[...]

In the context of Bitcoin, ownership is very closely linked to control over the cryptographic keys associated with specific Bitcoin addresses. Now, it might be true that someone can own Bitcoin in a legal sense without having direct control over the keys — such as when owning an exchange account or holding an ETF share — but that is simply not a good idea in the Bitcoin world.

Bitcoin’s digital nature, perfect portability and global liquidity make it especially susceptible to embezzlement, theft or just basic mismanagement. The only way to truly own Bitcoin is to control the keys.

Some might welcome a possible short-term price pump associated with an approval of a major Bitcoin ETF (such as BlackRock’s), but the long-term impact on Bitcoin adoption would be likely negative (including the long-term price of Bitcoin). The only adoption that actually matters involves self-custody — everything else is a trap.

We are Satoshi,
All as one are Satoshi,
It's what a mirror says.

We have now become
A collective Satoshi
Supporting Bitcoin.

Maybe this one



Or this one

Bill is more of a producer type, and an awful stage presence.

All of his underlings do the heavy lifting with the sound design and programming - Bill just basically phones in shitty FLA lyrics, puts the pieces together, and shambles about on stage like an old skeletal Beethoven or something.

They did an orchestral performance of FLA songs in Vienna, and I could not believe Bill didn't have the forethought to do an official recording of it, after speaking with him about it.

He's basically a shit business person that keeps his head above water by churning out material across various projects.

FLA is such a love/hate relationship.

 Never meet your heroes.

 Bill Leeb is a self-important snobbish asshole, but Rhys Fulber on the other hand is the real talent in that project, and a pretty chill kinda guy.

 If you like Delerium, I'm sure you are aware of Conjure One, which I find just as appealing, if not more, sometimes.
 
 Rhys' solo work is something else entirely awesome.

This was almost a haiku

My sage advice is
Don't keep bacon off your plate.
Enjoy while you can.

Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"?
We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years.
I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time.
However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames.
So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year.
With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost.
If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years.

I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years.
As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work.

There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better):
1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years.
2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code.

TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior. BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now).

EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades.