I want a policy to act like that:

• in front Block 1 000 000→2 ‑ 3 Can be used with multi-sign quorum (keys A, B, C).
• At / after Block 1 000 000→ only You can spend on another 2‑ of ‑3 quorum (keys x, y, z). The A/B/C path must be disabled.

Here’s an attempt at naive miniscript:

andor(
  ln:after(1000000),       // height check
  multi(2, X, Y, Z),       // “after” branch
  multi(2, A, B, C)        // “before” branch
)

But I believe after() You can add only conditions. You cannot permanently disable a previous A/B/C branch. Therefore, both 2‑3 quorums remain usable forever.

Is my understanding correct or is there something missing? Do I need a new opcode/softfork to “cancel” my previous spending terms?

Popular macroeconomics expert Lyn Alden isn’t sold on Bitcoin’s (BTC) functionality as a medium of exchange yet.

Alden explains in a new analysis that people with specific payment issues like capital controls and payment de-platforming find BTC useful, but they can often also use less-volatile stablecoins as short-term solutions to those same problems.

“There are some very well-meaning Bitcoin proponents trying to convince Bitcoin holders to spend it more. I don’t particularly view that as a sustainable practice. Bitcoin is not going to catch on as a charity. In order for spending it to catch on persistently at scale (i.e. not just billions of dollar-equivalents in annual global medium-of-exchange volume, but trillions), it has to solve problems for spenders and/or recipients that other solutions are not doing. And at this stage of adoption, that’s not necessarily the case, especially with capital gains taxes applicable to every single transaction and with options like stablecoins for near-term spending needs where volatility needs to be low.”

Alden says Bitcoin instead has value due to its “optionality.”

“Owning a sound, liquid, fungible, portable store of value that is going through its adoption phase gives the owner some perks, or options, that other assets do not. Mainly, they can bring their store of value wherever they want in the world without relying on central counterparties and credit. It also allows them to make crossborder payments, including to deplatformed recipients, through substantial friction even if they are staying put where they are. They might not be able to ubiquitously pay with it, but if need be they can find ways to convert it to local currency in most environments that they find themselves in, and in some cases can indeed pay with it directly.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

Today, Senator Ramis announced a bill that will allow US citizens to spend up to $300 worth of Bitcoin on goods and services on the $5,000 limit each year.

The proposed law also provides that spending thresholds will be adjusted for inflation from 2026.

Such provisions were initially conceptualized as amendments that Senator Lumith promoted to include in one big beautiful bill (OBBB), but they were not.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Krapo said Senator Ramis is working on tax reform laws on Bitcoin investment after he failed to give Senator Ramis’ amendments to vote at the OBBB’s marathon amendment meeting earlier this week.

The bill she released this morning was proof that she was true to what she said – it should be acknowledged and appreciated.

However, details about the minimum exemptions for Bitcoin spending were met with legitimate critiques.

Trey Walsh, founder of Progressive Bitcoiner and contributor to Bitcoin Magazine, said on X “the thresholds are very low” and “there should be no caps on products and services.”

“Making it about spending/payments. This is suitable for consumers,” Walsh added.

“You are not taxed on your money (dollars) on your spending. You should not be taxed on your money (bitcoin) for your spending either.”

Zach Herbert, founder of Foundation Devices, expressed his dissatisfaction with the bill in lesser terms.

Nick Anthony, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Financial and Financial Alternatives Center, proposed an alternative to spending thresholds for purchases.

Personally, I can live with a certain spending cap, but I feel that these should be substantially larger.

We hope that the De Minimis exemption will be applied to bring the annual threshold up to $600 (the original Lummis proposed for the OBBB amendment) and $25,000 annually.

Now you might think of certain John Lennon lyrics.

“You might say I’m a dreamer…”

But that line guarantees that many other prominent voices in the Bitcoin space are also being told to ask that Bitcoin spending bill provisions are more important.

“…But I’m not the only one.”

So, if we agree where we came from, perhaps some of you will join us in politely speaking up to require Senator Ramis to consider increasing the bill’s spending threshold. We also express your gratitude for your commitment to moving forward by creating bills that treat Bitcoin as a medium of exchange.

This article is a take. The opinions expressed are entirely the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson says that America’s aggressive spending could result in a total collapse of the social system.

In a new interview with Tucker Carlson, Johnson says that there may be a time when those living on social benefits will be left out to dry if the government can no longer afford to fund its extensive welfare state while also running massive deficits.

Says Johnson,

“If you’re living on different transfer payments or different types of welfare benefits, you may not get those. You can’t borrow more money, so you’re going to have to take what money we spend on other government programs, and we’ll have to service our debt. You have to pay it off, unless we want to go into full default… Which means you’ll never float more debt, so other than print more money, which creates even more hyperinflation…

We will lose our position as the world’s reserve currency, and we’ll lose our ability to print dollars that people accept. It’s a marvelous thing that we just print dollars, we can send them overseas, people will produce products and ship them over here, high-quality products at a pretty low cost. That’s one of the reasons we’ve been able to keep inflation in check, producing all these massive deficits over the last couple of decades, because we do import a lot of products. 

We’ve got billions of people that are either un or under-employed around the world, we provide the capital, they produce the factories, they produce the goods, we just give them paper. It’s fiat currency, we print it, we keep printing it, and it’s been working out pretty well. At some point in time, that gravy train might stop.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Thailand has recently announced plans to introduce a novel initiative that would allow international tourists to spend cryptocurrencies through credit card-linked payment systems.

The ambitious move, announced by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira at an investment seminar in Bangkok, is part of the country’s broader efforts to integrate digital assets into its financial infrastructure and modernize its overall economic system.

Facilitating Crypto Adoption for Tourists

Under the proposed scheme, tourists will have the capability to connect their cryptocurrency holdings to credit cards, facilitating local transactions. Merchants receiving payments would continue to obtain funds in Thai baht, thus remaining unaware that cryptocurrencies were initially used.

According to Minister Pichai, the approach is specifically designed to mitigate risks associated with directly using cryptocurrencies in domestic transactions, safeguarding the stability of Thailand’s national currency.

The adoption of crypto spending for tourists aligns with Thailand’s strategic intent to attract tech-savvy international visitors and to position itself as a “forward-thinking, digitally inclusive economy.”

This method, currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand, aims to leverage existing payment infrastructures, thus facilitating easier and immediate integration once regulatory approvals are secured. Implementation is expected to commence following comprehensive infrastructure assessments and the establishment of necessary regulatory frameworks.

Minister Pichai emphasized that the planned system would be straightforward to implement, provided that all supportive technological and regulatory components are strongly established.

The pilot phase will serve as a practical evaluation of the approach, which if successful, could serve as a model for further integration of digital assets within Thailand’s financial ecosystem.

Broader Financial Regulatory Reform

Asides its cryptocurrency initiative for tourists, Thailand is also advancing significant financial regulatory reforms aimed at unifying the regulatory environment for traditional capital markets and the emerging digital asset sector.

Currently, these two financial sectors operate under distinct sets of regulations, and the proposed unification would streamline operations and enhance market clarity.

Additionally, the Thai government is considering modernizing restrictions on institutional investors, allowing major financial entities, such as life insurers and large investment funds, greater access to equity markets and private-sector investments.

This shift represents a considerable move away from current limitations, where institutional investors are largely restricted to safer assets such as government bonds.

The Ministry of Finance is further drafting legislation intended to enhance the enforcement capabilities of the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Under the new law, the SEC would potentially gain the authority to directly escalate major legal violations to prosecution stages, thereby strengthening overall regulatory oversight and market fairness.

As part of this broader financial evolution, Minister Pichai also introduced the concept of “G-Tokens,” blockchain-based fractional government bonds accessible to retail investors. This initiative aims to improve investment returns for smaller investors and boost Thailand’s international financial profile.

Featured image created with DALL-E, Chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Some people express their view that the successful double spending attacks will invalidate Bitcoin as a technology and thus undermine the value of all Bitcoin (including attackers), making the attacks unwinnable.

That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. It doubles on other networks, and those networks continue to operate later. It certainly affects the value of Bitcoin, but it seems ridiculous that the new value will soon reach zero. Most people didn’t even catch up with the event for hours or days.

My opinion is that if my node detects large ReORG and double spending within that ReORG, it will not accept payments related to double spenders. No one accepted his bitcoin, as they know that if his identity is publicly known, they have a duty to be used in double terms. If his identity is not publicly known, his Bitcoin is still linked to attacks and no one should accept them for the same reasons.

Depending on how the attacker chose the transaction in the block, if the attacker simply does not include the transaction in the replacement block, then there could be something in 24,000 transactions in 6 blocks. It may be possible to find a single or a few transactions of high value that will be resolved differently, but it can be fuzzy and non-trivial to more people. I’m not sure this is a practical approach.

But on the other side of the coin…now I know the fact that all other bitcoins that are not associated with the attacker cannot be double-touched. Because, by definition, only one entity can have more than 50% of the hash power at a given time.

Assuming that the attacker only includes its own transactions, the sender of around 24,000 transactions is in a position to reissue its own transactions. It is not clear at all why someone attacks the blockchain and gives them more confidence to the actions of others.

Does this create a situation where the attacker effectively burns his coins while simultaneously increasing the reliability of all other coins?

No, not at all.

Or say something else: is it valid that there is no need to assume that 51% of attacks will undermine the value of the entire network?

No, all possibilities make the attacker immediately trade with Bitcoin if he was worried about an attack that would seriously affect the value of Bitcoin. They may not be able to exchange some of the coins involved in the attack, but they can shorten Bitcoin in future trades, or at least trade all other Bitcoin holdings. Attackers can even trade back with dips caused by the damage of attacks on Bitcoin’s value, and gain more value in recovery. I don’t think this argument will withstand scrutiny.