im simply sticking with legacy transactions. and not going to store value in other tx formats with trojan backdoor opcodes and bloated miscounted weight that fictionalises how much data is actually being sent into blocks and around the network

it is noticeable how some of the prime players that promote segwit and TR are themselves still storing their real value on legacy too. which shows they dont fully trust their new schemes they put into the code. (sipa and luke JR are prime candidates of pushing for segwit and TR yet both have their main stashes on legacy)

but yea all the corporate sponsorship of devs to promote the silly "extras" which have not helped bitcoin grow its transaction count per block. but just done to allow gateway tx formats to be used to push people towards using other networks for payments. either with deceptive promises of better features/cost on other networks or by causing certain things on the bitcoin network that have resulted in a reduction in tx count utility of blockspace.

alot of these new tx formats have caused alot of new cludgy code whereby these new formats are not even finalised "features" so if bitcoin core devs were to be replaced(yep humans retire) and a new team were to improve bitcoin and remove the cludge and bad code of unfinalised crap. id rather stick to the simple operations and formats that just do what they have always done. that dont need bug fixing. thus avoid any risk of issues when they try to bug fix the new formats which could break those formats operationally

---

as for the macro economics of the businesses involved. yes the "mass adoption" lobbying of declaring bitcoin a currency then a asset currency then a commodity has allowed alot of the old institutional invaders to treat bitcoin differently, we should have instead persisted with treating bitcoin as a property thus protecting people via many laws such as property law,

did you know that a legacy TX cannot be "locked" to peg value to another network token. thus legacy cannot be treated as a commodity when traded, thus the CFTC cant really put controls and regulatory policy on people only handling legacy payments
(commodity =  base product used to create other products)
yep we can lobby that legacy gets treated different than segwit. much like a dollar received by a employer(income) is treated differently than a dollar received via a stocks/share portfolio(capital)

this can evolve into certain situations where exchanges that handle commodity coins(btc on segwit) have to be licenced by both SEC and CFTC, whereby we can lobby exchanges that only allow deposits and withdrawals of legacy become only regulated by at most SEC
EG legacy swaps treated like merchant sales/auctions of private property
and if done right if we can re categorise legacy as private value property. then even the SEC cant touch people and businesses that only handle legacy utxos

,, but hey chances of moral people wanting to support this is low. as you say, there are too many wolves in the hen house

there is a big difference between censorship resistance which some are abusing the buzzword to imply let any data be stored. pretending thats how the network always was
vs
decentralised consensus which a diverse distributed peers agreeing to a list of rules they all approve of and verify data against

which this decentralised consensus has been softened to not be a set of strict rules, by instead allowing stupid data to be accepted "asvalid" without verification or ruleset of whatever is inside the data of that trojan horse opcode

heres another mind fart to think about

censorship is resistance of something.
resisting resistance..

how do you resist resistance if your not ultimately resisting.

by saying that there should be no rules to limit data. is then censoring those that want efficiency and rules

enjoy the conundrum

..
but with that said. bitcoin is not a censorship resistance network. its a consensus network that relies on consent of the masses to avoid control by the few... until consensus was softened and now there are the few that do control the masses and the few want the masses to not have consent to resist the few

in the UK i have seen how the whole sale market have increased their cost vs price multiplier. and then the retailers do the same
meaning they make alot of profits

yet at the farmers side. their costs have not moved up much at all
it doesnt cost much diesel for a farmer to walk across a field and open a gate for cows to move to another grazing field

here in the UK buying directly from a farmers own shop has not increased as much as buying end-processed and packaged food at a retailer has increased.

you can see that buying 500g of diced (processed) meat in a retailer costs more then fresh unprocessed meat from the farmer
also that retailers meat is pumped full of excess brine where when heated it evaporates and releases the fluid to end up with only 250g-300g of actual meat, thus being bad value for true weight

i can get better quality meat from a farmer than i can from a retailer, meat that holds better weight when cooking

same goes for carrots, peas, potato's and such,

for ~ £6 i can make a beef and vegetable soup/stew with enough servings to fill 8tincans
meaning £0.75 a serving
however buying a meat and vegetable soup in a supermarket is £1.50

same goes for ready meals
if you look at the small thin slices of meat. the few spoonfuls of mixed veg.

but then look at the cost of "making your own" from scratch. you can make better portions of better ingredients by getting the raw ingredients

---

in short you can make 2x buy buying smart your own food
if you then want to make profit. you can then sell homemade food to neighbours/relatives that are disabled(the demand community for such ready to eat produce), at a far cheaper rate for them than using uber-eats./ready meal purchases. where you can still make a profit by offering it less than the retail rate/fast food delivery rate

the idea of the geo thermal electric generation is not to just generate just enough electric for the 6mill pop(~2m households)

but to have generators for 4x that demand. thus being future proof for a few decades of population growth.

this allow the 3x capacity unused excess in the initial years for bitcoin mining. thus funding the generators at a 100% utility meaning residents are only paying a quarter of that cost thus cheap electric for residents

---

as for the embassy stuff
well thats simply establishing a base in texas people can go to, to switch their nationality to being el-salvadorian so that they can then move out of america and move into el-salvador.. because thats the main role of an embassy. to deal with nationality issues

117 years

imagine there was no price movements at all
where you invest just $100 a month

meaning $1.2k a year is an accumulation of $140,400 over 117 years

if we factor in just a meaningful 2x factor every halving
(im low balling that market price only doubles every 4 years)

starting at $24k for 1btc meaning 0.05btc this year
meaning 0.025 bought which after the 2024 halving
means holding 0.075 @$48k per btc = $3600 for your $2400 input
buying 0.025 in 2025, 2026, 2027,

meaning 0.15 bought upto 2028 @$96k per btc = $14.4k for your $6k input

then late 2028 buying 0.0125 and again in 2029 2030 and 2031
is a total of 0.2 at 2032 @192k per btc = $38.4k for your $10.8k input

then late 2032 buying 0.00625 and again in 2033 2034 and 2035
is a total of 0.225 at 2036 @384k per btc = $86.4k for your $15.6k input

then late 2036 buying 0.003125 and again in 2037 2038 and 2039
is a total of 0.2375 at 2040 @768k per btc = $182.4k for your $20.4k input

ill let you continue the math

its funny how on such a small network you are already claiming that users need more then one channel.. but yea thanks for revealing one flaw

so yea the more users on the network the more channels users need
which means users are then having to split their $500 over 3-4 channels.
(upto 9 average)

meaning a user, just to make payments, need to then on average deposit upto $4.5 into their node wallet and split it into averages of $500 per channel
because if they all just split just $500 into upto 9 channels means $55 each. which would cause more bottlenecks of people trying to find routes of $500

run more scenarios
EG if A linked to L then L would need more
EG lets say in your A to L
if B wanted to pay O
via B-G-A-L-O
A would need more then $500 for its own payments and also many multiples for payments G is sending A to get to L bypassing IJK
other wise there would be payment failures

atleast run some scenarios of a network thats not "hubbed"(custodial) of high capacity. and instead lots of smaller self-custody nodes

you can easily do this by drawing it out in an imagine and running math on excel. at no cost.
so go try it

---

new users in the real world dont like to spend hours reviewing network visuals to find out which is the best existing-user to link to that is only 5 hops away from all of new users favourite services/merchants

they dont want to have to plan out 6 months of spending habits to then total up how much they need to set per channel

they prefer to just lock up their coin and get on with spending it.

so please just run some real life scenarios of real life expectations. not the utopian dreams that ignore real world experience

---

ok here is a little game theory experiment for you
there are 12 people each with ~$850 coin ownership. whereby in the next 3 months of locking up that coin. they expect to be able to(without pre planning) want to spend upto $500 with a yet decided recipient of one of the 11 others

now try to design the perfect utopian dream network layout of just 12 users wanting that ambition.
ill let you work out the channel count vs hop count. you decide if the network should be multiple channels or multiple hops to allow access. where by you then decide if the routers inbetween or hubs inbetween have X more balance just to facilitate payments for the 12 users.

but each user needs to be able to show a route where they can send upto $500 of a $850 total node balance to any other of the 11 recipients without issue

first of all.. lets just math out WHEN this will happen
6.25btc curretly and halving every ~4 years results in a reward stoppage in the year 2140

thats <120 years from now,.

but now lets pretend its 140 years in the future
knowing that just 20 years ago people thought 4gb hard drives were the limit. and now thing 20TB is the limit

data storage of 140 will be an far greater number by many 1000x factors
where by at that time its not going to still be only 2000 transactors pay huge fee's per tx it will be a magnitude high amount of payments per block paying a small fee. which all total up per block to be an amount healthy enough to cover good security level of hash difficulty for a block

yes there are some people that oppose having more transactions per block. but they are stuck in caveman mindsets that data is limited and will continue to be limited in future years.
much like how kodak said that digital photos wont work due to limitations of flash memeory/floppy disk spae in the 1990's
you know the 1mb limit of portable data back then means that photos of 1mb wont be useful if you can only transfer one at a time
that myth got busted as soon as 1gb portable memory was available and then several gigabyte then terrabyte. all within 2 decades

so imagine in 2140 there would be several magnitudes more transactions per block thus not needing each user to "pay more" but allowing more people to "pay the same" which totals combined gives more to mining pools

and no it does not require transaction counts to leap to 1000x today. but also we should not be delaying transaction count increases on-chain to be held back for decades either
it can SCALE (progressive) increase as time passes.

the strangeness of the debate about transactions per block scaling. the opposers of increased tx count are weirdly adoring and promoting that the current 4mb space should be used for stupid meme images and not transactions.
so its obvious they dont care about bitcoin being a payment network with natural growth scaling of transactions. they just want bitcoin to fail so they can promote whatever other scheme/network they prefer people to use as a payment network. they simply dont want to see bitcoin as a payment network of most users

all the responses are people taking the word "wallet" too literal as software..

the OP is talking about if some hacker or ex girlfriend obtained the seed phrase/wallet.dat file thus has possession of the private key..

in which case if they have not already moved the funds out of the keys to their address thus stealing funds away from you. the only option is for you to quickly move the funds to a fresh seedphrase/wallet that uses different keypairs which the other person does not posess

if the funds are gone. and you are trying to take this person to court and you are asking for proof that you owned/created the seed phrase and not them. to claim original ownership, meaning proving they stole your funds
well thats alot harder to prove

unless:
a. the phrases represent words that can clearly be tied to things in your life and not the hackers
EG all 12 words have a meaning towards your hobbies EG your a musician and all words are musical related. and/or have relation to your families hobbies/interests

b. where the stolen funds came from before being sent/deposited to your keys. EG buying coin on an exchange and withdrawn straight to your wallet whereby the exchange has KYC evidence that you bought the coin(though the thief can just claim you donated coins straight to them when you withdrew from the exchange) but would require the thief showing equal proof that the funds were intended for them to spend EG needs conversation logs of you saying you will buy coin and send it to them direct from the exchange

c. by having proof of means, method, opportunity to have got hold of your seed phrase/wallet.dat file. EG you ca link the hacker/thief to a piece of software that trojan horsed your computer with wallet.dat stealing capability or a phishing site that requested your private key/seed

oh look the usual flock of people sniffing doomads 'offerings' too much

however
the bitcoin white paper never says the word censor resistant or censorship resistance
it mentions consensus more then once
it talks about rules and acceptance. and enforcement of rules

its more of a "dont put all eggs into one basket" investment advice
yes some cryptos. like say ethereum is being artificially held up by a bubble value right now due to arbitrage and how ether is locked and not doing its own price discovery right now. so has yet to see the "PoS" value correction to the new 95% lower production cost(bottomline value)

so yea some currencies will see value crashes once stakes can be unlocked and start hitting the market selling at profits with new lower costs of 20x lower 'minting' cost average compared to last year

however bitcoins value is in its lowest efficiency mining cost region which is $15k+ meaning bitcoins price is still in its cheap value region and not at a ATH region(last $70k). and as long as hashing grows to keep the bottomline cost going up. bitcoins store of value % is in a great "green happy zone" (just dont buy btc at a premium ATH price(expect corrections after ATH's))

i personally am a long term bitcoin maximalist that sees bitcoin has many mechanisms at play that will and should keep bitcoins hashrate rises and thus value competition going up for many years and thus the competition for underlying efficient low costs increase to higher costs as time goes on. so bitcoin is a stronger investment to trust than say ethereum

read strikes ToS and FAQ.
yes taxes apply as do variety of exchange rates commissions and fees.

strike says that it uses services such as plaid, pouch as its service providers but then tries to escape its liability by saying how strike does not hold value and the onus of the value being transmitted is on the users agreement with those services. and there fee's and where strike just takes a commission from said services


oh and strike says its not liable for any payment delays or bottlenecks of the services or network issues of bitcoin or lightning. so yea.. he knows there are some

take for instance LN' the average channel only allows ~$846 inbound and ~$846 outbound per channel average ($1692 per average channel)
meaning there will be routing issues if you are trying to move value more then $846 and heck any amount if someone just moved value before you where the router channels have not "rebalanced" (1ml average channel stats: Average Channel Capacity 0.070 BTC ) (1692.00)

did you know that strike tries doing this game with el salvadors chivo wallet. and within 3 months el-salv dropped strikes partnership due to all the LN bottlenecks of payment failures and delays due to lightnings known liquidity issues
95% success rate amounts under  0.000272 BTC (upto $6.55 if direction side is fully balanced)
75% success rate amounts under  0.005000 BTC (upto $120 if direction side is fully balanced)
50% success rate amounts under  0.020000 BTC (upto $480 if direction side is fully balanced)
25% success rate amounts under  0.050000 BTC (upto $1.2k if direction side is fully balanced)
emphasis: depending on route path and balances along route. and how many users have used said route earlier before route "rebalance"

im all for using bitcoin to do remittance.. but not using strikes "service"

oh and by the way. if "plaid" and "pouch" were getting into being bitcoin/crypto exchangers. they would and could easily adopt just swapping stable coin reserves and do away with strikes hop, skip and jump mechanisms of him taking commission at multiple steps he is involved in.

which would actually save plaid and pouch alot of money, which could pass on savings to customers

im not endorsing stable coins. and would prefer plaid and pouch used bitcoin. im just saying that strikes business plan is not helpful for those wanting to remit fiat.

everytime you mention "censorship resistance" your doing it with the foolish notion of the buzzword whereby your thinking using doomads version of the word

get away from his notion

bitcoin has many consensus mechanisms requiring consent of the network to allow certain things. yes some rules have been softened. but the network is still a system of requiring consent to meet some rule
(dont get upset and cry the doomad narrative that there is not and should not be any consent/consensus mechanism. and dont even try to suggest there never was a consensus system.. please dont sound like that idiot)
this is why trying to broadcast a litecoin transaction gets rejected, a tx of sat-dust amounts gets rejected, why a spent utxo gets rejected

pretending that bitcoin needs to be softened more to let anything in is a bad bad bad idea of breaking bitcoin to allow anything in. because then there are no rules meaning double spends can happen and accepting litecoins into bitcoin and any altcoin tx into bitcoin which breaks the units of value measure supply rules and such
i can continue on with many examples of bad precedences that can occur is the "softening" continues

bitcoin is not a censorship resistance network. its as consensus network
nodes fully comply and consent to rules of whats acceptable

heck. if we remove consensus and allowed censorship resistance.. then CSW can drop in some 2009 utxo's and without the network consensus.. the "censorship resistance" buzzword you are idolising due to your girlfriend. will accept CSW spending old utxo because doomad wants a system where no data/transaction is rejected

..
bitcoin needs to be a strong consensus network needing consent of the masses on what transactions are acceptable. by defining whats acceptable. such as needing the uxto keypair owners consent (by signature) to move the utxo value..
and not doomads silly rule breaking ideology. where he has no understanding of consensus or consent

please for once get out of doomads head of his desires and think about bitcoins network security and the benefit for the masses of value security of a network designed as a consensus based payment network/. not doomads "censorship resistance" bloated meme library network!.

bitcoin network nodes need the consent of the utxo keypair owner to allow a tx to confirm

bitcoin utxo owners need the consent of bitcoin network which set the tx format rules to form their tx in said format to get accepted as a viable tx for the network to accept

its this consensus system of the users agreement that makes bitcoin work. by uniting everyone based on established rules. not the other way round

nope

strike does not "use bitcoin without any companies"
there is in the US-fillo example
plaid-strike-pouch
thats 3 companies involved

it sounds cheaper. when you only look at one part of the journey.. but add it all together. for the full trip of the transaction. it adds up
what your not realising is

currently the fiat process
transferwise, western union have agents across the world
lets just use transferwise
a fillo TW agent holds peso and a us TW agent holds dollar
they just talk to each other to take dollars and give out peso. where TW takes profit
1 company using its reserves of its agents within the same company

with crypto there are the 3 companies mentioned. where each are taking a cut..
theres a fee for the 'plaid'+strike us start of the remittance
theres a btc fund lock for the LN+strike lockin
theres a btc broadcast for the LN+strike unlock
theres a fee for the pouch+strike PH end of the remittance

everyone knows that btc can be anything from 10cents-$1.50 per btc tx meaning 20cents-$3 in and out of LN
then the exchange rates of dollar in and exchange rate of peso out. which can be a few dollars too

is not something like sub penny per $1k remitted

also try to read the terms and conditions. yep even strike says in its sole discretion they can ask for account verification and identity
https://beta.strike.me/legal/tos/ 6(c) & 7
yep they wont let you use debit cards(virtual visa) they want real bank accounts where the name on bank account matchs your name on strikes service account

even with the send global you also need to provide full details of the recipient

so if your thinking its super cheap and KYC free, you would be wrong

they have other nasty terms like waiving the right to sue them in court and only seek reparations in their chosen arbitrations and you waive your right to class action them in they were to go bankrupt

as for privacy, pfft

the hyperledger group(banker prototype exploration) has been round for 8 years now. and many crypto dev groups have been consulting with them and then sandbox testing concepts for those banks by making adaptations to existing blockchains to then use existing blockchains to make the stuff hyperledger is looking for.

it becomes no surprise that some of the ideas/buzzwords/concepts in crypto that flourished since 2017+ have resembled idea's that have been buzzworded about in hyperledger consultations since 2015

i wont name them, because certain people will just social drama some defensive debate about "franky" to distract from the discussion of the regulations that have changed crypto and used and abused crypto to speed up the work of the bankers wanting to monopolise crypto. via everything from sponsoring devs to delay bitcoin evolution just to sandbox their idea's..  to regulating bitcoin into slowed down progression

you really think strike does things for free?
you really think there wil be no fee

think about it rationally
the peso to usd via strikes favourite method requires
a exchange spread/conversion rate (peso to btc)
a tx fee to lock coin (btc-msat)
a small route fee.
a unlock btc(broadcast) fee (msat-btc)
a  exchange spread/conversion rate btc usd

strike isnt doing this out the goodness of their heart
they take small commission from the IN processing and OUT of the whole movement, atleast 3 fee cost opportunities to take profits from

https://beta.strike.me/faq/fees/


yep strike earns from the fiat exchanges margin and by being part of the lightning route in and out

depends if you are a smart investor or not

when the words "inflation" started being shouted in late 2020-late 2022 due to all the financial fiddlings of covid cheques and ukrainian-russian war causes of fuel cut-offs and market manipulations

alot of smart people knew that inflation meant their FIAT would buy less goods in the future, so they would buy supplies and products quickly to stockpile for a year+, before the prices would ultimately rise

this meant they then had their ongoing income not required to buy things regularly due to stockpiling goods. and so free to invest...
this meant they would then invest it in inflation beating assets

which meant buying crypto/gold/ etc

also with electric prices going up meaning mining costs going up. this then means less people selling coin at previous bottomline costs because bottom line costs have gone up

but here is the thing
th results i just explained of inflation.. have yet to move in
mining farms buy electric supply in 1-2year lump contracts meaning they are still priced in at the 2021-2022 rates and yet to feel the 2022-23 rates hit them

alot of businesses stockpiling materials in early 2022 have yet to sell the goods they produce using those stockpiled cheaper produce. so yet to profit from that planning. and so yet to get ongoing income/profit .

but it will happen

thats questionable


homes can be built literally anywhere
though Chernobyl, Fukushima and bikini islands is least likely desirable place to build a home

funny part is the HRF donates funds to the dev group that has the highest reputation of moderation policy to ban and delete posts of anyone not part of their groupspeek/roadmap

forget about the market price(retail market) for one minute

the look at the whole sale market of the cheapest methods to acquire coin
mostly this is the most efficient mining costs

q4 2022 had a $15k bottomline cheapest wholesale(most efficient mining) cost

since then mining hash rate has gone up meaning not only is the market price tested that bottom. the actual costs have since gone up which also gives stronger support
to cause the market to not test that previous bottom. but if it does dip again to test a newer raised bottom slightly above $15k

no one wants to sell at a loss and anyone that has intended to sell at $16k has done so.

anyway here is some math

based on 260exa hash average for q4 of 2022
gave a ~$7.5k hardware cost
  - 260exa / 191thash =1361257 asics
     a $3.63k asic with a 2 year life cycle = $4938638743.46 for 2 years (105000 blocks)
     $4.94b / 105000 blocks = 47034.66 a block
     47034.66 a block /6.25 = 7525.54 per btc hardware

gave $7.5k electric
  - 1361257 * $0.21 (5.2kwh at $0.04 is 0.208) = $283141.46 electric an hour
    = 283141.46 /6 /6.25 = 7550.44 per btc
totalling $15k mining cost for efficient hardware and low electric rate

NOTE
if average hashrate was say:
300exa = hardware 8685.71 + electric 8712.04 = 17397.75

meaning if a LENGTHY period of mining stabilises around 300exa
then the efficient mining cost bottom is going to be 17.4k
thus strengthening the bottom where no one wants to sell below "cheapest mining"

if we then look at the hashrate. we are seeing hasrate go over 300eca meaning the lengthy period average of the 2022 estimate is increasing thus going above last periods $15k and getting closer to the presumed average i just mentioned

this means chances of crashing again to near $15k is alot less chance then the first time it did

enjoy