the OP is not actually trying to offer anything new to bitcoin. he does not understand there is a solution to th OP's empty issue. QR codes solve th issue of lengthy public addresses.

all the OP is actually doing is pretending their is an issue to then offer his logo scheme as a solution. but as others have said there are not enough logo's in the world to cover all possible public addresses, so his scheme has no sustainability.

probably wise if he spent a bit more time learning and find real solutions to real problems rathr than grab the first thing he doesnt understand and then try going on a money grab

the best thing would be a fee formulae

whereby your penalised for
wanting to spend funds as soon as received.
and
wanting the funds to be confirmed quickly when respent

firstly it uses the age of the coins to be spent

if coin-age under 144 confirms.
144sat minus coin-age
so if the coin you are spending is
only 1 confirm. you pay 143sat/b..
if the coin is 10 confirms(~hour and 40minutes old) you pay 133sat/b
if the coin is 144+ confirms(a day+ old) you pay 1sat/b
(worked out by the protocol, no user decision required)

secondly the user decides how desparate their next spend needs to be confirmed
starting at 1 sat if a person doesnt care when during the day it gets confirmed. but then goes upto 144 sat if they want it in the next block.

thus if they receive a tx with 1 confirm and they want to instantly spend it in the next block it can cost them upto 288sat/b, where as if they have funds older then 1 day and they dont care if it takes a day to confirm, they only pay 2sat/b

but BTC did crash. 2013 leveldb bug..
in 2013 btc merchants literally stopped trading/accepting payments for hours, and worried about risks of double spending and if things would ever go back to normal.. (it eventually did go back to normal hours later.. but lets not pretend the event didnt happen)

i personally have a large hoard of coin from as far back as 2012. so dont get me wrong when i point out the reality.
but trying to use an event and then over promoting btc and underpromising it with lies wont actually make people trust or desire btc.
its far better to be brutally honest and get people who see the benefits of it. than to be shady and misrepresent it

i see many times thos that over promote btc are usually the ones waiting for their time to exit btc and run back to fiat in profit. not caring for the longevity/features/benefit of btc. and only looking for fiat profit. whih doubles the shady nonsense approach they try

scam

just check out post history. jon and sosk are the same person posting in the same topics but acting like one just informed the other of something new.. such a lame attempt.
too obvious. thus reporting.

maybe you should do some research
many places in africa, the wage is the equivelent of 5cents an hour. meaning just for bitcoins tx fee is an hours labour..

however, other currencies have peeked the interest of africans. where the fee's are negligable/non existant, thus more beneficial for the unbanked/low pay communtities over there.
i have personally sen it how africans liked bitcoin early on and i sen some good adoption occuring. but then 2013+ those same people started to hate what bitcoin was becoming and adoption declined. now they are looking into other coins.

also as my other post said. this topic is not about a government agency adopting bitcoin but a individual middleman grabbing peoples bitcoin and then him paying off a fine. the government agency probably has no idea bitcoin is involved at all

its not a government agency adopting bitcoin.
its not a countries public officials adopting bitcoin

its a private individual accepting bitcoin and then that private individual paying the fine on your behalf using fiat.

damn these word twisted stories trying to confuse the reality, just to make things sound better..
the problem is when people do the research and find the truth they start to see all the gimmicks and lack of a "real revolution"

things to do
1. check if the ICO website is publicly listed. by this i mean do they register a real office/contact address or are they hidden behind virtual mailboxes and proxis

2. some say they offer insurance and other regulated features, yet if you check financial agency search services, nothing is found

3. check if they ask for set amount/goal... but then dont supply information about how the funds will be spent. basically if they cant explain how they came to the goal amount then they have not planned/envisioned the project. .. they are just trying to grab money

4. look at the 'white paper' to se if its even a white paper or just a copy and paste job of another project but still lacks talking about the specifics.

though there are many asics under the control of humans who can switch them off.
there are some asics that are set up to run and reboot automatically, that are powered by renewable sources thus they dont really get a bill which means that a electric company cant just switch them off either. so mining wont stop(theoretically).

what will happen is that the hashrate will decrease and those remaining will find they have less competition.
initially it will take a little longer to mine a block, but with less miners, means its worth it as they would get a bigger slice of the rward when they do get a block..
but because it takes longer to get a block it would take longer to mine 2016 blocks to get to the point where the difficulty will drop to make it easier to get blocks.
in short: expect some slower confirmations for a few fortnights until it finds its natural equilibrium.

also with less cost due to less competition. the miners that remain would be happier to sell for less because it costs them less to mine a block, because they are getting rewards more often. yes they could hoard for profit. but in a scenario of many thousands of people running out of bitcoin, alot of those that remain, will want to cash out asap incase things got worse. EG get their rewards into a functioning exchange at the earliest possible moment

.. what i said above is in a scenario of many deciding to just not mine.
but.. greed is a big thing. and if people se there can be nice profit/gap in mining. many will continue to mine. many will start mining. due to reasons that they dont see any immoral reason not to. as its not like its killing anyone afterall

lesson one
never put all your eggs into one basket

you CANNOT regulate beer, people will always find ways to create and consume and swap beer with others.

you CAN regulate PEOPLE/BUSINESSES use of beer. in which if caught people/businesses could end up with fines.
but in short beer will continue to be made no matter what.
take the 1920's alcohol prohibition(regulation) for instance(moonshiners/gentlemens clubs era)

now swap the word beer for bitcoin and you will understand

government regulation is not a bitcoin threat. what is a threat is a development control of the code reference. which if too many people only follow one reference point of the code. the network becomes centralised. (spoiler: already happening)
yes the data is distributed, yes the private key holding is distributed, but the decision of code upgrade becomes centralised around a core team.
distrubuted vs decentralisd are 2 different things altogether

and if then that development is moving away from the 2009-2013 ethos of bitcoin, to move people away from bitcoin and instead into other networks. then that is the threat. (sorry cant innovate beer anymore there are limits, but try this potato vodka instead)

---

governments dont see bitcoin as an economic threat. to them bitcoins are just assets. like iphones or beer. if you buy a bitcoin/iphone/beer its stil moving FIAT from your account to the fiat bank account of a bitcoin/iphone/beer seller.
governments have laws that keep fiat in play, minimum wage, tax, court fines, etc. so fiat is not at risk to governments.

if you are american you still have to pay american taxes in american dollars.
if you dont pay taxes but are seen living a lifestyle of someone having income that should be paying taxes you will be fined in american dollars.. the government will still get their fiat. on way or another

in short unless minimum wage/tax law changes, the government dont care what you buy as long as you get paid the amounts that allow them to tax you, it dont matter if its bitcoin, euro, or moondust.

---

governments do not care about economic impact. the reason for regulation is to make more income via licences. as its free money for them while making businesses police the businesses customers.. in short government gets free money and makes a business do the work

governments pretend that regulations are about consumer protection. yet most regulations are about policing customers by investigating customers. not supporting customers. if governments cared about protecting customers. then they would not push for regulatory licences. but instead consumer protection insurances.
regulation vs consumer protection are 2 separate things.

take the housing crisis. banks were regulated. but mortgage holders lost out. banks gained. bankers did not get slapped, they got rewarded. mortgage holders not only lost a shelter but the funds they put into that shelter initially.

bitcoin technology.... blockchain technology are 2 separate things.
bitcoins version of blockchain technology has not changed in nearly a decade, and the smal changes that have happened in between have not ben for the sole benefit of bitcoin. but to benefit other networks.

take an electric engine(blockchain). it could be used in a car(bitcoin) or a human transporting hover drone(other coins)

the engine may have developed.. but the car is getting outdated. even though a car is the most promoted vehicle people see.
cars ar still stuck with 4 wheels that need to be moved across a road surface. so cars are outdated, even if people promote new shiny cars of glittery paint

more people move around with their feet. rather than cars. but the over promise under delivery is that there are more cars then other transportation methods.
(reality: cars in america 280mill.... american feet 650million (325pairs of feet))

once people stop caring about over speculating(for greed) by over promoting. just to see a new useless ATH which 99% of people wont even be logged into an exchange iintime to actually sell at the peak. . to instead look at the underlying value (around $6k+ currently). they will begin to see what they can do to inncrease the underlaying value.

EG ignore the $20k peak. instead think about
2016 btc never went below $300
2017 btc never went below $900
2018 btc never went below $6000

then think about what needs to be done realistically to keep and grow the support line. and what needs to change to prevent breaking the suport line

bitcoin is not the most used tech, its the most promoted tech.

take fiat
people think the dollar is the most used currency because people compare and measure oil and world economics to the dollar. but in reality only ~400million out of 7.5 billion people actually use dollar.

where as in india/asia BILLIONS of people use chinese or indian currency.

the bitcoin specific tech for mining (the sha256 hash algo) has not changed in 9 years. so there has not been any change to that.

asics. which came about in october 2013 are not bitcoin specific. they can be used on other coins too.. so you cant praise bitcoin devs for causing a price increase in october 2013. as the bitcoin devs had nothing to do with ASICs.
flipping the debate. with mning costs coming down, would you blame the bitcoin devs for this march onwards dip? nope, ud probably blame the asic manufacturers for making cheaper more efficient rigs. (hope you see my point)

..
i personally have a nice hoard of coins from as far back as 2012. so dont get me wrong i love the principles of bitcoins ethos 2009-2013. but since 2013 the innovation of bitcoin specifically has changed/dwindled/ been sidesteppd by other projects/networks.
i am not someone that does the over promoting under delivery proaganda bull crap of speculative grabbing people to cause a hype for some 10 minute ATH price drama. i am a realist. i find it better to call out faults/issues and be realistic about the situation and for people to know what truly lays underneath the tech, the price, the value.. so that these things can be dealt with

for instance. the price.. there are 2 aspects that give bitcoin nice supprt. the mining cost and buyers remorse. if bitcoin changed the mining algo to PoS or as other put it 'asic proof'. then there dies one line of support. leaving only buyers remorse .
and then the speculation of utility which causes the volatility bubbles ABOVE value(above support). which like waves can spike up, then correct itself down causing panic and drama.

so if PoS came to be part of bitcoin specifically. or 80% mining pools stopped mining because the cost increased but the utility of the network deminished because people were using LN/altcoins instead. then the support line for cost of creation would drop. because difficulty would drop and only 20% of miners could afford to carry on at a lower price

ill help everyone out. by starting with the summery and then do the explanations and ansering some points pople made in posts that need addressing

tl;dr;
real underlying support value is the cost of obtaining the coin. bitcoin uses mining. which is costly..
if it costs $6000+ to make a coin and people in general/average buy a coin above $6k then the majority of community wont sell below the cost they obtained it for.
unlike PoS coins where costs are negligable. most PoS prices are not 'of value' but of speculation of utility (bubble pricing). thus there is no 'cost of creation' support line.and only 'buyers remorse' support line

now for the general chit chat stuff that needs addressing
the OP is talking about bitcoin... not the underlying blockchain. not LN which is a separate network that many different coins will be on..

but just bitcoin features.

even the core devs deam bitcoin as limited and out dated(because they wont scale bitcoin). which is why they are moving onto LN which is a separate network that many coins will use.
yes LN is not a bitcoin only feature. LN is a separate network for many blockchain coins to use, but is just presently being tested using in their words "the bitcoin experiment" (yep core devs think bitcoin is just a beta phase experiment and not a fully fledged end product).
segwit is not a bitcoin specific feature either. its a stepping stone into LN. again somthing multiple blockchain coins have/will have to divert people away from blockchain payments and into a LN network of offchain payments. so dont confuse bitcoin innovation with blockchain or offchain innovation.

core devs admit to this so dont rebut it

so now that covers most peoples over promise, under delivery they have been taught. and you can thank the core devs for strangling bitcoin specific/bitcoin only innovation/development and then moving on to other projects.

so now the question about bitcoins pricing
its based around the support line of what people will refuse to sell below.
this is because it costs X to mine bitcoin. which creates a support line. and also those separately buying a coin at a certain price wont sell below that price(unless they foolishly panic) and so they then also add more support to a support line.

the more it costs to mine  bitcoin the higher the support line will get.

ignore the winter speculative bubble area of the ATH. and instead imagine that the price corrected it self back down in ~march down around the $6k-$9k region, where the support lines lay

at the moment from march-may there was a dip. which dropped from a $9k suport to to $6k+ support because new mining asics are being tested and to be released for public use in june. so some pools have had the privelidge of buying them as  preorders and expanding their farms as a testing phase and thus their mining costs have reduced because the mining rigs are cheaper.

but there is still a good support line around the $6k+ region. and then. well unless the network hashrate doesnt increase to 60exahash by the time the next asics are on public batch release in june, we might see that support line change too.
..

you are soo fooled by the drama.. that you have stuck yourself between kylie and khloe kardashian.. and cant see things outside of the kardashian drama.

ver and theymos are financialy related by the same family agent. but pretending to hate each other and pretending they are totally different (jenner vs kardashian) but from the outside its all kardashian drama of one family.

its like kylie and khloe suing each other to be able to copyright "kardashian" so that their family can then mak money out of it.
the only thing is no real outside person has had financial loss due to the drama. so the lawsuit wont make anyone whole. as there is no one at loss. and the drama is just about copyright decision of who deserves the brand being decided in court

i have never defended ver. and i am not team cash.
but because you are stuck so deep in the drama you can only see core vs cash.

yes i hate cores centralisation. but that does not mean automatically im cash..

you need to learn decentralisation. declining to wish to learn decentralisation is something that is only going to affect your abilities and your understanding. so its in your best interest to learn what real decentralisation is.

i really do laugh at the core centralists who think that if anyone hates core, they must be thrown out the network and be callled part of another altcoin.. i pitty core centralists.

but continue in your core centralist cabin and chat only in the echo chamber of core fans. and never learn decentralisation. because its what appears that you are already intending to do.
your lack of understanding, and lack of research outside of your echo chamber has been very revealing.

have a nice day.

if though. in a few months. your core loyalty wanes and you decide you want to open your mind. to the whole big picture

check out the core devs, gmax defined what a bilateral split was and yes segwit split. from the old network(v20000000)
check the blockchain after block 478558 for about 2000 blocks (core network rejected v20000000 blocks to activate segwit)
yep core network rejected blocks and also ban hammered any nodes that tried relaying blocks of that old format

but im sure you wiill ignore the immutible network/tenicals. and instead scream 'but look at ver'
P.S ver is not even a coder. ver did not even create cash. thats how funny this drama is. ver did not create cash.

regulations do NOT protect customers

regulations make businesses POLICE its customers.

what lacks is the understanding of due dilegance ((DYOR)do your own research)
and consumer protection which is separate from regulation.

what people think is if a business is regulated. then is a gold star to trust a business..
(remember the housing crises that was regulated. .. that proves regulations do not help mortgage customers)

consumer protections enforced on businsses need advocacy.. not regulation

if you imagine bitcoin as the bank account(private key) wire transfer(bank branch cash transfer)
and you imagine bitpay/coinbase merchant tools as visa merchant network

then yes it can happen.

as for would it ever happen in bitcoin (the core network)
it has happened.
in 2013 there was the leveldb bug which was the most notable one.

and if everyone keeps sheep following cores software, and does not diversify by having an equal playing field of multiple software of multiple languages all running on one network (real decentralisation).. by only trusting core as the reference/core software. then if core had a bug, everyones affected

again this is not about cash vs core.

i have never defended ver. i have detested core.
learn the difference.(its about centralisation vs decentralisation)

i know you cant elequantly admit your games. or admit the propaganda agenda. but if all you can do is think if someone detests core they must be pidgeon holed into another team. is your failure of understanding decentralisation. by you thinking its only a 2 team game

..
define bitcoin in YOUR own mindset. (not using the scripted definition of 2009-2013) define it as you see it now. that way we can see are you really a bitcoin decentralist or a core centralist

try not to be a reddit script reader. as today it seems you have learned the hard way you have been pushing a script thats 7 months out of date
and ask yourself what you truly are defending. because you seem like a core centralist defender not a bitcoin decentralist.

dont turn my questions into a cash vs core. to avoid the subject
which are you
bitcoin decentralist (hoping the core team backdown a little and let others use consensus on the network)
core centralist (hoping core partners continue mandatory forced changes/social dramas)

reasons i ask.
who has the power to push out-let in anyone?
which can only be answered by knowing what people think that "bitcoin" is

seems the OP jolly good had recently been pushing a propaganda mission script that is 7 months out dated.
.. the power of reddit screams seems huge to make people like jolly good push so hard a subject thats 7 months old known as the rage quit propaganda

funnily then jolly good himself has now backtracked after realising that the ragequit drama was over back then in november. and jolly only realised this today after no longer reading the reddit scripts. and instead realised it was old.

...
anyways, the agenda of these propaganda is that ver is actually part of the same group as blockstream/bloq/coindesk/theymos/core centralists
whereby funding can be clearly seen coming from DCG.co


what i am about to say is about
what does your own mindset truly want bitcoin to be
what does your own mindset truly think it currently is

this is not about cash vs core.

those that say they are "bitcoin" supporters. what do you define as bitcoin.
yes the blockchain data is distributed. and yes private control of funds using private keys is distributed.

but the RULES/PROTOCOL of the network. where does your mindset sit.

if you were a true bitcoin decentralist. then great you wont mind anyone attacking certain devs/promoters of any group because no one should own the brand

for instance i personally have nothing against people attacking ver/bloq for that old drama.
but then theymos/core has done the same thing,  they too deserve the same attacks too

if you are a core control fan, thinking core are the best team to decide and maintain the code direction of the network. then your just as hypocritical as ver.
for wanting a team to control and own a protocol and brand

...
before replying. its best you seek deep inside yourselves. where do you truly stand
so to know for yourself if you care more about a decentralsied network as it was mainly in 2009-2013. or if you are a bitcoin core supporter. ask yourself these questions and evaluate your own mindset

1. do you believe core are the best team to moderate, maintain and decide on the future features
2a. if core devs decided tonight to rage quit/stop coding. and tomorrow there was a network bug based on core code. do you have a backup plan
2b. or just hope/trust core wont quit.
3. would you be happier if core never again be part of orchestrating with their partners a mandatory bilateral split, to bypass consensus
4. would you be happier if core did continue to do mandatory splits to bypass consensus for their features to be added to their chain
5. do you care about the control of the code. or just want a team to maintain it centrally to give it trust and ultimately push the price

guage your own answers to reveal to yourself if you are a decentralised network fan. or a core centralist fan.

unlawful, illegal... is not happening
immoral, unethical.. maybe

but its the free market. if someone has 1000 coins. but other traders only have 0.1btc each.. who's fault is that.
ys if there are order lines of 0.1btc and then suddenly people see 100 'wall' of course its going to cause a psychological change in peoples decisions.

but the question is
is it the fault of a whale. or is it that the exchanges have not matured, become trusted enough for multiple people to trust putting in 1000 coins in at a time for thre to be multipl 100 orders like we had in 2012-2013 where 100 was normal(and 2000 was a wall). or that the equilibrium of funds is not equally spread so that everyone is equally at 1btc each

.
i personally have a nice hoard but i dont put it all into an exchange. over the years i have told many people to not throw all their hoard into an exchange, more so to be risk adverse.
so is putting in a hoard about wanting to influence the market..
or
just not risk adverse and wanting to trade but.. finding there is not equal volume to cater to needs due to exchanges not being mature enough to handle the volume

each block gives mining pools a reward in the form of new coins + transaction fee's

however right now, pools dont care much about the tx fee's as its only about 10-15% extra of the new coin production. thus they treat the new coin as income and the tx fee as a bonus
income:bonus

at the moment the reward is 12.5btc new coins(income) and ~1.5btc(bonus) in transaction fee's   (12.5:1.5 (new coin:tx fee))
and so (rounded to this years average $8k), this means each block gives roughly ($100k:$12k) $112k

every ~4 years the new coin amount halves. so in
~2020 it will be 6.25btc new coins
~2024 it will be 3.125btc new coins
~2028 it will be 1.5625 nw coins..

now based on a sensible price continuing and not much changing about the number of transactions per block. if we imagine that the transaction fee's remained at 1.5btc per block..
then in ~2028 the newcoin:tx fee ratio will be like for like 1:1 (1.5btc:1.5btc to be more exact)

after 2032 mining pools will care less about the new coin production and care more about the transaction fee.
this will be the time where the tx fee becomes the income and the new coin becomes the bonus (psychologically)

so if we imagine the price of bitcoin was 10x more then it is now in a decade
(1.5btc:1.5btc) $120k:$120k

but with that said in ~2028 if the price of bitcoin was $80k($120k for 1.5btc)  . and the blocks were still only performing 2000-4000 tx a block (2000 legacy or 4000 full utility segwit with the blocksize/weight remaining as it is today)
each tx would cost $60 legacy or $30 segwit
(yea ignore the 'discount' the devs say segwit will give. based on tx count the segwit will actually produce if fully utilited. and divide the $120k(1.5btc) by the 2000 to 4000tx)

with all that said.....

so the problem is not that pools will not get any funds in2028->2140->2140+.. they will. so relax..
the problem is how much it would cost each tx, to make the funds the pools would receive/need.

which is where the debate of 5 years+ ago began about scaling onchain to allow more transactions so that instead of 2000-4000tx a block. it becomes in a decade(not over night) slowly growing to be 20,000-40,000tx a block so that fee's are only $6Legacy  $3Segwit

after all who would want to use bitcoins blockchain if it cost $30-$60 a tx in a decade. when other currencies would offer cheaper tx fee's.

and please dont rebuttle about LN. because LN will not be a feature exclusive to bitcoin. the LN devs have already publicly admitted that LN will be used by other coins. thus onchain scaling has to happen in less than a decade to keep the fee per tx down to keep the ntworks utility attractive and useful.

and please dont rbuttle about 'gigabyte blocks by midnight' no one is suggesting gigabyte blocks tomorrow or this year. so it can be slow stead increases over time to nsure that the btc network stays cost effective, useful and without barriers