Let’s be honest.

Last month, I released a white paper explaining that conservative investors should allocate 10% to crypto, moderate clients should invest 25% and aggressive investors should place 40% of their portfolios into crypto.

Bitcoin has outperformed every other asset class for 12 of the past 15 years, and it’s highly likely that it will continue to do so for years to come. Institutions are investing like never before. Congress and the administration now fully support crypto, and we’re beginning to get the regulatory clarity we’ve wanted.

The SEC and FINRA’s prohibitions that blocked brokerage firms from trading or custodying crypto have been rescinded. The OCC and the Fed have revoked similar prohibitions against banks, and the Department of Labor has rescinded its objection that prevented 401(k) plans from offering bitcoin as an investment option.

Despite the growth and performance of bitcoin, I keep seeing suggestions that people ought to allocate only 1 or 2 percent to crypto. In my opinion, that is no longer enough. Crypto is no longer speculative. It is no longer niche. It now deserves to be treated as a core allocation.

Consider this hypothetical illustration, comparing a traditional 60/40 portfolio of stocks/bonds to portfolios that hold 10 percent, 25 percent or 40 percent in bitcoin. Let’s assume we invest $100 for five years, earning 7 percent annually in the 60/40 allocation. Let’s also look at two extreme outcomes: bitcoin either becomes worthless, or it rises in five years to $1 million (roughly a 10x increase from today).

As you see in the chart below, the $100 invested in the 60/40 portfolio rises to $140 after five years. Not bad. But the portfolio with a 25 percent bitcoin allocation could be worth more than 250 percent more. Even if bitcoin were to become worthless (and you held it all the way to zero), your portfolio would still be profitable – with a value above your original investment. Seems to me that the risk/reward ratio strongly favors a significant crypto allocation – and certainly one that’s far higher than a measly 1 or 2 percent.

Potential Range of Portfolio Returns Based on Bitcoin Allocation

Bitcoin’s price appreciation isn’t speculation – it’s just supply and demand. In Q1 2025, public companies purchased 95,000 bitcoins – more than double the new supply. And that’s from just one category of buyers – it ignores additional demand from retail investors, financial advisors, family offices, hedge funds, institutional investors and sovereign wealth funds. This massive imbalance between supply and demand is driving bitcoin’s price to all-time highs. I predict that bitcoin will reach $500,000 by 2030 – a 5x increase as of this writing.

The adoption curve has tremendous room to run – supporting the thesis that there is substantial upside yet to come in bitcoin’s price. Read the white paper for more.

BECH32 detects up to 4 errors (in the sense that creating up to 4 replacement errors guarantees that the resulting string has an incorrect checksum). However, error detection is not the same as error Positioning: Just knowing that BECH32 is wrong does not mean you can’t know where the error was made.

Bech32 is also allowed Correction Up to 2 replacement errors. This means that if you know that no more than two replacement errors have been created, you can calculate what the original valid string was for a given string. The JavaScript code on the website you link to has the code to do this, but for safety reasons it will not be revealed intentionally what Errors discovered, where.

The reason is that corrections are dangerous. If the user creates two or more replacement errors, the error correction algorithm may still find two errors to “fix” in the sense that it constructs a valid address, but It is not the user’s address. Inadvertent users may make corrections suggested by the algorithm and send funds to void. Instead, the correction algorithm is still used under the hood, but only the location of the error is revealed, forcing the user to check if it is the primary resource that received the address, but perhaps forces the algorithm to focus specifically on the specific location where the location error is likely to have occurred.

Could you provide the generated code? I’m struggling to generate the P2SH-P2WSH address from the specified redemption script. In reality, there is no key to the witness program. …In this case I just wanted to double check if the generated address and the specified address were the same

Transaction Spec
Private Key 1: 39dc0a9f0b185a2ee56349691f34716e6e0cda06a7f9707742ac113c4e2317bf
Private Key 2: 5077ccd9c558b7d04a81920d38aa11b4a9f9de3b23fab45c3ef28039920fdd6d
Redeem Script (ASM): OP_2 032ff8c5df0bc00fe1ac2319c3b8070d6d1e04cfbf4fedda499ae7b775185ad53b 039bbc8d24f89e5bc44c5b0d1980d6658316a6b2440023117c3c03a4975b04dd56 OP_2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
Redeem Script (HEX): 5221032ff8c5df0bc00fe1ac2319c3b8070d6d1e04cfbf4fedda499ae7b775185ad53b21039bbc8d24f89e5bc44c5b0d1980d6658316a6b2440023117c3c03a4975b04dd5652ae
Transaction should contain exactly 1 input with:
Outpoint:
Hash: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Index: 0
Sequence: 0xffffffff
Transaction should contain exactly 1 output with:
Value: 0.001
Address: 325UUecEQuyrTd28Xs2hvAxdAjHM7XzqVF
Locktime: 0

I’m doing this in Python

# Given Redeem Script (HEX)
redeem_script_hex = "5221032ff8c5df0bc00fe1ac2319c3b8070d6d1e04cfbf4fedda499ae7b775185ad53b21039bbc8d24f89e5bc44c5b0d1980d6658316a6b2440023117c3c03a4975b04dd5652ae"
script_bytes = bytes.fromhex(redeem_script_hex)
sha256_hash = hashlib.sha256(script_bytes).digest()
redeem_script_hash = hashlib.new("ripemd160", sha256_hash).digest()
prefixed_hash = b'\x05' + redeem_script_hash
checksum = hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(prefixed_hash).digest()).digest()(:4)
final_data = prefixed_hash + checksum
address = base58.b58encode(final_data).decode()
print(address)

Putput appears

h-multisig-tx-jatin-2708/python$ python main.py
39C5GaHDocqYVgyCq2TrMfknTL45LPPcKF

But it should come

Address: 325UUecEQuyrTd28Xs2hvAxdAjHM7XzqVF (as given in ques)

Can anyone explain why the addresses are different, as the witness appears to be missing…?