They can also use multi-sig with 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 or some other number of signatures that they find appropriate. They could also have time locks, yet I am not sure how they might want to incorporate such time locks, if they were to choose to use them.
Your other example about the seed is that you would not keep the backup seed and the wallet in the same place, and yeah, I would consider that single signature would be problematic in regards to security of institutions and/or governments.
There has been some publishing of some of El Salvador's main bitcoin address, and surely it seems problematic to keep all of the BTC in one address or even in one wallet, even though there could be quite a few ways to hold such bitcoin and to manage their private keys... and they would not necessarily want to disclose how they are doing it, at least in terms of which persons hold the keys.
Hello JayJuanGee, yes, I thought a multi-sig would be most optimal for this purpose.
There is not a way to tell whether this address: 32ixEdVJWo3kmvJGMTZq5jAQVZZeuwnqzo derives from a multi-sig or a single-sig wallet.
Once this address is used though, we could take the witness script and determine whether it's a multi-sig or not.
For instance,
the address 34nYWqkdJpFYQdQjwy9CWVQVycYAQC7cwi was used to fund the address 32ixEdVJWo3kmvJGMTZq5jAQVZZeuwnqzo.
If you check the transaction details here:
https://mempool.space/tx/b88dad13553c4e377a539d7792d8233713ee0f225616faff0d1e5385242cabc5, you can see the witness script:
OP_PUSHNUM_2
OP_PUSHBYTES_33 02c1ddacc82d99cd26d4cf6a6a1095defd900e08648c22d46e88dde68dd7ffc7aa
OP_PUSHBYTES_33 0353bbe42841367cc978b8a4559160491f31c94382c6fab5bab7e0409c461376f0
OP_PUSHBYTES_33 03cc620eb177ce69ae9eeb9ecec31abfab216429c4882a73f2d608cc6dada2ae1b
OP_PUSHNUM_3
OP_CHECKMULTISIG
This script proves that the address used to fund the wallet is a 2-of-3 multisig and the public keys are listed above.
So, I believe that the address that they have made public in their X post, is also a multi-sig address.
Thanks for looking into the matter further and providing some further explanation and some details (and links), which sometimes can become a bit cumbersome to look into, including I sometimes will get confused about what I am looking at or what the information that I see means, even with some things that are supposed to be straight-forward and understandable.
I thought that there were supposed to be various technologies, yet maybe not very well implemented (such as silent payments) that might allow for the showing of public addresses, yet not being able to go back and see so much of the historical information about those addresses, even though surely for a public entity there likely is quite a bit of value regarding transparency of the various amounts, but maybe not so much transparency in regards to how many signatures are required to spend... and I would think that a smaller institution (or individual) might be more suitable for 2 of 3, yet bigger institutions and/or governmental (public) entities would be more suitable for more signatures, such as 3 out of 5, yet I would imagine that there are trade offs for any of the kinds of set ups that might be available, and surely if some public entities might be vulnerable to attack (and/or corruption) and they also might be honey pots that are containing higher amounts of value within some of their wallets, then there would likely be more thought within how they safeguard their private keys and the various rationale that they consider for their private key management options.
I read he wouldn't sell his Bitcoin even though he had made a 50% profit. This means that there will be a period when they sell it. If it doesn't sell I think he will have to be patient in a certain period, because of his fotality. In addition, the profits should be used to build the country. This condition is certainly very good when the IMF refuses, but Crypto is a special concern by the president-elect of the United States. So this condition seems to be an indirect support for the adoption of El Salvador.
Nayib Bukele has a long-term plan for Bitcoin and he has never mentioned when he intends to sell the coin. He still has about more than four years to rule El Salvador, we just hope that the next president after him will key into his vision on Bitcoin. Donald Trump has made some good comments about Bitcoin and promised to make it a reserve currency in the US. We are not sure if he would fulfill all those promises he has made. So we are focusing on El Salvador's unwavering support for Bitcoin.
I don't think you even expect anyone to hold what Donald trump's have said to heart because all what we know he might just be campaigning at that time and decides to use Bitcoin as an edge over his rivals but no doubt the impact on Bitcoin has been massive his victory as the price have been upwards.
Well, you are right afterall, politicians arent to be trusted and thats a fact, but all the same, how best to verify things like this has to do with watching actions and not just statements.
Donald Trump from his actions after his statements shows that he is indeed ready to truly adopt bitcoin in the US, his vice has been confirmed to hold a certain amount of bitcoin which I cannot remember at the moment.
So let's just say that, if he(Donald Trump) faces no issues or strong oppositions,
let's believe that he and his vice will work to bring all their campaign promises as it regards bitcoin to pass -
let's just believe. Oh gawd @Fivestar4everMVP.
You start your statement our correctly by acknowledging that politicians should not be trusted, but then you state that Trump and his VP have sufficiently shown through their actions to date that they are going to carry out their bitcoin-related campaign promises.
Let's just stick with Trump for now instead of attempting to attribute responsibilities too far down the chain of command, even though surely any US President (including Trump) will rely on various persons around them to carry out their various policy preferences, we still like to consider that the guy at the top has a certain amount of ability to keep their various team members in his preferred direction, whether we are referring to the VP or other advisors or cabinet or departmental agency picks that Trump might make.
I will admit that generally Trump has been seeming to come around to bitcoin since around early to mid 2024, perhaps right around the time that Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out of the Republican primaries and joined Trump's election campaign team (which Ramaswamy dropped out right around mid-January 2024). We cannot necessarily know all of the backroom developments and discussions, yet since early 2024, many of us had likely been noticing Trump move towards more and more bitcoin (and crypto) friendly kinds of assertions in his talks and even in some of his various background position papers, and there were criticisms of various monetary policies and even strong statements against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which truly those kinds of statements resonated strongly within the bitcoin community, within shitcoin spaces and also beyond bitcoin and crypto.
So far, Trump and his team have not seemed to back away from several aspects of the pro-bitcoin angle including a very large number of his appointees seem to have a pro-bitcoin angle.. not just shitcoiners, even though there is a kind of shitcoining angle that seems to be in the current Trump mix that is ambiguous, yet I agree with quite a bit of your overall statement that Trump's actions seem to show that he is not really backing off of the pro-bitcoin angle and even a kind of angle that is way less hostile to bitcoin (which seems to also be less hostile to shitcoins too.. which could be a problematic area to be too friendly to shitcoins.. yet we will see?) .. .
It seems to me that even people who support Trump recognize and appreciate that he does not have a very good track record when it comes to either truth telling or even staying behind certain directions that he might take, unless he is able to perceive his direction from a very personal (and even a childish and narcissistic) point of view. Trump tends to be a liar, whiner and a bully when he can get away with it, and truly he has gotten away with a lot of things and has not been held accountable, and so Trump tends to bring a certain amount of his own drama, so it could be difficult to know if he is going to be able to stay on a path that bitcoiners consider to be sufficiently focused and not ending up overly contributing to chaos that back fires on bitcoiners, yet even an atmosphere that might be chaotic may well give bitcoiners several more years to develop (presuming that Trump is able to stay in office for several years, perhaps 4 years and not screw things up too badly).
I would take with a grain of salt that any of us should just be believing in that diptwat Trump, even if he seems to have been getting on a better path since around early 2024 in regards to his seeming learning about bitcoin (combined with his convoluting shitcoin ideas in the mix of ongoing ambiguity - which who knows if some of that might be 3D (or is it 5D?) chess?)
Surely I have no problem with the idea of you (Fivestar4everMVP) or anyone else considering Trump to be on the right course in regards to bitcoin, yet even you should be able to recognize problems with blindly believing any politician (as you mentioned) and especially Trump does not have the greatest of track records in regards to his own behaviors and seeming lack of discipline... except he is a good whiner who has been able to get support from quite a few seemingly smart and innovative people within his current circle..to the extent that he (Trump) does not end up screwing things up, which he has a pretty good track record of screwing things up too.. it seems to be a part of his ongoing getting attention brand.
As for El Salvador. I think bukele is one of the few Bitcoin lover that understand the need to hold Bitcoin for future reference because only God knows how much they as a country would have gotten from the interest of accumulated when the price was low till now.
El Salvador has made billions of dollars in profit from their bitcoin holding, I mean to say in "paper profit", since an unrealized profit sometimes end up disappearing if not realized On time.. But I strongly doubt if there ever will be such case with Bitcoin, as a matter of fact, we might wake up someday to see the price of bitcoin nearing a million dollars.
Your numbers seem to be be a bit off in regards to El Salvador's current paper bitcoin profits Fivestar4everMVP. Their total Bitcoin stash is less than $600 million, but yeah, sure it could end up going up in value, and sure they may well be close to 200% up in terms of profits in regards to their actual BTC stash.
For sure, El Salvador's profit from bitcoin goes beyond merely the size of the BTC stash that the government has amassed in the past 3.5 years-ish, but there seems to be value in their permissiveness towards bitcoin which has been incentivizing bitcoin development in the country and even the flourishing of other aspects of their society based on pro-active and positive focusing on bitcoin.. which may also have had contributed to their wanting to improve safety (and perceptions of safety) within the country - which also has some likely beneficial economic values, even though there also may be some controversies in regards to whether some due process principles might have had been stepped on "for the greater good."
.