If there’s only one sane coin left, it will make choices even easier. Bitcoin will benefit from it, it’s that simple. Each time some project or politicians goes rogue, Bitcoin stands there as a sane choice. And the amount of quality choices is getting smaller and smaller currently.

People aren’t blind. They already come into Bitcoin because of this. It won’t bend to bad decisions and virtue signaling, just like now. When the competition is crippling themselves it just makes things easier.

Fiat being ridiculous is a strong reason to go into Bitcoin. And PoS projects being ridiculous is even a stronger reason to do it. So in my opinion it will reach a higher market value, if there’s any effect at all.

Guys, let’s be honest.  Bitcoin is a blessing for El Salvador. They were completely dependent on the usd before this, with no real way to shape any monetary policy themselves and being one of the poorest countries in the world. With 8% yearly inflation(or more) going forward and rising costs and energy prices, it would have hit them really hard, with no real escape or ways to handle this. They now have an ace in their hand, they wouldn’t have otherwise. No matter what happens to the usd, they won’t be solely dependent on it, because of Bitcoin.

There’s no way someone could argue that just being dependent on the usd is better than being dependent on the usd and having Bitcoin in the back of their hands. Even if Bitcoin is still volatile, there would be no way in heaven that El Salvador could’ve potentially created a better currency themselves, when looking for an usd alternative.

They didn’t even gamble into Bitcoin, the amount they’re holding is really low and not a big risk for them. The knowledge and experience + recognition they’re gaining now will help them way more in the future, than if they have some temporary unrealized losses that they already accounted for beforehand. They’re focusing on building something, i wouldn’t be too concerned of taking a little risk now, i would be more concerned if they didn’t. The difference before the introduction of Bitcoin and now is already night and day.

I also like to look at technologies in practice and if their approach could even work, under the assumption that this technology would have taken over the world. Even tho this is a little theoretical.

I think we have to assume that a technology like PoS or PoW has to work under extreme wealth inequality, because that’s how the world is. I think there’s a fundamental economical flaw in staking, because it has to lock up capital. There’s PoS coins where more than 70% of the supply is locked up, bringing it out of the circulation. It just lays there and grows without any economic benefit or impact.

Which leaves just 30% of the supply in circulation for the economy to use. Another problem is that most of the world doesn’t have any significant savings, or the possibility to build them. Even in rich countries the majority is starting to live from paycheck to paycheck. This creates a problem, because if 70% of a coins supply, in the hands of a few people, can hit the economy anytime, we could see massively planned inflationary events and take overs of real industries, by people who could afford to just let their money lay around and then bring huge parts of the economy in more and more small hands, at their will. The economic attack vector is there and we see similar impacts with money printing in fiat, this could carry over to PoS in a similar fashion, because most of the world can’t lock up their capital, and inflationary events could prevent regular people from being able to do it even more. There will never be corrections in this system, because it’s impossible for them to loose any money while staking, there’s no entrepreneurial risk, they will forever stay at the top and gain more and more power automatically. So i think the centralisation issue will not just be an technical one, but also spread over the economy.

PoW in combination with a fixed supply works differently(under the assumption it would have taken over the world). There is no locked up capital that can grow over time. People will have to use their capital in economic activities to even make any gains, which is always tied to market risks and competition. The big capital can be lost if they mess up or don’t satisfy the market. It will always bring in a certain risk. And it will be best for all coins to be in circulation, instead of just sitting there forever. Many potential economic attack vectors won’t even occur, leading to a much more stable and fair economy(it won’t be an Eldorado for the rich). It won’t just be a lot of work to create new blocks, but it will also take a lot of work and beating the competition to succeed at the economy or growing capital.

It’s remarkable how the philosophies behind them, carry over to other things.

It can’t be invented physically in that sense, but my question is, how do you classify information?

When you’re using a bill, you’re also using it to transfer some kind of information. You’re giving its ownership to someone else and they now can spend the amount on the bill themselves too, by giving it’s ownership to someone else. Something physical is used to transfer that information(the bill), but like you already said below, this form of transferring information has drawbacks.

Now you have the option to use something like Bitcoin to transfer the same kind of information, but in a different form. And the advantage here is that it’s way more secure, efficient, verifiable and trustless to transfer this kind of information.

Isnt there a point to be made about that using physical things(in the classical sense) to transfer information has its boundaries and we’re seeing the consequences of it?

There was ways to make them work more like a paper wallet, and used multisig in a way that you don’t have to trust manufacturer. They really hold the key on the bill. And are verifiable by anyone etc.

Anyways this wasn’t the point of my discussion, i just wanted to highlight that information can be stored in many different physical ways. And that using something like Bitcoin as the basis for this can actually prevent the problems we had in the past, with bills for example. Because the information inside the network can’t easily be faked like that, is open to anyone and is much more secured than other systems.

What value would a system have to you personally where information can’t easily be faked, flows without someone in control, is secure, verifiable, censorship resitant and so on(we know what Bitcoin offers), and this system stores the information about your wealth?

If youre asking this im not sure if you understood the basic concept. I will try to explain it simplified and not too technical on purpose.

Bitcoin is a network, mostly run on Bitcoin core(a software), anyone can download it. Each computer that runs this software(you call them nodes), builds a connection to other computers that run it too(but not to all of them). Forming a network. Right now there are 15.000 or more of them(the precise amount is unkown). Anyone who wants to participate can join this network voluntarily, by also running a software that gives them access to the network.

Each of these computers stores every Bitcoin transaction ever made. For this, a special kind of database is used that is called blockchain. The basic concept is that around every 10 minutes a new Block with new transactions is being appended to the chain, forming a chain that goes from Block 0(2009) till now Block 743053(2022). And will continue to grow as long as the network exists.

Now if each of these 15.000 computers has the same database and we need to add new transactions, how can we do it without chaos/ and manipulation and keeping everything the same? Were creating an adapting difficulty to find new Blocks(which contain the new transactions) and pay a reward(newly created Bitcoin, until 21 million have been created) + transaction fees, to whoever can find it first. This creates a competition and a monetary incentive for everyone who participates(miners) to stay honest. Its more costly and difficult to attack the network, than to just work for it. The cheaper your energy and the more efficient the mining rig(asics), the more profitable it will be for a participant. Everyone in the network then appends the newly mined Block to their chain. The result is a database that is exactly the same for everyone, without a central authority in control.

You can simply broadcast a transaction to your node, or use someone else node that does this for you, and then wait until its taken into a new Block. The space there is limited(usually around 2000 transactions fit in), and you choose a transaction fee you want to spend, to get taken in. You just type in the address you wanna send/ receive Bitcoin to, usually in another type of wallet software. This wallet stores your private keys(the thing you need to prove ownership and to spend Bitcoin), and this key always needs to be kept secret. Each of these 15.000 computers "store" your(all) Bitcoin, you can always recover them from anywhere, if you still have your private key. Imagine you could recover your money from anywhere with just a cryptographic key, you can now. Also they(the nodes) make sure that the rules of the network are being followed and that there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin being created for example, like we showed above.

Note this is just the tip of the iceberg and this goes in way deeper, take this as a light introduction that can maybe spark some interest, but you should verify everything i told you yourself and theres way more to it.

The use of bitwise is genius for this.

The Block subsidy(new Bitcoins being created) started with 50 Bitcoin, every block. This amount halves every 210.000 Blocks, until enough halvings have been done, leaving us with 21.000.000 Bitcoin being created. We passed halving 3, which leaves us with 6.25 Bitcoin created every new Block.

You can verify it yourself and run this on your node, so it always gets enforced.


https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1238-L1249

You open up an interesting point larry, it’s hard to even say if Bitcoin is physical or not. It’s information that is contained in atleast/ more than 15000 physical nodes worldwide. It’s not completely detached from physical objects. Im not sure how to classify information, but it can be stored in the most different ways.

This gives it a certain kind of flexibility, that no physical object in the classical sense has. You can choose the physical form to store your keys for example. Steel, paper, digital etc. You could even store your key in your brain(not advisable). Your coins/ the information on the other hand exist worldwide in different places at the same time, you don’t need physical possession over them to redeem them. Imagine you could recover your money or Gold worldwide from wherever you want, this is only possible with information. The question is how practical usage is defined for you, and how you classify information. Information is definitely powerful and has usages. Then there’s people who are developing Bitcoin bills for example, similar to fiat bills, which kinda gives you an physical object that you can pass around for trade, with the same potential risk as traditional bills. Information can be stored in many different physical objects and in different ways.

Exactly it’s just one factor out of many, but important for becoming a durable store of value.

Since we see how easy it is to manipulate, corrupt, bend, fake, censor, control, destroy information in our current times. My question becomes, what value would a system have where information can’t easily be censored, manipulated or faked(and the things i mentioned above)? Where information can’t easily be destroyed from outside and it starts to flow freely without intervention, in one of the best protected networks ever created. And then uses the advantages of a non physical object, it can’t be confiscated, destroyed, redeemable from anywhere, can move faster etc. And we start to use this as the foundation of money.

And then the other question becomes if information isn’t the basis of everything in the first place, and that physical objects are used to transmit some kind of information anyways, but underlay physical constraints that limit them. So wouldn’t using something that isn’t physical and doesn’t have these constraints be the more efficient way to do this in the first place?

 Advantages? You need one of the most corrupt organisations in history to enforce this thing, that will go to 0 anyways. Does it sound sound natural if it was really a sustainable working system? This is a sign of poor design, not an advantage.

Wouldn’t an ideal money be used voluntarily? Because it could store everyone’s wealth better, acts as a worldwide medium of exchange, and is a better unit of account. Being beneficial to everyone and making trade easier for the economy on a whole. You don’t need to put a gun on someone’s head if you’re really offering them something beneficial, it’s the opposite you put a gun on their head if you want them to do something that is against their own will/ interest/ benefit. If it was beneficial to them they would start to use it voluntarily, after they understood it. In fiat they don’t even teach most of the population how it works. Coincidence or is it better for fiat if no one actually understands how it works? You’re literally supposed to not understand how it works, just use it and then shut up. And if you don’t they force you. Does this indicate an advantage, or something that is wrong with the thing they designed?

Something i noticed is that Bitcoin haters tend to be conformists that love to be dominated/ want their life dependent on authorities.

If it was weaker than fiat, so how did it survive everything so far? Against the organization you mentioned above. It didn’t need to put a gun on anyones head to survive and yet still did survive and is thriving. So how?

Nah, you should come up with a reason why people won’t pay for it anymore. Im waiting.

It doesn’t, i never even said this, it is a better store of value, doesn’t have the inflation problems and yet it failed as money. That’s all i said. If one of the best store of values in history, failed as money like this, it might be worth looking into why. Fiat is better except in the store of value aspect. Maybe you don’t look outside that much, but we’re experiencing one the highest inflations since a long time at the moment, so any sane person would get that reference. That fiat is a terrible store of value and not a sustainable form of money in its current form. And requires trust to work, so it won’t ever work for everyone.

You officially need a psychiatrist, but i wouldnt want any person to have to deal with this. I literally said fiat replaced gold, that the money that makes trade easier/ more efficient wins.


https://www.seekingtherapy.com/online-therapy/

You’re welcome.

Please just don’t reply to any of my posts in the future and i won’t reply to yours either, it’s the best way to go forward.

Lmao the amount of bs this guy is trying to put into my mouth is insane, saying things i didnt even said. Fiat is real money, an ideal money would fit all the properties i mentioned above, but no form of money did so far. And it has nothing to do with the gold standard. Can you even read or are you mentally challenged in some way, or just some weird psychopath? Fiat has its unique problems, gold has them too. But now for the first time the money problem could actually be fixed with Bitcoin. You’re a fool if you think money can’t have different forms and characteristics that separate them and make one form more suited over the other.

It has nothing to do with fiat, Internet professor.

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)


Medium of Exchange - Acceptability(Used and accepted by others), Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

Unit of Account - Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units), Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

These are the common definitions, not the bs you mentioned.

I agree that what you mentioned fits needs, but i would argue that it fits them outside the core needs of money. Maybe it can spark some interest and help this good to become more popular and easier to trade with. But then after this, it depends on how good it performs as money to succeed for being used as money. Gold is way more valuable than fiat and yet we still ended up with fiat smh. So i looked at the whys.

In my mind i use the criteria:

Most saleable good(easiness of tradebility with a good)
Store of Value - (Scarcity, durability)
Medium of exchange - (Acceptability, Portability)
Unit of Account - (Divisibility, Fungibility)

Gold lacks so hard in portability and divisibility that it becomes so hard to use it as money. Now if you make jewellery out of gold it becomes even worse as money, because it looses more fungibility additionally.

That’s why im arguing that even when a good can be used as money/ something else at the same time, doing so would hurt it in the area you’re not intending to use it for. So in my mind i separate the two by use case. Jewellery isn’t money and my gold bar/coin is money, even tho they’re both gold, they suit different needs better. But people could do this however they prefer, but these core properties i mentioned above definitely matter for the use as money.

Because Gold lacks so hard for regular usage, people had to find an easier way to do trade. You can’t even easily divide gold for smaller payments for example. So they started to use Paper, that was first backed by gold. Then the paper was used solely as money itself, because there was flaws in the gold standard.(i won’t go in deeper now)

Now we’re going into next era and the paper and everything else is started to being traded digitally, but the old system doesn’t really fit into this natively. And Fiat itself is not a system that can even survive without constant intervention, more control and more extreme and more extreme inequality. It’s a weak fragile form of money, the debt based money creation makes it a worse store of value with everytime it’s used.

So now we have something like Bitcoin coming up, that is superior to gold and fiat in every property mentioned above except acceptability, but we know acceptability grows with adoption. We have additional features like censorship resistance, decentralization, transaction finality that just fit way better to money that is used digitally, that actually makes trade easier in this environment, we shouldn’t forget that this is the core function of money. Fiat makes trade harder everyday and is tanking the economy in the process.

It’s native internet money, not an afterthought that doesn’t really fit like fiat. I think that just by basic economical money principles, Bitcoin is the next logical advancement of money. It can fit all the needs you could think of, better, it doesn’t matter if it can be used for something else or not, in my opinion.

That’s why im making a clear separation between money and economic resource, a good needs to specialise in one of the two. Bitcoin could be useless at anything else and would still win the money game by a lot, and yet i never keep hearing them mentioning anything about this.

If you check these criteria out, you will also notice quickly that Bitcoin beats any altcoins by a lot in this, even tho it has less features. Fundamentals just matter more in my opinion. It defeats the altcoin narrative.

I think bitcoin haters exist solely because of:
It could be, it would be nice to hear HardFacts honest reasoning for thinking Bitcoin is worthless.

Good points, but he doesnt even get the basics yet. That the success of money isnt dependent on its uses outside of being money. All of these Bitcoin haters keep bringing up what they cant use it for and that this is what makes it worthless, but its just foolish to believe this. Its nice that people can wipe their ass with fiat or make jewlery out of gold, but this is not what gives these things its monetary value. There is a monetary value that is independent from any other use case. Gold has a monetary premium and would be worth way less, if it wasnt for its monetary properities alone. They should maybe study the properties behind money and then it becomes more clear. Or maybe its just too abstract to get for most people and they keep mixing things up.

And still your loaf of bread is terrible money and will get bad if you don’t use it in some productive way. That’s why it’s not used as money.

While Bitcoin is just amazing at being money, and that’s enough for being just money. How many times did you use fiat for other things than money? You can’t eat, drink or do anything with it. And yet still want it more than a loaf of bread, that’s the irony. You don’t even understand money and would still prefer it over an actual economic resource. Because you understand that money can acquire you any economic resource you want, and that’s the purpose of money. Enabling universal indirect trade.

There’s a difference between an economic resource and money. Money is non-productive by nature, while economic resources are. This means money is used to acquire, trade economic resources and make production happen, but not used to produce something directly. While economic resources are used in the opposite way. The good that can fulfill the function of money best, will become the dominant money, it’s that simple. It doesn’t matter if it’s usable in different ways itself or not, for its success as money.

K I’ll do this discussion once, just to make sure you really didn’t get it or if you just let ur bias rule you, then im out, because i was really always fair to you and now you try to put words in my mouth.

I never said there is „the” solution. It is one of many solutions to transact outside of Bitcoin and in my personal opinion an elegant solution for doing just this. It is not a necessity for anyone to do this and shouldn’t ever be a necessity, it should be an optional, voluntary and informed choice for whoever wants to do this. For the purpose of doing some transactions, not a replacement for anything else.


Again i never said this or suggested this or tried to suggest this. Lightning and Bitcoin are two different things. Developed independently. That’s the point of layers, Bitcoin is still being developed independently and needs to be functional without lightning in mind. It should make decisions independently from lightning, like it didn’t exist. Everything should be done to develop their own project as best as possible. I don’t think you understand the engineering principles behind this. Bitcoin shouldn’t avoid anything and be developed as well as possible, and the same goes for lightning. You can use the base layer aka Bitcoin either way, no one will lock you outside of it, or halt it’s development. If one upper layer can specialise to serve different use cases better in practice, then some people might want to use it. Just because i use the word layer doesn’t mean Bitcoin and lightning are one thing, it’s the opposite.

There is no the solution, but personal choice. Sidechains have advantages, but also disadvantages. I saw some interesting proposals there, but for now once they gain traction they will face the same issues as the main chain in terms of decentralization, security and scalability, this could be fixed in the future tho and then they’re maybe better than lightning overall. I personally like lightning for the use case of fast and many small payments, for the rest the main chain is better in my opinion. That’s why i won’t use sidechains anytime soon, because i have the mainchain for this.

I made it clear enough now that i don’t want this and that im not parroting this.

Ik.

I won’t ignore other options and will gladly listen to different proposal that are made, i want more of them, not less.



It’s not Bitcoin 2.0 and won’t ever be, and there is no Bitcoin 2.0. And i don’t want a Bitcoin 2.0. It’s still appropriate to describe lightning in layered architecture kind of way despite this, in my opinion.

Im not, why would i even think Bitcoin is bad. LN is elegant if we want a lot of fast payments being done outside of Bitcoin. It’s also pointless to deny that it’s hard to scale the main chain at this particular moment in time 29th june 2022, i want this to change in the future. But scaling can’t come at the cost of decentralization, if we have a provable way to scale the main chain today, without becoming centralized, then this would be the best way. But we don’t yet and letting a few more payments in now, won’t change the basic problem.

I talked about Bitcoin 99% of the time, for you it’s too much if i mention lightning just once or a few times positively.


To me the basic idea and design principles are elegant. To me it’s just normal that software takes time to harden, because i work in this field. It is not a elegant solution for the things you mentioned, these were added because they had to be. Just use it optionally for one purpose: fast payments and then it depends on how often you make these kinds of payments to decide if it’s worth opening a channel or not.

I said that lightning is not a good way of storing funds and just an option for payments, which exactly implies what you said.

And Bitcoin can function without lightning, that’s the point of layers. Reducing complexity and being better at one specific thing, for example transaction speed, this has tradeoffs, otherwise we wouldn’t need a another layer in the first place. And then there’s use cases where this trade off is tolerable. I said Bitcoin lightning, because im aware it can be used for other coins too. Bitcoin lightning = using Lightning in a Bitcoin context. That was the meaning.

Nah and if that is your fear, i think you shouldn’t be concerned about it, because more people will use Bitcoin in the future, lightning is an enabler/entry point for many people and not a threat.

Bitcoin utility is increasing too, regardless of lightning.

I said several times now that Bitcoin is the best money ever created, doesn’t sound like crap to me. Lightning needs Bitcoin not the other way around(Bitcoin is the popular thing). But it’s also foolish to imply that lightning had no single positive impact on Bitcoin overall.

Im not an idiot, i know that they’re not the same and that lightning has flaws. But i can have the opinion that fast payments with small and many amounts are necessary for some use cases, even if it means it’s done in a less secure way, because this can’t easily be done on the main chain now without tradeoffs.

The fact is the mainchain cant process an unlimited amounts of payments in a reasonable time frame, so there needs to be some ways to get around this limit, for the time we need/ want to.

Nah, anyone who goes into lightning should know the risks and then make a personal choice. It’s an optional choice for using Bitcoin off-chain, like when someone makes personal agreements with someone that aren’t officially backed up. This could be done without lightning too, but lightning is the better approach for this, because it makes the process more reliable, easier and more scalable.

Not ignored, but in practice, how many times are there issues when sending regular amounts around? And lightning is no complete replacement for on-chain transactions, so it’s fine.

It is, now on-chain fees are cheap, but when they will increase again, the savings get higher.


There’s always some responsibility of users to check the software they’re using is safe. We could also say Bitcoin is unsafe just because scammers could create wallets that can steal peoples private keys. But it’s not. Scamming will go on, but that’s why it’s important to not trust, but verify what you’re using is appropriate, for what you’re trying to use it for.


No one did this, it makes people use Bitcoin more and finally broke the fud that altcoins are spreading, that Bitcoin cant scale. I know newbies that got into Bitcoin, because of lightning, it was demonstrating that Bitcoin was able to find a better solution, than any scam project could. And combines its features well with other solutions. This generates trust to tackle future problems and keeps people out of altcoins(not everyone).


Exactly, but no one is suggesting something else here.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Also franky i have no problem with that you’re trying to rise awareness for issues, but think about it. Scalability/ low fees isn’t the only requirement for Bitcoin to be used on a daily basis too. Speed of transactions is another factor too. Did you ever pay in a store via wire? It’s slow and expensive, no store is accepting this. Online stores do, but people still choose the fastest form of payment preferably, to get their stuff shipped earlier. Physical stores either accept debit/ credit cards, gift cards, cash etc. Despite their PoS terminals having potential problems for example: fraud potential, chargebacks or transactions not going trough. And you can still use ur debit/ card even if it’s not verified that you have enough funds yet(lightning is way better than this). This is something people are used to, and they’re handling it on a daily basis and it works in practice.

Even if lightning fees wouldn’t bring in savings there’s still a necessity for this, that can’t simply be solved in a better way, by using a chain again. With this Bitcoin has a huge advantage over any altcoin, because the acceptability of Bitcoin lightning is way higher than any other method for this. How will you solve a huge amount of transactions that need to be processed fast at the same time, in a better way? Not every payment needs to be recorded forever, just like cash. You could possibly have fake bills and yet we’re using it. The point is, there’s abuse potential in almost every form of payment there is. People will just adapt, and learn how to use it securely. Everything has pros/ cons, and we will need different solutions for different problems. You can’t fit every requirement perfectly into one solution, or we would already have it. So specialisation is the logical path forward.

I think it can be argued that lightning is mostly positive for Bitcoin and it would be worse without it. There’s always an incentive to open or close lightning channels, when the on-chain fees are low. This means it actually stabilises transaction volume, when it’s low, because then more lightning channel demand will come in.

All of this bashing of Layer 2s is useless, when it’s impossible at the moment to scale the mainchain without getting centralized. Every solution has tradeoffs, but this is one of the more elegant solutions. And Lightning has a ridiculous amount of theoretical troughput, which smokes every chain solution out of the water.

Lightning won’t take all the transactions out of the mainchain. It will make Bitcoin more usable for daily transactions, which in turn will make it more attractive to more users. The mainchain will still have enough demand for other kinds of payments, and when demand there is low, lightning is actually helping out.

Lightning is also not a good place to store all of your funds, the main chain will always have enough usage for this reason alone. This is to make payments easier, not to lure users out.

See:
There is almost 84.000 Lightning channels at the moment. Each of them will require one transaction to open and one to close the channel. Which still gives us 84.000 pending transactions at the moment, that will hit the mainchain at some point in the future. And the amount of channels will probably increase in the future. We can speculate how many, but the potential is huge here. There could be millions of pending transactions just because of lightning. Let’s say one Block can take in 2000 transactions every 10 minutes. Does it seem like the mainchain will be struggling to get enough transactions?

First of all cpis are never that reliable, because they use a basket of selected goods, and there’s an interest to make them seem lower than they really are.

We can still use these numbers tho:
(Units are in Billions)

In January 2020 the „real“ m2 was 5954, in May 2022 it already reached 7463. Which gives us an increase of approximately 25% in just a little more than 2 years. This is 1/4th of all the real m2 usd ever in existence. If your income and/or life savings didn’t increase by atleast 25% in the same period you will be at an disadvantage, until you can catch up to these numbers, and many won’t ever be able to. And don’t forget older people potentially saved up money since generations, this is a loss of time forever. A big part of their working life was being spent working for free now.

If we go to may 2008 3583, till now. The increase is 108% already.

If we compare it to the regular m2 now. In January 2020 15401, till May 2022 21754. An increase of 41% in just a little over 2 years. And from may 2008 7711, till now. An increase of 182%.

The consequences of these choices are still into effect and didn’t fully play out yet, even if money printing would slow down. If your income and/ or life savings didn’t grow in a similar way during this time period, you will be affected by this. Money supply isn’t direct inflation, but it has long term consequences that will play out in a more delayed way(because in fiat money concentrates more and more heavily at the top, so it takes some time until regular people see heavy inflation because more money flows down, but we already saw how much richer fiat whales got during heavy money printing and this one of the causations, it’s engraved into the system, the fate is set, no work is required for this).

It proves the opposite, they printed a lot. This line should be flat, if they didn’t print much. It’s important here to choose a big time horizon, when looking at the statistic.

The ski lingo actually made it better, this analogy is on point. Imagine you would never ride down, it would take all the fun away and you can’t stay on the mountain forever. Only when you’re down again, you’re planning the next track, get some rest, and then enjoy the view on the way up.


You’re not a rational investor SoftFacts, so don’t talk on other’s behalf. He doesn’t say ignore information, but we should also the remember fundamentals of Bitcoin and not get blinded by fud. That simple.

Nice try to put everything out of context.



Now you outed yourself, this is hilarious.

Honestly, with the outing you just made, i dont think this is a big loss for Bitcoin, more like a blessing.

My node is enforcing consensus rules 24/7/365 but nice try, i decide what changes go onto my node, and which not. Everyone is free to submit proposals to core anytime they want, if they wanna improve something. No mining is necessary to have influence on rules in Bitcoin. Its not a dictatorship by miners or devs.




Dont explain me anything. Since you’re an energy expert im just asking you, when will we see the blackouts? Which days, what time? At what time in which countries? How much of each of their energy supplies will be affected, and exactly when? Just give me a list of all 195 countries, because im sure you already calculated this and don’t just act from your feelings you got from media articles.