im imposing it?
do you even know the word impose
(hint: put a restriction in place).. sorry but i suggest relaxing the restrictions..
im not the one ACK/Nacking commits on bitcoin cores github
but when you look at those that do ACK/NACK and then you look at their idea's of what and who and how much bitcoin should be used for. you can easily see which way they lean

your chums want to impose the limits and impose restrictions that people should not use bitcoin for daily use. yep you dont want people buying coffee on bitcoin(basically $3 amounts)
yep you dont want anyone in under-privileged countries where their entire days wages should not be used on bitcoin..

heres you saying that bitcoin cant go mainstream/global.. i excluded the part where you then advertised your altnet as the solution.. but by you just talking in a topic its obvious your altnet advert wil pop up somewhere in your posts
i could quote many many more. and even quote your chums before you saying the same scripts you say word-for-word. but its easier for anyone that is interested to just look at your forum profile post history and do a simple search..

sorry but its your chums that are imposing, and not wanting to scale BITCOIN any time soon. all so that your chums can advertise some other network that people should move to first.

yep you love the idea of getting people to move to other networks, you and your chums very narrative every time is to not change bitcoin for the benefit of extending bitcoin use. but change it only to extend feature useful for other networks. and any changes that people do want on the bitcoin network. your narrative is to tell people to fork it off and start a new network and convince people to use it.

your narrative is not original and its not even your original mindset. you are just copying your chums narrative.
..
funny part is there are THOUSANDS of topics of people asking about "when will bitcoin go mainstream" and "how to scale BITCOIN" but only a dozen topics specifically about your altnet.
(even though you try to inject multiple advertisement attempts into many bitcoin scaling conversations)
..
you do not want value transactions of ~$3 even if it was one million people doing it once a week
you think anything of the price of a pizza($15) or a coffee($3) is not worthy of bitcoins utility.

yep thats YOU saying under-privileged countries daily wage for 10 hours labour is not good enough to be permitted in bitcoin.

but before finding some old script to recite..
take this one single thought.. and take some time to process it independently of what you think your chums want you to say..

what you see as being a single coffee.. 2 billion people in the world see as their daily/weekly salary
just take a long and hard thought about what you are proposing when you want to restrict usage of bitcoin
country             population      10 hours at $0.30c or less/hour
niger                24.5m            30c*10=$3
Mozambique     31.5m            28c*10=$2.80
kenya               53.7m           28c*10=$2.80
india                1.38BILLION  28c*10=$2.80
ghana              31m              23c*10=$2.30
uganda            45.7m            20c*10=$2.00
Bangladesh      164m             9c*10=$0.90
tanzania          59.7m             9c*10=$0.90

i didnt list them all. but maybe this will help you snap out of your script of thinking your impositions that restrict india's 1.3billion peoples daily use is something worth atleast thinking about

1. no you dont. you wanting a deposit into the account deposit address is you having those assigned to you. they do not need you to prove every deposit is yours... you wanting/have a deposit put into your account deposit address is you already linking yourself to that deposit.
in short nothing else is needed if your already KYC'd by the exchange

EG


2. they have to keep logs of all deposits and trades/swaps within their service and if the authorities request it then they have to provide that info to the authorities.
or if the service deems it to reach a certain level of suspicion, then the service decides to report it.

basically if the authorities request the info, give it. or the service only gives info that they find highly suspicious that is worthy of reporting. it does not mean everything gets reported

EG

this one part alone both tells people that the EU are not requesting that blockchains should make users info public on the blockchain (a silly idea certain people propagandised months ago)

ill also quote this that clarifies they do not want the crypto software/ wallet software to send the info

and also states the "made available" in many exerts .. ON REQUEST to the authorities.. so its not a "report everything"

if it ever was a report everything. then every single market exchange every deposit every withdrawal would be reported and basically flood the authorities with nonsense stuff..
they only want the interesting reports that are suspected to be linked to crimes. they dont want to be flooded with everything. and thats the reason why they get service providers to have compliance officers and investigators and such. to weed out the boring from the interesting.
if they just wanted everything. they would not need all these trained employees within the service providers business. they would just ask for direct access to their database

there are other things. like

the 'determine the appropriate follow-up action to take' references things like if the service should raise the flag to a potential need to report it to authorities.
in short its not a defacto 'report everything'

in short. they do not blanket ban users for using a mixer or freeze the account or refuse withdrawals or report them automatically/every instance. the service provider has to assess things case by case. and with other EU directives they should only really refuse withdrawals/access if done via a court order to seize funds.

heres another little nugget to clarify certain peoples false assumptions of how MSB's work
if a user refuses to give info. the service provider cannot defacto just seize the funds and make the customer at a loss just for not providing info.
instead the service has to have procedures to not seize.. but instead suspect certain service features or offerings like access to the market order book. and offer a refund mechanism to return funds to the customer to then close their account..

many unregulated(crap services) actually pretend they have the right to keep funds by asking customers for extraneous things which they know the customer will refuse to provide and pretend that triggers their ability to keep funds(steal funds actually)

symbiosis..
the attached smaller symbiote relies on the main body to survive
the main body does not need the symbiote. but may benefit or be harmed by the symbiote

many altnets pretending to be bitcoin evolved or next layer or next gen bitcoin are just leaches sucking on bitcoin fame

when you sign up to any exchange you are only allowed 1 account.(usually)
with this account you will need to be KYC'd
with this account they may provide you with 'use-once' deposit addresses and you can send funds from multiple addresses to the address currently reserved as your current deposit address

so if you have lots of coins from lots of mined blocks/sources. it does not matter because when you 'spend them' to deposit(request pool(s) to send them to deposit address) to an exchange the exchange will receive them and deem them as YOUR value

EG
mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla -  miners personal wallet -> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /

mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla --> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /

in both cases YOU as the exchange account holder are KYC linked to that account. meaning deposits into that deposit address are deemed as value assigned to you.. as you are the person thats deemed the owner of the funds

..
its the same as if you were arbitraging

exchange A<->exchange B

because you as the exchange account holder, of accounts in both exchange A and B
although the transaction appears to be a straight swap from A to B. they both deem YOU as the instigator/owner/controller of funds because you are the one making the service request for withdrawal /deposit

stompix.. the wording is clear.. it doesnt mention "customer"
so its not a "the customer is the merchant"

it says things like this (in the amendments document)

so the payment service treats the merchant as the "beneficiary' (receiver of funds and holder of the wallet)
and the customer(person buying a product from a merchant) is the originator (sender of the funds)

um yes they dont !approve" of things at the draft stage... instead they have "readings"


what you are now quoting. is not a "DRAFT"
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CJ12-PR-704888_EN.pdf
its an amendment report 'reading' of the draft.. not the actual draft

this is not the draft. its just a subset of possible amendments to make to the draft

what you are quoting is not the full document with full explanation and detail. you are just reference only the chapters they want to change.

and no i doubt you even dared read the entire draft and then compared all referenced amendments to see how it changes the wording. i predict you just copy and pasted my exert of the draft to google search for it and then see its not the same link as your are looking at (your subset) and thought 'oh look franky is not reading what im reading'
well of course because i am looking at the whole thing to get the full context.

but it is now funny how you and your chums are NOW using the words "service providers" and trying to hide your previous opinion of "non-custodial wallets"

very revealing

and funny at times..
your buddy, trying to input some nonsense so that he can try backing up your nonsense
EG

sorry but here is the thing. its again not about getting unhosted wallets to obtain info.
its about service providers which act as payment services where the private key owner is not the service provider
take for instance, if an exchange had a cold wallet 'owned by a trust'(legally separate entity) where the exchange itself(their website/server) was just a 'watch-only' service seeing deposits..
the exchange still needs to KYC the customer...
this does not mean the cold wallet software needs to. nor does the legal entity 'trust' of the cold wallet need to

here is the actual wording from the amendments

why would they do this amendment.
to as i suggested. to stop exchanges putting their cold wallet into separate legal entities to pretend they are not a crypto asset service by only being a watch only service.
yep they thought ahead and closed a loophole exchanges could have used to pretend they dont handle funds so they dont have to KYC..
the important thing is that payment service providers are the ones required. not the private key holder

blackhatcoiner.. atleast get out of your house for once. get on a plane and travel the world

actually speak to people outside of your little cabin.
i have been to africa and asia.. and their issues are not the blockCHAIN..
the blockCHAIN issue is your silly altnet group and your fanclub of idolising devs that want off-ramping with the silly excuses that it is blockCHAIN size thats the issue.

asia has the highest speed internet. they dont care about blockchain size
like i already exampled. ethereum is gaining mainstream adoption and its chain size is 1TB
people are not crying about ethereums 1TB size.. but you and your altnet loving buddies jump into as many topics as you can, pretend that 400gb blockchains are too much and 2mb blocks are too much,
and mention how you dont want to see people buying things for $3 on bitcoin..

friggen youtube uses more bandwidth in 30 seconds then bitcoin uses in 10 minutes.
nearly every online game uses more bandwidth and space then bitcoin does
do you see them crying. no.. so accept that your desire to hinder utility on bitcoin is the reason bitcoins utility is hindered

its YOU guys that are the ones saying bitcoin shouldnt/cant scale.. yet it can.
YOU guys are the ones that dont want bitcoin used for mainstream usage like buying a $3 product at a whim
YOU are the idiots that dont want bitcoin to grow. YOU are hindering bitcoin growth

and no dont you even dare try to start advertising your altnet by pretending that it is bitcoin. dont even try to pretend that your altnet is the solution people should move over to. and no dont even try to convince people to prune their bitcoin node because you want people to think there is no harm in decreasing the amount of full nodes(centralising the full nodes(InitialBlockDownload seeder))

yes im calling you and your buddies out yet again.

especially when you and your buddies want to pretend its government caused issues.. when you lot cant even be bothered to read any government legislation properly.
yes i know you hate walls of text. but get used to it. my posts are like 1% of what legislation is. so if you dont like my post lengths than you must really hate reading legislation.. but thats your problem you need to get over, and start reading more

.. you and your buddies have pretended that america wants to kill bitcoin adoption by requiring KYC at the bitcoin-core wallet level, or where you and your buddies have said that core devs and even asic owners need to become MSB'brokers' to collecting KYC and report every user to authorities.. all false but you believe it to be true
 when that is not even a thing that is ever mentioned in any legislation in either US or EU..

so before trying to blame governments. look at your own actions and emotions of how you describe bitcoin when you try adverting your other network. and then you might see where the issues actually lay

the three main things that are hindering world wide adoption are:

1. over 50% of the world are on low income. meaning their minimum wage is less than half of the minimum wage of developed countries

this is important because if the transaction fee is ~$1.60 (lows over $1 highs over $3 at time of post)


where for instance people do not want to be paying an hours labour just to make a transaction.
nor do they want to be paying 10% fee just to spend say $16 funds. ..  meaning they wont use it to buy things for $2-$15 which could be a few days worth of wages or a whole weeks worth of groceries for millions of people
..
there are many corporate/political aligned people in the community that do not want bitcoin to be used by the poorest nations. do not want bitcoin to be used for daily use. they make many silly excuses that are meaningless in the 21st century, but they really try hard to dissuade people from using bitcoin and instead try to off-ramp people into other networks

they want expensive fee's and other things that make it less useful. all to advertise their other networks as the replacement/upgrade people should move over to.

2. aside from the fee cost.. lets take the 'blockchain size'
ethereum is younger yet it is 1tb blockchain, yet no one is crying about their utility causing problems. many many developers have done alot of things to add features to ethereum and make it useful for many things. yet certain people dont want people using bitcoin that is much older but under half the size. they dont want daily use, they dont even want majority to be full node network backbone nodes. they try to mis-inform people to be leacher nodes pretending to be seeder nodes of block data.  they want value locks and then playing around with other networks that dont have the same security as bitcoin

3. aside from the silly excuses of why certain people think bitcoin should not be used by the masses
lets take the altnet argument
there are multiple networks all trying to steal the user-base of bitcoin by calling their network bitcoin[something] whether its pegged networks/forked networks/ or just name fame stealing networks. this dilutes the userbase over multiple networks and makes less people use the actual bitcoin network.
many then lose faith in the actual bitcoin network due to issues with the pretend 'bitcoin' networks. giving the real bitcoin network a bad name,
yep certain people pretend to adore bitcoin while trying to say that bitcoin is broke and people should use something else.

if over 50% of the world cant see value in using bitcoin because the fee is over an hours labour, and the bitcoin developers dont want to actually make it cheaper but do false advertising like making older transaction formats 4x more expensive and then call their new feature a 3x discount(end result is overal fee is higher then before) then those developers have not made improvements to make it useful for the 'unbanked' populations.
if the overal only feature benefit of the same new feature is just to create a format that allows offramping to other networks. you start to see that certain people in the community dont want mass adoption of bitcoin.

1) yes because they know you. they are not looking to know your taint/previous receipts/how you got the coin. they just need to know about the 'you to them' part. because they are receiving coin they need to know you so they can ensure you dont just make 60 accounts trying to do £100 payments 60x times to get around not being noticed when you want to convert £60k with them

2)yes. the draft is not about making bitcoin core suddenly require KYC. its not about changing bitcoin transaction formats or changing the blockchain. its just about the payment services knowing their customers.

what you will find would change.. is if you were to swap value for instance to WBTC(binance pegged sidechain btc) or GBTC(greyscale bitcoin trust shares) those would want to know all trades and transactions with KYC applied to each transaction

because binance and greyscale are 'significant issuers of crypto-assets' (pegged coins) they will need to keep trade/kyc history

there are also things like employing supervisors/compliance officers that specialise and trained in KYC/AML
the draft bill actually goes into detail of expected expenditure for a business to be fully compliant
the EUR50k if just a licence fee. kind of like a deposit. . there are other costs separate from that. including non-compliance fines

first of all YOU are the topic creator.. no need to play third person when its obviously me saying YOU should have quoted the draft instead of silly media

also i actually copy and pasted from the draft.. it clearly shows the classifications of what the service providers are

also
oh look coindesk.com

when you realise that coindesk is a sister company of coinbase and multiple other businesses and service providers. you have to take their articles into context of their editorial bias towards their sister companies

as for other media.. they just sheep follow and copy and paste the first news releaser and dont do any proper source checking.

also, you quoted coingeek. excuse me but your quoting the calvin ayres/CSW group.. seriously.. GET BETTER SOURCES


so please dont use sources of media/social media.. instead if you want to talk about pessimism of a draft bill QUOTE THE DRAFT BILL

the topic creator should not be quoting coinbase articles.. but instead the actual draft paper..

the 3 main things the draft ACTUALLY is concentrating on are these:
payment service providers(exchanges, mixers, custodians, 'professional financial advice services' shopping cart middlemen services)
and
ICO creators

and
stablecoin issuers (e-money tokens)

its not about person to person transactions using decentralised/non custodial/bitcoin wallets. its not about person to merchant/retailers transactions. its not about blockchain transactions.. its not about mining pools or asics or asic farm owners. its not about software developers

its about payment into regulated services like exchanges, its about financial advisers and payment service businesses. its about businesses or people creating new ICO(premine/airdrop/purchase of issued tokens) that want to be listed on exchanges or offer their own swap/exchange/payment/purchase service

as for having to get 'wallets' include KYC. this is not about normal cryptocurrencies or existing cryptocurrencies. its about what they refer to as e-money tokens which translates to stable coins

here is the classification of crypto asset service providers

Crypto-asset service provider authorised for the following crypto-asset services:

Crypto-asset service      Type of crypto-asset services                         Minimum capital requirements
providers
Class 1                         –reception and transmission of orders            EUR50k
                                     on behalf of third parties; and/or
                                   –providing advice on crypto-assets; and/or
                                   –execution of orders on behalf of third
                                     parties; and/or
                                   –placing of crypto-assets.

Class 2                         Crypto-asset service provider authorised        EUR125k
                                   for any crypto-asset services under class 1
                                   and:
                                   –custody and administration of crypto-assets
                                     on behalf of third parties

Class 3                        Crypto-asset service provider authorised for   EUR150k
                                  any crypto-asset services under class 2 and:
                                  –exchange of crypto-assets for fiat currency
                                    that is legal tender;
                                  –exchange of crypto-assets for other
                                    crypto-assets;
                                  –operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets.

as you can see it does NOT mention:
decentralised non-custody wallet developers
nor person-person private transactions
not person to merchant/retailer transactions

a retailer does not need to take KYC info for all transactions. but if its using a payment service to convert to fiat(EG bitpay) then bitpay will require to KYC of both the retailer and the customer

i do not think you are understanding the problem
and i guess trying to translate ot to something existing like debit cards as an analogy of something common people do understand is a little over your head

so lets go to basics and only talk in 'bitcoin speak'
firstly..
you have to understand the initial production of value.. the treasury has to create billions of UTXO and put a utxo on billions of devices. for the initial value creation..

lets say the treasury not only done some premined UTXO but also mined the utxo with a secret nonce only they keep. meaning the TXID is a hash with a secret that people dont know but the treasury does..

simple right each device has a privkey locked to it which is associated to the public key of the UTXO..
and each TXID is unique and also special because it can only have been made by the treasury.. right?
meaning only that device can sign that utxo..
thats your thought right....
lets say all of this data is then encrypted along with the app in a special encryption that only self decrypts within the app.

now here is the thing.. without me having any pre knowledge of the private key or the public key or even the UTXO.. or the mined hash nonce or even the data encryption...  i can EASILY.. clone the data and put that exact data on multiple device.. AS-IS

it does not matter how its encoded. because you are NOT trying to decode it.
your not trying to find the private key or the secret nonces or the data's encryption key

your just COPYING IT
you do not need to re-engineer/reverse engineer the firmware software that deencodes it. you just copy the whole thing in its entirety in its encrypted form. no fiddling needed.. sofware firmware in all

in a situation of no network, no audit, no checking between middlemen/services
i can spend my UTXO with you.. and then on another device spend that with someone else.
heck in such a 'offline system' i can just use the same device multiple times with different people. because they are not checking with each other that its been spend before


P.S to mods.. nice april fools. shame the 'smart answers' are not a permanent feature

but you.. HUMAN do not need to know that private key or enter it at every instance.
EG card cloners.
the card needs to have the lengthy mastercard number starting with a 5, the expiry and the CVV number, and imagine IF that data was encoded in a way to not be clear text on magnetic strip/simcard/NFC

but here is the thing. the HUMAN does not need to know those 3 pieces of information in clear text up-front to then clone a card. they just copy/paste whatever binary data they grab from one device and put it onto another device as-is, already encrypted..  without needing to crack the encryption to make it cleartext

cloning a card does not need to make the data clear text and then encrypt it again on new device. you just copy the encrypted data without having to know the encryption key

the other propaganda is "bitcoin cant scale, so off-ramp to these other networks please, which we will call bitcoin+1, bitcoin2.0 or bitcoinL2 or something snazzy to steal instant fame without the hard work and without actually having all the features of bitcoin"

the thing is for years people have been crying[fake or misguided tears] about how bitcoins blockchain is [400GB] and growing, and how thats a reason to stop using bitcoin..

much like shouting "dont watch movies on you phone because a HD movie is 5gb but thats only 1 day of TV sofa binge watching you phone is capable of. so lets destroy phones and the internet and also movies"

kodak made that fatal mistake in the 90's when they didnt progress to digital because they thought 1mb images would not scale on digital storage

yet ethereums blockchain is 1TB. yet people still use it alot. and are developing alot of stuff on it. more then whats being developed on bitcoin in the last 7 years to improve bitcoins utility. (and i mean.. on bitcoin.. to strengthen its bitcoin main-net utility (i do not mean the side chains and bridged/pegged altnets pretending to be bitcoin))

so pretending that people wont/cant/shouldnt use bitcoin, or pretending bitcoin is dead, or pretending that bitcoin is a environmental disaster.. where bitcoin needs to be replaced/changed to remove its uniqueness or just killed off by a new network.. is just propaganda to get bitcoiners to stop using bitcoin to then use a different token/network/coin/system of lesser quality, but fake pretend the lesser quality networks/forks are same/better then bitcoin

if you want a variant of bitcoin without the SHA256 ASIC heavy mining.. there is already:
'bitcoin diamond'
'bitcoin atom'
[insert 100+altcoins]

point is...... you dont need to extract the private key

you just need to copy ALL data, in any encrypted format into several chips as-is.. it doesnt matter what the device is. take sybil attacks. there is no PoD(proof of device) the recipient only know what it has been told and what it can be told is anything you want to tell them electronically

EG i made adjustments to my full node. it has ectra checks and does different things to core. yet if you look at the useragent it appears as a standard bitcoin core client

. then with multiple devices imitating the original.. like card cloning.. you can use that card/device/fob/widget while the 'real' owner thinks they have their card/device/fob/widget still..

take cloning a bitcoin hardware wallet. i dont need to know your full privatekey/seed. i can just cone the chip data as is. and then just try the 4 number pin 9999 times to then get signing authority
thus i can easily then sign transactions without needing to know the privkey or brute every word library 2048¹².. instead i can do it in 10⁴

if the device doesnt even have 2FA (a pin number) where it just auto-pilot/auto-pays without consent/acceptance. EG tap-to-pay. then i dont even need to do the pin number thing 10⁴
i simply just spend with as many different vendors as i please knowing none of them check each other due to "offline"

the next points from that, is if the value of that device is not audited by any network or vendor, not just for the stored value validity, but also the spend value validity.. , then you can then double, triple, multiple spend the same value..
like counterfeit cheques or even cash. if none of the references or bank balance is ever checked, then they are all deemed as of value and all accepted on first sight.
EG whats the point of a bank note serial number if no one checks that the serial is unique or unspent

the cypherpunks were dealing with this issue from the 1990's+ and it all had issues. this 'offline e-cash' idea is not a new idea. its an old one that gov representatives are just now trying to comprehend without having gone through the flaws of the last 30+ years of existing trials.. the reason why bitcoin and blockchains was such a success is that the network wide audit system is the only solution to e-cash

i know some are thinking 'cascasius' coins with a privkey hidden in a tamper proof thing.
but thats not 'electronic' thats old school physical money
take casino chips, they dont prevent counterfit chips by just having unique ID's in each chip with an RFID to communicate that. they prevent counterfitting by having a database to check if other casino's have accepted that same ID


so if your thinking of a physical device that holds a signed UTXO that has been split by some treasury department over billions of devices, where that ID is unique and fixed for life.. and people just swap devices or trade UTXO electronically like bluetooth swapped trading cards. then you need to look into the cypherpunk research of the 1990-2010 research and trials and fails

if its just about having a trusted device manufacturer. and not where the value needs a trusted third party multisig co-signer to validate the value at its creation. then thats flawed

first lets deal with the hardware trust... ever heard of card cloning.
even mastercard cant solve card cloning.

credit card scammers do not need to un-hash the secret key of a debit card. they just need to duplicate the binary onto multiple devices as-is.
heck you dont even need to purchase a mastercard plastic debit card from mastercard. you can get OEM(unbranded) cards from anywhere. heck you can even use your phone to broadcast the 'tap to pay' data

no bruteforce necessary of the key.. just duplicate the data as-is.
it does not matter if its stored on magnetic strip, simcard chip or nfc ring loop chip.. data is data.

EG most people think people car alarm fobs/dongles are secure because each device is encrypted to only send out a signal that the specific car is also aware of. but that requires a pairing of devices where both sender and recipient are pre-setup and contracted together from the start.. and can check each others validity. and only the two can communicate/understand each other. which then limits its operability only be between 2 people..
also if i have access to a fob. i dont need to bruteforce the encryption. i can just duplicate the chip data as is and put it on many fobs and then have many car alarm fobs.
(EG no one can brute force your phone that has encryption from the outside. but they can clone the phone and have many instances of the same phone)

thus it then becomes up to the users to ensure no one else has that same fob/phone/housekey or access to your fob/phone/housekey. which then creates the flaw of passing the value on. because the old recipient could have duplicated it, passed on one copy whilst keeping one copy(yep change your house door locks guys when you buy/rent a new house, the old owner/tenant might still have the keys to steal your wife's underwear)

EG without network auditing.. without vendor pairing. without processing through only one vendor
if mastercard creates value onto a card.. but visa also could accepts the value without checking with mastercard. then people can not only make multiple cards to spend through many retailers...
which would then require the retailers to check with visa that visa has not seen customers making multiple attempts in other retailers..

but also spend value once with mastercard. once with visa and once with american express and once with diners club. and 4x the value spent.. unless.. visa, mastercard, american express, diners club also inter-communicate
but.. because visa is not communicating in a no network/offline scenario that they received/processed a payment via a mastercard. then expect flaws

the next option is a middleman being a liquidity provider and co-signer where they give the customer the liquidity and are part of the signing/authorisation process so funds flow/route through them and only them. in a network.. that only accepts single spends through them

debit card cloning only allows one payment to be accepted by mastercard.. because mastercard is part of the payment route.. you can only make a mastercard payment via a retailer that is linked to mastercard.. no mastercard service, no way of paying the retailer with mastercard..

but even then, that means the real owner loses out because a cloner has spent their value. which is where even mastercard, a trusted vendor of debit cards has its flaws where it cant stop cloning. and so funds get spent by scammers.

yep even now, decades on.. mastercard cannot prevent card cloning..

EG bitcoin hardware wallets. do not care if private keys are on multiple devices. because the important thing is people trust the blockchain to then validate a winning recipient. by only logging/accounting for only one recipient in the ledger. but that still requires people to ensure no one steals and then clones their devices/keys. because once confirmed.. there is no refund policy..
mastercard cant stop cloning, so instead they offer refunds if scammed.
which in-of-itself can then get scammed by people making genuine payments for goods, getting the goods and then claiming they got scammed to get a refund, and then re-spend that value again

anyway i digress..
it does not matter if i have a dozen wallets with the same key... as long as only i have those dozen wallets. i have to ensure no one clones my wallet, because if they do. i lose my value
..
the next flaw to overcome. is if there is no network enforcement of the locked funds of the partnership between customer and vendor, then the vendor can assign the same value over multiple accounts
(fractional reserve)
so the next thing would be to publicly announce each account so that everyone can check that the value lock is not duplicated. and then also enforce that each lock is confirmed into a unique partnership only spendable by a proven lock of both partners, where there is a path/route/taint to show the value of the individual account is assigned by true previous taint of its initial value creation/mined coin/premine

this then becomes a choice of.. does it have one central auditor at the top. in private thus customers dont see the liquidity paths.. or do the public see it where there is no central auditor. but requires the public to enforce the rules of no duplicity. or do the vendors in the middle audit each other and their customers

a certain network(i shall not name) allows:
a 'feature' (quoted loosely) where locks can be created from unconfirmed txids.
but also
account(channel) openings where one partner was not part of the confirmation of the txid, even if it were confirmed txid value(new channels but using 3 year old funding locks).

(hint: if a network gives out liquidity/value without a confirmation process involving your pubkey at the channel opening session, calling it 'instant inbound liquidity' then expect double spend possibility)
yep. if you open a channel with a partner. but the funding lock is not fresh and not involving your public key in a confirmed tx. where the funding lock is X years old.. expect that value to be at risk. because you are not linked to it in any hard rule

these 'features'(as they call it) of giving value where there is no co-partner involvement in the lock. then also requires by default not only publicly announcing every account(channel) lock ID to ensure no duplicates. but also a hard rule to reject any instance of seeing duplicates.
(yet. the network i shall not name does not enforce the latter, heck even the broadcasting of channel ID's is not enforced as a hard rule.. they noticed the flaw of privacy, so started to take away private channels by default. but still not enforced the rejection of channels that are duplicated)

if the XRP founder thinks switching algo will 'fix' bitcoin.. then why is XRP so crap.. yep answer is because the lack of cost in making XRP is why no one values it more then $1

there is a reason why even in the most cheapest mining cost for bitcoin, the price at the same time does not go below that price.

same with gold no one would sell gold for under $1k if it cost $1k+-$2k to mine it.

XRP has no real cost hense why its at under $1 right now

..
as for the debate about energy usage of bitcoin.
it has already been worked out that if all cars(just family cars) were electric it would require 4000x more electric than bitcoin worldwide.
then add on the trucks and other vehicles and you soon realise that bitcoin is miniscule compared to other 'new tech' demands of this last and the next decade

the whole point is that those people HAVE bought at $32k-$46k..  now they just want other people to buy in to creep the price even higher

i try to level out people expectations like a few months ago the whole $100k thing i tried to say how that number was not yet achievable even in a hype pump.
just like now saying its maybe possible to get to $80k+

the real big idiots are the ones that shout $100k+ by spring..
they have no clue and they cant even show any reasoning for it.

$80k+ is a possibility, but no guarantee when

the issue with electronic cash. is the thing that the cypherpunks spent a decade trying to figure out pre 2009
.. counterfitting

there would need to be some method to guarantee/audit each payment to ensure someone has not simply copy/pasted the data over multiple devices to create more fake money, to ensure someone doesnt just pay lots of different people using the same 'ecash' reference

although they say they wont use a ledger that stores transaction history data
although they say they wont breach privacy by requesting KYC
although they say they wont have middlemen authorising payments.

what they will need is structured issuance and then auditing to ensure no duplication
which just like the chinese CBDC, its not a blockchain, its smart contract based
and its bottom-level wallet allows payments without KYC
(their system have 3 levels top 2 do require KYC)

the way it works is by smart contracts. where there is a main issuer, which then splits/distributes via smart contracts X amount  to several main wallet (payment service) providers. who then smart contract X amount to its customers, where the wallet provider then audits the values are not double spent

there would need to be some middleman involvement even purely to audit the authenticity of the value. even if they are told not to keep records of who pays who

..
in short. something thats truly 'offline' but also electronic just wont work. because people will just duplicate the data and double spend