So perhaps the deeper question isn't whether Bitcoin can survive disagreement, but whether it can accommodate genuinely different understandings of what the ecosystem is for without those differences becoming grounds for exit? Less of a 'consensus mechanics' issue and more of an 'ecosystem cohesion' topic.

Six weeks ago, we documented the first transaction of our pilot. Since then, the merchant has continued saving sats. She does not convert back to fiat. No grand strategy. Just a small change in how value is perceived and held. The story is continuity. A first transaction is an event. A repeated choice is the beginning of an economy. Growth Event #009 Oriente Antioqueño, Colombia

Debían worked. Got the correct seedphrase. Entering the perfect 24-word phrase should now unlock the script's final payload instead of throwing a checksum suggestion. If that is not the case, what do I need to do in order to cross-check Root key and Fingerprint?

Changing the subject for a moment: what’s your take on the BIP-110 conflict—and, more importantly, on what the attempted split and its outcome tell us about Bitcoin’s consensus process? The network ultimately did not converge around BIP-110, and the minority chain stalled almost immediately. Do you see that as the system working exactly as intended, or as a warning that we may be entering a period where disagreements over Bitcoin’s economic purpose can threaten network coherence?