You're assuming people are willing to accept Bitcoin as a currency. As of now, Bitcoin is a speculative asset as you've mentioned people are encouraging others to "HODL" and not spend it. "Hodling" goes contrary to what we're trying to achieve, which is mass adoption. The only reason why Bitcoin can rise even further is if it gets accepted universally as a currency, current conditions are created by the FOMO culture as well as the institutional buyers (and Elon Musk) entering the market.

Given that most buyers are looking at these factors when purchasing Bitcoin, it isn't a stretch to assume that their investment choices are based on past performance of Bitcoin. Not exactly a good sign.

That assumption will probably hold true; 500 out of 1 million Bitcoiners actively using it as a currency. If the use for Bitcoin as a currency remains small, and people are still unwilling to spend it, then companies wouldn't find the need to adopt it. Save for some PR and market manipulation.

Perpetuating that culture is toxic to say the least. As I said, if you believe Bitcoin is a currency, then use it like one. Accumulating it and believing that it'll rise in the future is pure speculation and makes it a speculative asset, not a currency.

Nothing wrong with that wallet. Infact it is one of the earliest wallets for Android. They don't use BIP39 but the seed is contained within the backup in a different format. Just back it up like you would for a Bitcoin Core wallet.

I would strongly advise against generating seeds in browsers, moreso for browsers within mobile OSes. There is no guarantees whether the functions are executed correctly and Android hasn't historically been great with generating sufficient entropy either, fault lies more with the developers but still. It'll be far better to use the app that BlackHatCoiner mentioned, more well tested and straightforward to use.

If OP still prefers seeds, there are other wallets on Android which supports that. I'd rather choose a different wallet than going through so many hurdles to use legacy addresses on Electrum whilst exposing myself to so many attack vectors.

The kind of cryptos that you're choosing is dependent on what the customer wants. You can choose to implement a basket of them to give the option to choose whichever they like.

If you want to use Bitcoin, do it off-chain. Lightning network for example. Choosing most alts either results in lower usage due to the smaller userbase or just extreme volatility. You'll have to do your own research on this part.

You cannot create legacy addresses on Electrum, on Android anymore. The only way is through the console which is unfortunately not an option with Android.

You'll have to either use another wallet or on your computer.

Cobra did attend

No one has ever insinuated Cobra is Satoshi. Privacy is important to loads of people, for various reasons.

I suggest for you to start doing some research on the judicial system in UK instead of undermining their integrity.

You know, some of them aren't really the sharpest tool in the shed. Just search up on their Google hearing LOL. Putting the most incompetent people on subjects that they're not sure about.

If you're giving up your control to the government, just use fiat. Don't bother with cryptos, really. That is not what most cryptos aim to do. Good luck trying to block any transactions on Bitcoin though. I use fiat, am I complicit with money laundering

Depends on where you live, certain places do not have capital gains tax which wouldn't eat into your profits.

If you never sell your Bitcoins or otherwise actively use it, then there is little purpose for Bitcoin's existence. Not everyone should be trying to loan out their Bitcoins, oversaturating the market that way wouldn't be beneficial either and incurs opportunity costs for your Bitcoins as well.

I don't see the point of HODLing it. If everyone adopts that mindset, then Bitcoin simply wouldn't grow in the long term. How can you justify it as a currency if the value arises from its potential to supplement or otherwise replace the financial systems?

Transactions are instantaneous. The confirmation or the process to include your transactions into the blockchain takes much longer, at least an average of 10 minutes.

Miners mostly consider the fee rates to maximize the fees that they're able to collect within the block. For Bitcoin, this means calculating by vbyte instead of actual size. Older clients still adheres to the 1MB real size limit. Using the vbyte as a metric allows the witness stripped block to be kept within that. While fee rate is generally how miner decides to include your transactions, they can choose some other factors as well, be it their own transactions or transactions that were directly pushed to them for an additional fee.

Certain altcoins are perceived to have faster confirmation due to the quicker block time or less congested network.

Did you give the file write permissions?

chmod 644 settings.json? That gives you the permission to read and write to file.

The section of default ruling: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part12

As Cobra chose to not compromise his privacy (by filing an opposition or through a legal representative), the court reached the default ruling. This doesn't mean that CSW's claims were valid, it is just that they weren't (able to be) disputed in the court so there isn't any meaning to that. From what I understand, there was a written defense by Cobra (?) but it didn't matter.

Bitcoin's sole purpose is to be used as an alternative currency. The value of which comes from (or at least should come from) the value of the coins being determined by the market for it's utility as a currency. If you're not going to use Bitcoin as a currency that can be transacted, there is no purpose for Bitcoin at all. At that point, Bitcoin's value falls and the cycle repeats. The current rapid rise is due to the widespread speculation, which isn't exactly healthy for Bitcoin's price stability.

Gresham's Law doesn't apply to Bitcoin but rather currencies which contains precious metals.

That is untrue. Economics indicates that for a specific price, there is a specific number of people that are willing to purchase and/or sell. There will be no point where scarcity of the actual coins becomes an actual issue due to people being unwilling to sell. Something like this would just cause Bitcoin to completely lose it's utility. At that point, then what is the use of Bitcoin? Why would people still be interested in it? Do they find something interesting with digital money that isn't functional as a currency?

The jurisdiction shouldn't extend to the rest of EU, after brexit AFAIK. UK can instruct their ISPs to selectively redirect traffic directed to that website to their own to enforce censorship like what they've done before. Problem being, if Cobra's identity remains hidden that is nothing that they can do. Especially if the location of their servers is located in a country where IP laws doesn't apply.

BIP38 isn't the same as BIP39. HMAC-SHA512 is involved with the hashing of the mnemonic. Passphrase for BIP39 is included in the salt of that.

BIP38 encrypts the string.

The court case wasn't contested by the defendant and that was the default judgement. It doesn't necessarily mean that the claims were valid.

It depends on how the IP laws is enacted within the jurisdiction that the website is hosted in. At best, it wouldn't be taken down completely. Just that the site or parts of it won't be accessible within the UK, assuming that Cobra is unwilling to comply.

Segwit is infact sometimes considered a block size increase. Segwit compatible clients includes the witness and the block size is greater than 1MB in raw size.

Any changes within Bitcoin is unfortunately marred by the politics that exists within. Miners were unwilling to adopt Segwit to further their agenda and some are still doing so today, coercing people to switch to Bitcoin Cash. MASF gave too much control to the miners without any accountability, IMO.

The rate of supply increase is decreasing. By logic, this achieves a deflationary currency due to the purchasing power increasing with a lower rate of supply increase. Having a fixed supply with gradual decrease ensures a fairer distribution rather than constant rate of distribution and does nothing against padding the shock received by the miners as one day the block rewards has to be close to 0.

It doesn't affect security, or at least to any significant extent but several cryptos do adopt a tail emission which ensures stability of the network as well. As compared to the direct deflationary concept of Bitcoin, that involves far more modelling of economic conditions.

You used 2FA, you probably didn't include any passphrase because you would probably know if you did.

That is probably not the "web address". If you are recovering a 2FA wallet, just restore it with your 12 word seed. When creating a new wallet, Select Wallet with two factor authentication> I already have a seed. Key in your 12 word seed in there. That will make your 2FA wallet like a normal wallet and you should just create another wallet to transfer all your funds to it.

No. If you were to implement a system which gives arguably easier ways to recover their Bitcoin, then it won't work. Bitcoin cannot restrict the number of people or ensure the authenticity of such requests, because there isn't any central authority. It is up to their user to create multiple backups and redundancy for their funds, and I expect this to be practiced more nowadays given the rise in the price. If they can't properly store their private keys or seeds, then too bad for them.

Why do people always think we need to reincoporate the Bitcoins back into the supply? There isn't any way to ascertain if coins are lost at all and having 21 million or anywhere near that is not necessarily for Bitcoin. There is no problems with a circulating supply that is much lower than that.  You cannot start stealing user's funds like that, nor is Bitcoin designed to have an unlimited supply cap.

Bump still looking.

Electrum seeds that were generated prior to a more recent versions has the potential to be a valid BIP39 mnemonic as well. It is not until recently that they decided to specifically grind for checksums that are only valid for Electrum and not BIP39. But yes, then the addresses generated will be different due to the different derivation paths.