convenience

for instance instead of wire transfering $20 each day to paypal to then buy your $20 train ticket via paypal to avoid "storing". you might aswell just do a $20 bank wire transfer direct to the train operator and just not use paypal. if you were to follow the "do not store" advice.. or even pay via wire transfer $100 for a 5 day ticket to also avoid the daily hassle of wires by only needing to do it each week

most people use payment apps to store because they dont wont the daily hassle of depositing/withdrawing. where they would need to put-in, use, withdraw each day. instead they simply keep the 'change' they didnt spend in the system to use the 'change' tomorrow.. or more precisely they do one deposit a month into a system and then play within the system for a month until nothing is left and then deposit more

the best advice is to not store more then what you wish to spend within a short period(no more then you can risk to lose in a week/month) and to never use a custodial system thats not insured for life savings/long term

bitcoin has become more of a system for the long term hoarding,. with the added benefits of hedging against inflation. however advice should also be given about avoiding custodial use wallets. and also securing the keys. becasue there is no insurance/refund mechanism should a hacker get your keys

and the net result

inflation is 30+5/2 =17.5%


when poor currency B think their currency B is more stable with only 5% minting increase.. their employers only give them a 1% pay rise per year(becase employers think the employee will save their income to get better value later)

when rich currency A is less stable with 30% minting increase.. their employers give them a 50% pay rise per year

you need to realise inflation is not exactly matched with new currency minting amount

when the poor dont get pay rises that match the economy. or the rich get better pay rises then the economy. this affects the costs of goods and the ability to buy goods which impacts inflation more so than a central banks minting process

ignoring all of the OP's silly bits about creating birth credit to pay child support in germany currently(sorry that not how it works)..

lets just play hypothetical about a mechanism to make his premiss come true

very simply much like how some crapcoins do it. they create new coins(minting) by just having a federation that created a transaction including value which is then honoured by the network as new value

so imagine a multisig. where by a central bank(main authoriser) and a maternity ward doctor with parents become the witness of a birth. in a 4-of-4 multsig address creating the value. where the central bank, doctor and parents also have a 3-of-4 multisig to receive the funds
(doctor, bank and parents form the multisig address, but its actually the central bank and parents that can spend)
where by the parents cant unilaterally spend.. they need the banks consent(signature) to complete a spending proof

creation tx
3B4nKD0ct0rM0mD4d 840,000 credits -> 3B4nKD0ct0rM0mD4d 840,000 credits
signed by all parties

spending tx (each month for 18 years)
3B4nKD0ct0rM0mD4d 840,000 credits -> 3M0mM4dF4m1lyTrU5t 3800 credits
                                                             3B4nKD0ct0rM0mD4d 836,200 credits
signed by bank and parents

..
ins short yes its technically possible as its similar mechanism to how central banks will make CBDC value with their commercial bank witnesses

however what the OP is not understanding is that this mechanism of crediting births is not how the economy of germany.. or anywhere actually works

though it probably would be better if currency minting was based on births instead of debt

lightning is another network its not the bitcoin network.. the clue is in the N of LN
onion payments between routers of LN do not transmit raw bitcoin transactions. nor value measured in bitcoin sats. they use a completely different unit of measure and different mechanism of requesting payments, which bitcoin does not understand.

dont confuse bitcoin with lightning

if you want to talk about BITCOIN utility. actually talk about the utility that can happen on the bitcoin network. because bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network.. otherwise you might aswell be promoting any random subnetwork like WBTC btc.b or rbtc and all other pegged crap networks that pretend to be bitcoin

bitcoin does not support "micropayments" other networks handle "micropayments"

years ago. bitcoin did allow people to transact for only a few pennies in fees meaning those earning $3 a week could afford to use BITCOIN to transact and still have enough left over to actually spend

..
again with all that said bitcoin does allow 3rd world countries access into 1st world economy, without all the bureaucracy of the 1st world.. (although regulations are trying to attack this too)


the benefits of bitcoin is not for 3rd worlders to still be paid micropayments(low income).. but instead actually to work from their 3rd world nation but be paid in 1st world nations high salary

the OP chose a $1 btc on specific date of 2011 to try to set a bad premiss.. .. because in 2011 the price of bitcoin ranged from $0.30-$30
meaning he could have chose any other random date of 2011 and it would have produced different results

EG if he picked the $0.30 price date, the 'inflation correction" of today would show a different amount to his inflation adjusted position of $12k calculation

inshort if he picked the price of july 11th next month for a 2011-2023 comparison .. his maths would be totally different to this months math. making his math pointless

inshort if he picked the price of May 11th last month for a 2011-2023 comparison .. his maths would be totally different to this months math. making his math pointless
...
if you want to talk about inflation/deflation... use the CPI(consumer price index) as a measure. or more simply "the bread loaf purchase"

if in 2011 1btc was 1 loaf of bread and $1fiat  was one loaf of bread
in 2023 1btc is 10,000 loaves of bread and $1 is 0.4 of a loaf of bread

yep you CANT buy bread for $1 now, because now it averages $2.50
yet with bitcoin you can buy 10,000 loaves of bread for 1btc

bitcoin does not follow or react to fiat inflation.. bitcoin has its own market where deflation occurs. not inflation.

the mechanisms of fiat is that it buys you less produce. due to how the fiat market works
the mechanisms of bitcoin is that it buys you more produce. due to how the bitcoin market works

it might also be worth a read of the BIS organisation (they perform the settlements for international banks), who have in recent policies seen a call from many banks to want BIS to allow banks to hoard upto 5% of banks reserves in crypto exposure. however BIS fired back with a 1-2% compromise

https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d545.pdf - Group 2 exposure limit
(group 1 being stable coins.. group 2 being other crypto assets like bitcoin ethereum and such)

dare you to put a 3.96mb meme into a legacy transaction

dare you to read the code where it changed from expecting a signature of ~73bytes, to then later be 520byte for a new format for "scripts"(multisig)

dare you to read the code where it changed from not allowing 'scripts' to be more then 520byte.. until that was relaxed to 10kb
dare you to read the code where it changed to not allow 'scripts' to be more then 10kb.. until that was relaxed to be less than blockweight

the funny part is your forum-wife(blackhatcoiner) atleast admits the reason why they removed the 10kb limit, it was because core devs (ignorantly) assumed that taproot scripts would be one signature length so they ASSUMED there was no point in length checking a script(save calculation/computational checking time) if the ASSUMPTION was the length would only be a short 1x signature length.. and guess what.. now we are seeing scripts(junk) in taproot that are far longer then the promised and assumed 1x signature length

those other networks relaxed their rules.. inspired by what core done
yes core relaxed the rules on bitcoin via wanting to implement segwit and taproot. assuming that no one would exploit the lack of checks, limits, expectation when they implemented segwit/taproot.

and other network simply relaxed the rules for THEIR OTHER NETWORKS purely just to relax the rules, purely to ride the fashion trend of scamming victims out of value for nonsense memes.. inspired by what happened with bitcoin

and it is always funny how you pretend that bitcoin is some AI code that self made itself, where you dont want people to talk about WHO actually maintains the bitcoin network code and decides on rule changes.

here is a lesson. bitcoin is not AI. bitcoin actually does have developers that make rule change decisions for bitcoin. and when you stop wasting your life on asskissing and see WHO made such changes, which allowed the exploit to make ordinals possible on bitcoin. you will learn it was not some doge bunny coder or some altnet that caused ordinals on bitcoin. it was the core devs that softened the rules with their bad assumptions on bitcoin

i am laughing more at your stupidity when you dont want people to look at bitcoin code to see who wrote the bitcoin code(core) that caused this fiasco. even going as far as you pretending core dont exist and are just some boogiemen fantasy..
 but instead you want people to look at doge code and try to shift the blame on them.. much like you pretended that it was miners that were to blame for the exploit

you could earn more pennies doing stand-up comedy of acting like an idiot on stage(seems to be your talent). because if after 6 years of ass kissing if your still needing to penny scrape using sig campaigns and have yet to earn sponsorship from those you ass kiss.. .. maybe ass kissing is not as lucrative as you were hoping and its time you change your role

so remember this lesson.
CORE did soften the rules for BITCOIN which allowed the crap to happen to BITCOIN
doge devs didnt do it to bitcoin. core devs did

and my last point about you (your hypocrisy)

doomad conservative: "no one should use bitcoin to move 0.001btc with <300byte for <0.00001fee  because it causes bloat to have many small transactions"

doomad anti-censor: "anyone one should use bitcoin to move 0.00000001btc with 3960000byte of bloat for 0.001fee because we want bloat and high fees for little value spend because it promotes our other network that people should use for their actual bitcoin value movemnts we dont want to see on bitcoin"

yet again your advertising a certain adoration for a certain other network people should use instead for "'bitcoin'" payments yet you want the actual bitcoin network to just be a vault/reserve for crappy non bitcoin value stuff. and a store of dead weight data. not value

it is funny how you play these games..
and by the way lightning is broke, it has a liquidity issue due to the limitations of routing value totals per session. its not the "optimum solution"

i know you want to break bitcoin, or atleast support those that want to break bitcoin..  and then offer something thats already broke as a solution to the things you want broken on bitcoin. because you dont care about people having a working system that just does what it promised. you only care about scraping pennies together from whomever will pay you to advertise their crap as a feature people should use and continue using..

the reason i highlight the purpose of all this junk happening to bitcoin, and the realities of the changes, and the other projects idiots mention as solutions to the crap happening to bitcoin..  is because this crap is from the lemmings that want to offramp users away from bitcoin and into their other scammy broken systems which they can syphon value away from victims.  so its all related.. but you dont want people to talk about whats really happening because it ruins your sales pitch

heres the thing if you read the first page.. i did actually say the ordinals crowd could make their own subnetwork to throw their junk at..
..my stance has been and always has been to keep bitcoin clean and efficient for bitcoin utility of those that want to use BITCOIN where bitcoin scales for BITCOIN utility.

you however want bitcoin to fill with nonsense junk but reject bitcoin payments(you hatred of coffee/pizza which amount to unbanked users weekly wage).. where you want the value stuff to happen elsewhere and bitcoin just just be a dead weight data store of no utility.. and yes i do laugh how you want a small 'coffee' purchase rejection crying about how it makes nodes more costly. but then you want junk of 3mb+ to be allowed where it makes other users pay more per tx than 10 coffees just in fees

yes i do highlight that lightning is not the solution to many many things(multiple posts later after doomad makes his comment).. because lightning is not the solution to bitcoins woes.
but i did actually mention that for niche things like scammy ordinals and other asset crap.. people can make their own niche subnetworks.. but the point is bitcoin should remain for bitcoin utility. not become some dead weight junk network where it pushes everyone to other networks to do the "bitcoin payments" that bitcoin is suppose to do. while the other networks are not used for the junk stuff .. it should be the other way round other networks for the junk stuff and bitcoin to be strengthened as the value system of bitcoin stuff

my hatred of lightning is not that its a subnetwork... its that its a broken subnetwork.. a broken network being overly promised as the solution to the bitcoin crap that has been allowed to happen, which by trying to break bitcoin just ends up trying to annoy people into hating bitcoin and thinking lightning is the solution .. rather than actually fix the bugs and trojans recently employed into bitcoin

if people dont want to be full nodes they are free to use other software thats not a full node. however bitcoin core is a full node software.. which for people that want to be full nodes will want to use a full node software..  but lemmings like doomad even want to break that facility.. whilst trying to REKT any choice of other brand alternatives of true full node utility that includes proposal making for upgrades.

he wants to tell and has told people false information such as by disabling full node functionality.. doomad pretend users are still full node capable even though they are not using a nodes FULL functionality.
(research the "user agent services" that peers communicate with peers to show if it offers full functionality/services or not) EG the difference between 1101, 1097, 1033, 1032 may interest you

he loves the "backward compatible" bait and switch. that has made it so users (falsely)believe they remain full nodes nor need to upgrade to stay compliant with network rules. which he pitches as pretending that nodes are still FULL even if they are not FULLY validating blocks/transactions nor archiving them FULLY(not offering full services)


if people are pruning blockdata and not validating all bytes of data. and treating transactions as "anyonecanspend" where it does not check for signature authentication due to lack of understanding the new formats.. then those are not full nodes.. they are infact FOOL nodes

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cludgy large transactions of upto 3.96mb to continue...

funny.. coming from the guy that wants people to prune thus no longer be full nodes.. both by not requiring to need to fully validate transactions (your love of backward compatibility of telling people they dont need to upgrade their node when new features arrive) and your adoration of pruning data thus not having FULL data to analyse or pass to other peers.

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cores centralist authoritarian principles..

funny how you pretend to want to make bitcoin affordable. whilst being a hypocrite by celebrating when fee's go high

you really are the biggest bullsh*tter and hypocrite in this forum right now. way above some of the ICO scammers

you dont want these crappy deadweight memes and useless json data to stop. which reveals that you dont care about bitcoins security or economy or ethics or morality. all you care about is promoting whatever crap thing might cause people to want to jump over to your favoured sponsored subnetwork, even if that subnetwork is broke and flawed

as for derailing. i have constantly talked about WHO and WHAT caused the junk of ordinals to occur and everything i said is related to what caused it and whats preventing it from being undone and what ways it can be undone ..

you however want to avoid the topic and make it "all about franky" trying to avoid any negative speak of the actual developers that caused this fiasco and continued softening of the rules that lead to these annoyances that have affected many hundreds of thousands of bitcoiners

the most power ethereum ever managed was 800peta.. which is not even 0.25% of the bitcoin network

we have moved far passed GPU days
an average asic these days can do 200,000 more hashes than a gpu
heck you can get USB miners that do more than a GPU

you dont need to clog the mempool of users to cause fee mania. as proven dozens of times over the years.. the mempool clog of users nodes is the reaction not the cause.
the cause is what pools allow into their blocks

and by the way.. 32,000tx of tx that are ~250bytes. meaning 0.25btc a tx meaning 8000BTC for a 2 hour non event that dissipates after two hors thus wasted 8k btc for a non event..

unlike other fee mania methods involving transactions that do get into blocks. thus can cost a pool nothing if organised right. and can sustain for far far longer

mining pools dont need to first attack users mempools to cause fee mania

however if the topic was "what if core try to maximize fees by congesting the network?!"
then the answer would be doing what they are already doing by messing with the users mempool and relay limits to reject/prune cheap fee's to never reach a pool, causing everyone to pay more just to get seen by a pool

many years ago (before the fee wars priced out utility) i visited some 3rd world countries and they loved having EASY access to an international currency that were offering remote working opportunities where the average wage was paid in 1st world countries wage amounts. it allowed them to take the small jobs 1st worlders thought were minimum wage and impractical but were luxury wages for the 3rd worlders

usually with fiat. to get a fiat paid job usually requires people having bank accounts and social security numbers and proof of residency and tax ID and such. meaning there was a barrier of entry for foreign workers getting a job hosted by a 1st world nation.. or if the 1st world nation were paying a 3rd world nation in fiat. they would under pay them far far far below 1st world nations minimum wage.

but bitcoin cut through that red tape. and did allow alot of opportunity for 3rd world nations to work for 1st world nations and get wages at the equivalent of 1st world nations

ive seen it happen less and less now. not just where bitcoin tx fee's have turned into multiple hours of 3rd world nations minimum wage .. but also with new regulations about taxing bitcoin and businesses needing to be audited and show accounts meaning they are starting to play the fiat rules when using bitcoin..

..but with that said. there are still alot of opportunities around

the obvious way. by pools not including your transaction unless your fee meets their desired minimum..
isnt this the whole point of your topic. trying to think of ways to cause fee mania again.. via pools

seems you dont know the basics of most things. because you think its a users mempool that does transaction selections for blocks. maybe you need to realise its actually pools that select the transactions that go into blocks. not users nodes.

but i did find it funny how your scenario in this topic is you trying to mess TEMPORARILY with users mempool of zero-confirm transactions and cancelling them before they get into a block. thus have nothing to do with fees of transaction that pools select of what they want to see in a block.. you know, blocks.. you know the block data where real estimate of priority are found.. you know blocks created by pools.. (or maybe you dont know these things)

but anyway you have much to learn so ill give you a break and give you some time to learn. try not to waste it on social drama. and instead actually learn some stuff

"someone better suited" = you are falling yet again for the mindset of the need of singular maintainer

you then after the snip speak of groups.. but ignoring the singular brand that does all the maintaining that does not listen to the community that does not pay them.. but listens to its corporate sistership that does sponsor them

you try to use plural here. but again core is not a plural is it a singular union.. nor one that is on the side of the wide  community, but instead onside with the corporations they work for. and are sponsored by..

whats happening is core are not a "union" but a corporate advisory board and management team, benefiting the corporations not the users/community/customers


again "someone" singular.. you are escaping the conversations of the possibility of decentralised diverse groups..
there are thousands of developers out there that would love to make reference clients for bitcoin which are allowed to make upgrade proposals.. problem is years of REKT campaigns have made those groups move to altcoins or just not even bother coding anymore.. this is even as far back as ethereums main dev(before ethereum was a thing) being pushed out of proposing stuff for bitcoin and instead deciding to move away from the centralised group club house and just make something different(ethereum)

years ago gmaxwell said that scrutiny and critiquing devs would be the reason why talent would leave bitcoin.. however the actual reason talent left bitcoin is the centralised clubhouse mentality and REKT campaigns against anyone having idea's that dont follow the core roadmap.. you know the script "F**k off" where ** can be 'UC' or 'OR', but mean the same think in your script masters mind, becasue thats the only option.. "disagree with core, go make an altcoin" is now the only "choice" in your scriptmasters mind

atleast now you are starting to see that yes money motivates their politics.. and what you next have to learn is these sponsors are not paying out with no plans of ROI.. those sponsors do want to get paid back for their sponsorship investment.. which is where the campaigns of " dont use bitcoin fir daily living, dont use bitcoin, use this subnetwork where router get fee's" stuff plays in
they want to create factories/hubs(custodians) so that they can hold users funds and lock them in until the user has nothing left then close out their account. while charging them fee's per payment that seem cheaper then bitcoin fee's but thats because they are spending years trying to push bitcoin fee's to make their subnetwork fund syphoning game seem attractive

and then when you dare to do some research to see who their sponsors are..
you wil see the altnet adoration brigade(blockstream) and the hyperledger(CBDC) groups are paying the core maintainers
yep when you start following the money you then see who core politics belong to. and it certainly (as you admit) is not the wider community of bitcoiners.. but those that want to put up barriers of entry into bitcoin to promote other networks and systems as solutions

the sponsors know they cant make ROI on their sponsorships via for instance bitcoin fee's because bitcoin does not pay relay nodes. so they want their ROI from other systems that do have routing fee's and processing fees and custodian 'renting channels/ renting inbound balance' fee's

i hope it does not take you 7 years to escape the cult mindset. and instead takes you less time to realise the whole big picture situation of the "offramping" game.. which is a game of pushing people out of bitcoin via halting tx count scaling onchain.. also premiumising the fee's to annoy bitcoiners into using bitcoin less, or using other systems instead to save on fee's... aswell as the games of "pruning" to have less decentralised blockchain full archiving nodes to secure the network. and all the other games of allowing junk into the blockchain while rejecting users who just want to pay a fair fee for a normal bitcoin use tx

because when pools force thousands of users to pay more. the pools can ramp down their own high fee tx's to themselves and and instead let high fee users fill the gap. thus making the users then persist the fee mania

EG
imagine the next 18 blocks are transactions of high fee's of pools sending transactions to themselves in their own block templates thus paying the fees back to themselves.. causing fees to show as 60sat/byte minimum.. without costiong the pools anything..

then users will see a 60sat/byte minimum for last 3 hours and so realise if they want to get a tx to confirm within 3 hours(3x(6blocks/hour)=18) then they need to pay that minimum

then when the pools see normal users paying 60sat/byte minimum they allow those transactions in and not include one of their own. ramping fown their own tx involvement becasue now the users tx start to persist the attack for them.. thus they continue letting in users transactions as long as users pay 60sat/byte min

again by pools not zero-confirm relaying their own tx and only including them in their own block template. it stops competing pools stealing their fee's and thus costs the attacker pools nothing to do this, with just a 3 hour of no external fee income until they can push the fee estimates up to the min amount for users to then pay the pools this higher fee consistantly

its simple
if you read "onesignatures" alt accounts post history (casinotester0001 mainly) you will see he is a guy that buys prominent legendary private keys even if they have no funds in them. he was more interested in owning keys that used to be of some social importance so he can then sell some scammy scheme

ok lets concentrate on ethereums worth
a. its ether creation(reward)cost is super low (calculated at under $40 to collectively mine an eth) yet is speculating an premiums of over $1700 meaning its not a store of value with such high speculation amount above base cost value

b. if ethereum really had its own "mold" and its own "corner" and its own "sector" and its own major community. then it would have its own price discovery, which if you concentrate on its worth you would(if it was independent sector) have its own market wiggles that look absolutely nothing like bitcoins market changes..

c. however 9% of the time ethereum doesnt have its own market price discovery. it just shadow traces bitcoins movements at a 1:14 ratio. because its actually bitcoins community that moves ethereums price 90% of the time. where its bitcoiners keeping ethereums speculation stuck at such a premium

d. yes ethereum community looks big in conversations about projects. but when you actually look at real economic activity. there is not much real world usage. its just hype of small project managers self broadcasting their own transactions back to themselves faking interest in their projects in the hope of getting some idiot victims to buy into their "contracted" tokens of worthless value

a. even doomad liked "emerging consensus" before he went full core cult in 2017
b. bitcoin unlimited is one project of many projects back then(before the REKT campaigns). with many wanting independence and multiple brands on the same level of all being proposals "generals" instead of 1 "major general" running on the bitcoin network.
i was not advocating certain brands like bitcoin unlimited i was and still am not advertising or promoting any brand. its more about the ethos of the network not anything to do with brand advertising.. (try to learn this it will help you)
but in 2017+ it was doomad that flipped his script and started trying to pigeon hole me as if i was against cores roadmap then in his mind i must be part of "that group" (because he thinks that everyone was/should be filtered into groups/loyalty cults)
and he tried to pigeon hole me as if i was part of another group when he failed to poke the bear of saying i was in unlimited group...

i do laugh that you think if i am against core authoritarianism i must be part of some other branded group..
you really are falling into doomads echo chamber mindset

have you ever realised in your own mind(without seeking advice from your cult) that you do not need to be part of a group, and where independence is an option.. you know(well maybe you dont) that decentralisation and lack of central points of failure is an option that should be explored..

im sure you are going to reply asserting your obedience and adoration of cores continued control and spout alot more scripted blubber ive heard from the same echo chamber of halve a dozen authoritarian loving group minded idiots

so take a chance on yourself. take some time to really think for yourself and come back with a reply that doesnt sound like the usual dreams and wishes and echos of doomads cult

escape the group speak narrative where you think the only option is for users to need to be loyal to one brand

last thing to note
unlike doomad (and his cult that love to sell their soul to advertise brands for penny scraping income or hopes of being hired if they show loyalty to a brand.. )
i have never advertised promoted or ass kissed any brand. even before i became self sufficiently able to retire young thanks to bitcoin i did run businesses and do things bitcoin related professionally and i did code things, but even so i never advertised them on this forum. and before you ask non of my business interests in my real life were any of the silly pigeon hole brands doomad pretended i existed in.
i never needed to sell my soul by promoting brands..