$10,000,000 is ridiculous. How did you come up with that number?

$10,000,000 per coin means a total supply of $210 trillion. The base money of all the world's currencies plus the value of all the gold in the world doesn't even come close. So, even if Bitcoin replaces all the money and all the gold, it won't be worth $10,000,000 per coin.

To me, it is not much more than a fanboi video. It contains all the enthusiasm and hype and hyperbole that you might expect from such a video, but it contains very little substance. It is filled with clips of people saying how great bitcoin is, but it never talks about why or how.

Once a node has validated the entire chain, it can discard everything but the most recent block and the UTXO set. However, if the most recent block were subsequently orphaned, then the node could no longer function without a reorg, so it is advantageous to keep a recent history of blocks. I believe that is how a "pruned" Bitcoin Core node currently works.

One problem with every node being pruned is that it makes it impossible for any new node to start up, or any node that has been offline to catch up, or any node to recover from a corrupted database, since the blocks needed to get to the current state have been forgotten by the network.

Your node will recieve blocks that extend the chain and your "fake block" will be orphaned.

A pool has the effect that you are looking for. The block reward is split among all of the members of the pool.

BTW, the process of counting zero bits was mentioned in the white paper, but it was never implemented that way.

The problem is not Bitcoin. The problem is Australia. They seem to be ok with burning more coal despite the environmental effects. They don't have to burn coal yet they choose to.

Nice! The ultimate tin foil hat!

I don't have a definitive answer, but I don't believe that it is necessary that of the 2⁹⁶ values that result in a particular hash, there are 2⁹⁵ values with bit b_k = 1 and 2⁹⁵ values with bit b_k = 0, for every k.

Keep in mind that colluding in a 51% attack is not in a pool's best interest. If the pool is caught (or even suspected of) trying a 51% attack, members will leave the pool and it will fade into obscurity. Take a look at what happened to ghash.io just because it went over 50%!

29:02 - I’m sure this is just an error with NASA.

40:07 - You say its healthy to trust photos and images from bodies like NASA.

56:50 - NASA said they can’t go to the moon because they lost the data.

The only thing that annoyed me was near the end when he started rattling off observations made by other people and expected her to accept them. I enjoyed the placement of the clip the Big Short.

Anyway, here are some of the ridiculous assertions:

22:19 — Gravity is strong enough to hold the moon in orbit but astronauts can float about.

29:05 - There’s a problem with it because the earth is too small.

30:20 - The moon was photographed at the same time in Australia and Florida. How is that possible? … One of these locations shouldn’t be able to see it.

33:12 - This is the only phenomenon in our experience here in this reality where the shade is smaller than the object casting it. So you can do a million experiments  with shadows. The shadow is never smaller than the object casting it.

50:35 - I’m not claiming anything … I'm just asking questions (which was not true) ...


While he may not have directly asserted that the earth is flat, he certainly was presenting evidence that it is flat.

I doubt that Bitcoin will ever switch to PoS.

They are probably lying to you about their success. That's how they do it.

Forget it. If there were an easy way to make $150k - $200k per year, everybody would be doing it. Get-rich-quick schemes are scams.


Forget trading. Most people lose money trading.


Being in school doesn't prevent you from having a job and getting paid. Many people finance their education by working.

Yeah, his questions were getting annoying and he was making ridiculous assertions. I'm not surprised that she got frustrated with his nonsense and decided to stop.

I agree that it looks like it is converging, but I believe that is more of a reduction in volatility than a convergence to the the stock-to-flow model. Consider that in the STF multiple graph, the upper limit is falling faster than the lower limit is rising. I expect that at some point the lower limit will flatten out and start to fall as the price diverges from the STF line.


What your model predicts as the price of a bitcoin in 2136 when the subsidy is 0.00000001 BTC and the supply is 20.99999 million BTC, and the STF is 2.1x10¹⁵? What does it predict when the subsidy is 0 and the STF value is NaN?

I feel that you showed how changes in price may affect the use of Bitcoin as a currency, but not the utility. Although, I guess you could argue that they are ultimately the same.


I think the effects of inflation and deflation on spending are well-known. It is certainly the case that when a currency starts losing value, people save less and spend more quickly. In the case of hyper-inflation, people tend to spend any money the get immediately, and that behavior causes the value of the money to drop even more quickly, due to the increased velocity.

Likewise, deflation causes the opposite to happen. When a currency starts gaining value, people tend to save more and spend more slowly. In the case of hyper-deflation, people tend to save as much as they can, and that behavior causes the value of the money to rise even more quickly due to the lower velocity.

I consider Bitcoin to be hyper-deflationary currently, and I believe that state will come to an end eventually. Once a saturation point is reached and the price levels out over the long term, people who were previously saving will start spending.

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they write something like this:


A statement like that generally signals that the author takes an extreme position, and is making unsupported claims based on dubious research and data.

Your work is interesting and insightful, but I don't believe the stock-to-flow model is relevant to price. As I posted have posted elsewhere:

1. The price has gone up exponentially over time, but that is all the stock-to-flow graph really shows. The price is correlated with any data that increases exponentially, such as stock-to-flow.

2. The stock-to-flow vs. market cap graph is becoming less relevant over time. If you look at the data, you will see that the shape of the graph is changing over time, with the points lining up more vertically after each halving. After the next halving, the points will begin to form a nearly vertical line. The long term graph may still still show correlation (because market cap and stock-to-flow are both exponential), but after the first halving, the graphs between halvings show almost no correlation.

3. The stock-to-flow model predicts that the price will increase exponentially to infinity. Not only is that impossible, but the price is already diverging from the model.  If you look at a price graph, you can see that the price is increasing exponentially, but you can also see that the price is starting to flatten out. That is the opposite of what the model predicts.

I am skeptical of the stock-to-flow model applied to market cap. The presentation of the statistics looks convincing, but it is deceiving.

1. The price has gone up exponentially over time, but that is all the stock-to-flow graph really shows. The price is correlated with any data that increases exponentially, such as stock-to-flow.

2. The stock-to-flow vs. market cap graph is becoming less relevant over time. If you look at the data, you will see that the shape of the graph is changing over time, with the points lining up more vertically after each halving. After the next halving, the points will begin to form a nearly vertical line. The long term graph may still still show correlation (because market cap and stock-to-flow are both exponential), but after the first halving, the graphs between halvings show almost no correlation.

3. The stock-to-flow model predicts that the price will increase exponentially to infinity. Not only is that impossible, but the price is already diverging from the model.  If you look at a price graph, you can see that the price is increasing exponentially, but you can also see that the price is starting to flatten out. That is the opposite of what the model predicts.