I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.

As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".

In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.

Good suggestion. I installed nmon.


I am running Raspian Lite 64-bit.

nmon shows that most of the time it sits idle, but occasionally all 4 cores are maxed for a short period of time. I presume that is when a new block is received. RAM usage sits at about 99% and never reaches 100% (which seems suspicious).

Becaus the CPU is maxing out only occasionally and because RAM is nearly at max, it seems to me that additional constant usage, such a media server, might become a problem, but additional intermittent usage would not.

Also, it seems to me that a monitor, keyboard, and mouse will be more convenient as you add services. So, maybe a cheap laptop would be an option.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.

The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.

It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

I have a RPi 4 with 8GB RAM running core, lnd, electrs, joinmarket yg, and btc-rpc-explorer. It runs a little warm and sometimes it is slow. I'm not sure it can handle much more than that, but I would love to hear from others who have tested its limits.

The questions make no sense to me. What other wallets are you referring to? What is the wallet we all typically use? Perhaps you don't understand what a HD wallet is because nearly all wallets are HD wallets now.

If most people buy bitcoins solely to hold them, then Bitcoin will become merely a collectible. And, given its potential to be a liberator from financial repression, that would be a huge disappointment.

It took me a while to figure out that your post is directed at exchanges, and not Bitcoin.

I suggest that in the future, you avoid using the term wallet when referring to an account at an exchange. You don't have a wallet at an exchange, you have an account.

That can't be right because when you cut the supply of new coins in half, you are still increasing the total supply by that amount every ten minutes.

Please tell me how you arrive at 0%. It doesn't seem possible to me unless perhaps I misunderstood your statement. Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are arguing that the probability of existing during a specific finite period of time approaches 0 when the range of time is infinite. So, in order to justify our existence in terms of probability, we must be reincarnated an infinite number of times (or live forever).

However, the probability of existing during any finite period of time does not approach 0, so reincarnation is not a necessary condition. Furthermore, you argument overlooks the relevant fact that we are alive now, so the probability that it is currently the time when we are alive is 1, and reincarnation is not a necessary condition.

That is also misleading because there is no difference between new and old coins. As @o_e_l_e_o wrote, the thing that is decreasing is the rate of increase in the supply, and the proper term for that is production.

Tell me how you arrived at a probability of 0%.

Each node validates the transactions and blocks that it receives. It rejects any that are not valid. The implementation is in the node's software.

A node does not ensure that all nodes agree. Consensus is not enforced, it is only followed.

If a node considers a block to be valid when other nodes consider it to be invalid, then the chain will diverge into two branches, and that is called a fork. Nodes that consider one branch to be valid will follow that branch, and nodes that consider the other branch to be valid will follow the other branch.

Your idea boils down to using biometric information to generate a private key. This idea has been discussed here before:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016478.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5175072.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5432496.0

If the solution were so simple, it would have implemented a decades ago. What stops a node from having multiple domain names? You have only replaced proof-of-work with proof-of-domain-names.

Belief in reincarnation is just wishful thinking and nothing more.

If miners could make more simply by "requesting higher prices", then why don't they do it now? And, if miners can make more, then why don't all sellers  "request higher prices" and make more right now? The answer is that everyone already sells at the highest prices they can get. And after the halving, they will continue to sell at the highest prices they can get, whether they are happy with those prices or not.

The idea that miners somehow dictate prices is ridiculous. The total BTC volume on exchanges is something like 500,000 BTC per day and miners sell only 900 BTC per day.

All other market participants do not "have to play ball and also ask more". Other participants will sell at whatever prices they can get, even if it is less than what miners offer.


The "sell pressure" of new bitcoins (aka inflation) is low. After, the halving, it will drop by 0.8%. A 0.8% drop can hardly be considered "significant". Even if you consider 75% of the coins to be off-the-market, the change in "sell pressure" is still tiny.

Again, it is a mistake to give so much weight to the production of only 900 BTC per day compared to the 19,330,000 already in existence and the 500,000 traded per day.

Newbies who believe they can make money by trading are naive. Nearly all will lose most of their money.


TA is BS. It is astrology for traders. It is based solely on fantasy, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias. It is promoted by disreputable people who are trying to extract money from you. It continues to exist only because there is a new sucker born every minute.

I don't agree with that premise. Interest-free lending is charity because the lender is giving away the benefits of what they are lending. So, a lender is immoral if they are not charitable, and charity is therefore not a virtue because it is simply the selfish avoidance of immorality.

In my own case, I loan money to people who are drowning in debt. I give them a chance to get their finances back in order and pay off their debt. I do this primarily because I think it is a benefit to society, but I also charge interest on the loans. Charging interest is necessary because many of the people I help do not pay me back. Without interest, the lending could not be sustainable. Also, I could instead charge a fee for my help based on the size of the loan, but isn't that really what interest is?


A transaction involves two people. Why is only one of them being immoral when both are making the transaction? If charging interest is immoral then being willing to pay interest is immoral. If charging for sex is immoral, then being willing to pay for sex is immoral. You say that the people making money are immoral, but the people wanting services must also be immoral.

That is so true. I have friends with blank keyboards.