I'm curious why you distinguish between coins owned by "someone" and coins owned by miners.


There already is no "sell pressure" from miners anymore. Compare the number of coins produced each day to the total number of coins sold each day. The fraction sold by miners is insignificant.

The Federal Reserve has made it clear many times that they have exactly two mandates: low inflation and full employment. They have made it clear many times that interest rates will remain high as long as employment in the U.S. remains high and inflation remains above their target. They have also made it clear that they are willing (and even expect) to suffer a recession in order to lower inflation.

So, I don't get why so many people predict interest rate moves based on factors that the Federal Reserve is not concerned with.

Without reading the whole thing, it appears that his arguments all boil down to this:


1. "extremely high fees". The cost of the fees depend on the economic value of the transactions. Block space is limited, so only the most economically valuable transactions will be included. The fees paid for those transactions will be reasonable because transactions requiring unreasonable fees will not use Bitcoin. In simple terms, if you think the transaction fees are too high for what you want to do, then Bitcoin is not for you. None of this means that Bitcoin will fail. It will just fail for you.

2. "maintain the present level of security". It is assumed that the present level of security is the minimum necessary level of security. That may or may not be true. I have yet to see someone determine the minimum necessary security.

The halving does not lower the supply of bitcoins. The supply of bitcoins increases every block until there are 21 million bitcoins. At no point does the supply go down.


That is a bad analogy because bitcoins are not consumed.


The price of a bitcoin does not depend on production costs.  In fact, it is exactly the other way around. Due to how mining works, the production cost tends to approach the price. In other words, the production cost depends on the price.


Why do people always say that miners will never sell at a loss? That is absurd. A miner must pay for their operating costs by selling their bitcoins regardless of whether the price is higher or lower.

It's easy. If they are on Facebook, or YouTube, or TikTok, they are fake.

Here is a thread devoted to problems with Umbrel. Perhaps someone has posted the solution to your problem there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5356129.0

Here is a thread devoted to problems with Umbrel. Perhaps someone has posted the solution to your problem there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5356129.0

I doubt that there is any publicly available software that does exactly what you want.

The only publicly available software that I know of that is close to what you are looking for is BTCPay Server (https://btcpayserver.org/). Perhaps one of the devs who work on that would be willing to write your custom software.

Exactly. Hodling is a use of Bitcoin with the costs paid by someone else.


I don't really agree, but I also think it is unlikely that the economics of Bitcoin will ever change.


Price is irrelevant. Bitcoin functions the same whatever the price.

Currently, holders pay for the benefit to them through inflation. Personally, I believe that this is the best way to implement a fee for holding bitcoins because it is the simplest and it is effective. However, it is going away as the subsidy goes to 0.

So, my proposal would be to continue the subsidy forever -- a so-called tail emission.

I don't know what the right amount is, and I doubt there is a right amount, but I would do something like 0.025% of the total bitcoins per year. I picked that number because it is very small and insubstantial, but it is not 0.

I'm sure the inflation-is-evil crowd would strongly object because inflation is evil.


There is no problem with dust and dormant coins.

Without getting into the proposal itself, I believe that the quote above does have some merit. People who hold bitcoins receive some benefit from the security that is paid for entirely by the people who transact (once the subsidy goes to 0). It seems reasonable to me for holders to pay for that benefit in some manner that has yet to be determined.

Then, I suggest more analysis before making claims based on weak premises and inadequate research.

I think that it would be more accurate to state that mining for a profit is not for beginners, but mining as an educational exercise is fine. Beyond buying the equipment and dealing with the heat and noise, mining itself is not that difficult.

However, it requires some expertise and lots of dedication (and cheap electricity) in order to make a profit.

For those beginners interested in mining, I suggest starting out by mining altcoins using something like NiceHash. It takes very little investment and you may discover very quickly if mining is really that interesting to you.

I'm proud to say that I donated a bunch of those in 2012 after Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal blockaded Wikileaks. Now that my bitcoins are all spent, I wouldn't mind getting a few of those back

I don't know much about btcpay, but I found this documentation that might answer your questions: https://docs.btcpayserver.org/FAQ/Integrations/

I recommend avoiding that video. It is full of deception and hyperbole. Much of what it contains is factual, but it is presented in a way that intentionally distorts the truth in order to promote an agenda.

The biggest misconception presented by that video (and by others) is the idea that the debt/money supply must continually be increased because if all debt is paid off then there is no money to pay the interest. I believe that is false. While paying off debt reduces the money supply, paying interest does not. Interest payments do not affect the debt/money supply. Also, the premise of all debt being paid off is absurd.

The addresses listed by wallet-tool.py are in your joinmarket wallet. bitcoin-cli might give you the same information, but I would use only wallet-tool.py. Obtain some bitcoins and send them directly to the first unused address listed in mixdepth 0.

Using nLockTime is like post-dating a check. It prevents a transaction from being confirmed before a specific time. You might give someone a signed transaction with nLockTime set to ensure that something else can happen before the transaction becomes valid.

Some wallets set nLockTime to the current height in order to prevent miners from arbitrarily re-orging the chain. I don't have a complete understanding of this use, so feel free to clarify.

Forget the nonsense from ChatGPT. I don't know why anyone would say "N units in Y" instead of "N Y".

Also, you seem to be suggesting that the term "unit" means a value that can vary. Again, not convenient.

That expert would tell you not to bother because you are wasting your time.