according to the menpool dot pace website's node and also blockstream dot info yet for some reason it isn't being seen by either of my two nodes. My concern is that there is some kind of technical issue that's preventing certain transactions from being propagated to certain nodes and that is something that should be of concern for the entire community.

I'm curious if anyone else can see this transaction running pre taproot bitcoin core nodes.  Again this is for transaction ID 73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25 .  This has got me stumped.

Also noted in an earlier post, I've noticed an ongoing memory size and transaction count discrepancies between my nodes ever since the taproot roll out.  And just for convenience I'm running v 20.2 both with the same config options set.

Also here's the output from the data on mempool dot space


decoderawtransaction 02000000000101039e22a2307f736baed142bbe3faab8c73af359d66abdc0ed82894bec5acd4080 000000017160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5fdffffff0264c0f505000000 0017a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87391b0000000000001976a9147c28f a5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac02483045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb101 25bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c3980220351e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b6 8f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc55610121033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612d e8176dff650d9d709f68a00c00

{
  "txid": "73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25",
  "hash": "b7e5b1f2fd2400b932c3efc69ba1f27943a7298dd5d81e4ab9ddc2837cfdd33a",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 250,
  "vsize": 168,
  "weight": 670,
  "locktime": 827496,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "08d4acc5be9428d80edcab669d35af738cabfae3bb42d1ae6b737f30a2229e03",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "0014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5",
        "hex": "160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5"
      },
      "txinwitness": [
        "3045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb10125bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c39802203 51e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b68f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc556101",
        "033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612de8176dff650d9d709f"
      ],
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.99991652,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b OP_EQUAL",
        "hex": "a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "scripthash",
        "addresses": [
          "3L58dLrzcoKy2VHr5VHisbrT1pGaHexE1U"
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00006969,
      "n": 1,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
        "hex": "76a9147c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "pubkeyhash",
        "addresses": [
          "1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM"
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

This isn't my transaction.  I'm just seeing it on mempool dot space and trying to understand why it's not being propagated to my node.

Thanks for the reply.  Would not the getmempoolinfo command show me how much it would take to get into my node's mempool?  Here is the output of that command:


16:23:13

getmempoolinfo

16:23:13

{
  "loaded": true,
  "size": 72900,
  "bytes": 197306637,
  "usage": 625216656,
  "maxmempool": 1500000000,
  "mempoolminfee": 0.00001000,
  "minrelaytxfee": 0.00001000
}


That said, while I understand the fee is low, should it not still exist in my mempool considering that the minrelaytxfee is 0.00001000? My understand is that since this transaction is ~8.2 sat/vB and that the virtual size is 168 vB with the total fee being BTC 0.00001379, then it should be there in my local node's mempool yet it is not.

Also FYI my mempool has a 1500 MB setting. TIA

Supplemental Info:

Although the transaction isn't listed in either of my node's mempool, I was able to copy the raw transaction from mempool dot space and decoded it using the decoderawtransaction command and it produced the following output:


16:43:44

decoderawtransaction 02000000000101039e22a2307f736baed142bbe3faab8c73af359d66abdc0ed82894bec5acd4080 000000017160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5fdffffff0264c0f505000000 0017a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87391b0000000000001976a9147c28f a5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac02483045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb101 25bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c3980220351e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b6 8f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc55610121033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612d e8176dff650d9d709f68a00c00


16:43:44

{
  "txid": "73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25",
  "hash": "b7e5b1f2fd2400b932c3efc69ba1f27943a7298dd5d81e4ab9ddc2837cfdd33a",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 250,
  "vsize": 168,
  "weight": 670,
  "locktime": 827496,
  "vin": [
    {
      "txid": "08d4acc5be9428d80edcab669d35af738cabfae3bb42d1ae6b737f30a2229e03",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "0014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5",
        "hex": "160014f7b69d0d55cbc447c1fcfee91731bf12638d30f5"
      },
      "txinwitness": [
        "3045022100f65393217d2c83c71f11ecb10125bd277de5bb2bc08e3eac296ce3bcef38c39802203 51e68d01c12495a1e30912174e7a76bca1b68f7d55fb904aa5010f57bdc556101",
        "033e123903b5d3891da423fdc387e096a8b16558820e612de8176dff650d9d709f"
      ],
      "sequence": 4294967293
    }
  ],
  "vout": [
    {
      "value": 0.99991652,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_HASH160 c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b OP_EQUAL",
        "hex": "a914c9a102d204d83d2725d84bf8b8124bf879614f5b87",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "scripthash",
        "addresses": [
          "3L58dLrzcoKy2VHr5VHisbrT1pGaHexE1U"
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "value": 0.00006969,
      "n": 1,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 7c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
        "hex": "76a9147c28fa5c7f37de70fd6b74b5e7ce6c8e575e90df88ac",
        "reqSigs": 1,
        "type": "pubkeyhash",
        "addresses": [
          "1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM"
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}


Perhaps this will help one of your transaction experts identify why it's not in my node's mempool. Thanks.

Hi all,

Every since Bitwise has posted their ETF bitcoin address ( 1CKVszDdUp4ymGceAZpGzYEFr4RPNHYqaM ) I've been watching to try to get an idea of how much Tradfi was stacking (even though it is supposedly hosted on Coinbase and no other ETF has publicly posted their addresses as of yet).  Either way I've noticed that there has been a pending transaction ( 73e65b2aba2a493e5db4cd19976b608e5bc4925952bc3020354fe56d9cef8d25 )that does not show up in either of my mempools that I'm running on my two pre taproot nodes that run Version 20.2 each.

Both of my nodes are running on Windows based machines and I do have the permitbaremultisig and the datacarrier config options each set to zero however I don't think that either of these apply to this transaction (though maybe I'm wrong?).   Either way I was just curious to if anyone here would be able to tell me why that transaction isn't showing up.  As per mempool dot space it is a SEGWIT and RBF enabled transaction.  I've also checked my nodes to see what the  minrelaytxfee was set to and it's currently 0.00001000 which means that it shouldn't be filtered out as from what I understand the 8.23 sats per byte that's listed in mempool multiplied by the amount of virtual bytes should put it at > 1000 sats. 

Thanks in advance for your replies. 

Hello and thank you for your reply however I believe that I've found the correct config option.  For everyone else interested, I believe you would edit the bitcoin config file to add an entry like this:

uacomment=your custom message goes here

Thank you for the reply.

Hello everyone.  I just noticed a few nodes that are connecting to my nodes are adding personalized notes to their User Agent Fields like they did back in the day during the Blocksize Wars.  Can anyone give me a walkthrough on how you go about adding these message?  My nodes are running on Windows 10 and Windows 11 and are Bitcoin Core Nodes. Thanks to everyone in advance!

I'm now noting that my nodes running core V 20.2 now shows over 1 gigabyte in each of their local mempools while mempool dot space shows 1.74 Gigs.  That should mean I'm seeing the majority of the mempool dot spaces mempool however this should not be possible as also according to mempool dot space more than 50% of the current mempool is taproot transactions, none of which can be seen by my nodes.  Something seems amiss here. It should also be noted that among my nodes the discrepancy in memory usage and TX count continues amongst them unabated since Taproot's introduction.

From my perspective, Bitcoin is currently undergoing a multitude of attacks let's break them down one by one.

Political / Legal. The current political attacks being lead by senator Elizabeth Warren and cronies was initiated after being directed by Jamie Dimon (who has since been appointed as the AP or Authorized Participant for the largest BTC ETF). These attackers seem to be doing their very best to legally separate plebs from their sats while aligning Wall Street to become the custodians of our freedom money.



Technical / Social. The L1 Bitcoin network is currently being spammed by Ordinals and Inscriptions which is prematurely increasing the L1 transaction fees. This is pricing out many lower net worth folks from participating in L1 self custody. This attack seems to have a large amount of buy in from NFT pushers and alt coiners as well as a good chunk of the miners as most of the larger miners are being short sighted and looking to maximize profits in dollars as much and as quickly as possible. This has lead to a huge battle within the Bitcoin community and it currently remains to be seen how this will play out.



Wall Street Attacks. By now everyone knows that Wall Street is here as they have had their ETFs green light. If the first two days of trading are any guide of what's to come, then I'm afraid to say its starting to appear they're going to buy OTC and dump spot market in an effort to control the dollar price of Bitcoin. Just look at what Coinbase has said with respect to their reported $7,000,000,000 USD of OTC traded the first day ETFs did. None of course can be independently verified by any of us plebs. These ETF / Wall Street folks are asking us to invert the ethos of "Don't trust, verify." into "Trust us bro." In my view Wall Street would gladly take a substantial loss on these Bitcoin products so long by doing so they believe that it would greatly harm or destroy bitcoin in the process as Bitcoin is the largest threat to their way of life.



Great so what now? Any good news or anything we can do about it? Absolutely and glad you asked!

From my perspective the best part of all of this is that Bitcoin is still alive and is getting more publicity than any amount of money could have bought it! That being said I believe that all of this noise will get people to understand what Bitcoin is, why it's important, and eventually will understand that the only way to get it to succeed and create a more just and equitable world for all will be to hold Bitcoin in self custody. IMO they will realize that to do this in the most effective way that they will need to minimize their spheres of trust and will learn about how to create their own entropy with simple analog methods offline (such as flipping coins 256 times) and creating their own BIP 39 seeds. They'll also learn how to run their own nodes for verification and to transmit and receive their own bitcoin transactions. These actions will allow for the dollar price of Bitcoin to break free from their manipulation efforts and will eventually get us to a better bitcoin centric world that will break the monopoly of value creation and distribution from centralized control.