Wait?

Macrostrategy?  (EDIT.. Ah I see.  Evidently Macrostrategy is the parent company or sister or something?)

But I have been thinking about this, as well as trying to figure out how many treasuries of nations have also figured out what he has.

Us ants figured it out a while back.  But the simple fact is as more and more companies realize that no matter what happens with "Crypto" or "Stablecoins" or "Web3", (seriously no matter... it can take over the world, or it can all go up in flames) there will ONLY EVER BE one pristine, mathematically perfect asset that we all agree on.  And the network effect of Bitcoin can no longer be overcome.

I personally think there will be other "crypto" tech that is important.   And I think Saylor groks that very deeply too.  He likes to compare the other crypto assets as VC investments.  This is a good comparison, but like so many other tech projects it is to the extreme.  I do not know what the hit rate is on the average Silicon Valley VC investment is?  1 in 10?  1 in 100?  Well I think with "crypto" it will be on the order of 1 in 1000 or more likely 1 in 5000.

Right now, the bet is so lopsided it does not even pay to consider these other ideas unless you are a gambler, and deeply knowledgeable about the VERY few projects that might actually matter.

And AMAZINGLY we are still in the zone in which there is a very lopsided payoff in an investment into Bitcoin.

We are still early.  But now that the world is really waking up to this we are truly in the calm before the storm.  And it will not remain calm for much longer, in my humble opinion.  

Microstrategy has a VERY UNIQUE situation in which it both MUST announce it's buys, and it does not hurt them to do so.  Other big buyers are much smarter (in their own contexts) to be doing accumulation on the down low.  Countries that are currently accumulating Bitcoin are smart to do it quietly for as long as they can.  While El Salvador has the unique position to do it in the open.

There are working price strategies that can be used to keep the spot price of Bitcoin depressed while all this accumulation is going on.  I have mentioned it many times before but the idea is for a large entity to be buying X coins on the OTC markets and then selling a percentage of those coins on the retail markets as they continue to buy.  I used to consider this a theory.  But at this point I believe it is an inevitability.

This strategy can only hold up for so long.  There is no buffer in the Bitcoin market.  There is no net.  There is no safety.  There is no eject button.  And very soon this unique calm before the storm period is going to end.  Maybe it is just my love of the dramatic.  But I have a hard time seeing the markets to just gently rise over another decade.  I DO think we eventually get to that point.  But that is going to be after a majority of the value that will come into Bitcoin is already there.   And we are no where near that point yet.

I know you are all strapped in by now.  I would say it's time to check the straps and all the systems.  We are T minus SOMETHING.  And no one knows what SOMETHING is.

That is the fun part.

I have found myself rooting for it just for this reason.  I LOVE how everyone nearly has just written it off.

But I still think it breaks to the upside too...

ESG is not about making sense.  It is about controlling the masses.  But very few will see that, and will fall for the marketing instead.  "Climate Crisis!".

And many will never understand why mining matters and proof of work is the MOST EFFICIENT, fair, honest way to secure the worlds (soon to be) most valuable ledger.

I bet if you could bottle the energy that will be poured into attacking Bitcoin on behalf of  "the environment" you could most likely run the network for years.

They don;t care about the environment.  They care about convincing enough of you to side with them that they can rule the world.

My ignore list is getting longer in here.

Makes me kind of sad, as I prefer not to use it... but there have been some real hum-dingers in the annoying department recently.

Well... if we are going to go here... then the point must be made that you do not have to use the lightning network.

We will end up in the weeds pretty fast, and I think you and I probably agree that Bitcoin needs a block size increase eventually (that last word is where some of the nuance is).

But the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum is at least with the former you are ABLE to use the most decentralized financial netowk in the history of the planet.  No so with Ethereum.

Bitcoin can add complexity on optional layers.

Ethereum has it built in at the very bottom.

I think we have yet to see if Lightning causes shenanigans on the level of Ethereum.  It could.  I know there is talk about issuing tokens on the lightning network...  And frankly Ethereum may be even better for that purpose.


What Finney seemed to envision was really what Blockstream is doing with Liquid.  That is the closest thing to that "prophecy".  Lightning on the other hand is a wee bit less centralized than Liquid.

And we may see the development of a network that is even MORE SO.  (Hmm I guess I really mean LESS SO as in more decentralized)

But without the base layer remaining as distributed as possible none of that would even have a chance of doing any better than ETH.

Good grief.  Even their CHARITY is gamed.

Seriously.  This is the absolutely best version of Vitalik's steel man of all.  Complex systems BREED dishonesty.

With Bitcoin... when you transfer value from the control of one private key to another, that's IT.  The value is transferred.  That's the main, and really almost only thing the Bitcoin blockchain does.  I suppose you can sign messages with it too... and there is some limited scripting and multi-sig.  But the basic idea is simple.  And that simplicity leave less places for crooks to hide their schemes.

Ethereum is poisoned at the root.

Also... sometimes these questions are 50/50 when it's a t/f. 

OK.  I am thinking we are doing a little RSI level reset here, and perhaps will even see us reach back up over 70 a bit before the next pullback.  In a bull run it is common to see RSI remain near the top of it's range but takibng breathers along the way.  I think we have a greater chance here of going UP rather than down, but may not be discounting enough because of the weekend.

"The only way to win, is not to play."

The most autistic April fools joke ever...

https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/04/01/maximalist.html

Seriously read it.  lol.

WORST.  HAIKU.  EVER.

I see what you did there.

By the way... made my brother in law a set of washers seed backup, and gifted him a few sats...  

I paid 1sat/b.  Confirmed in a few hours.

Can this just keep working like this?

Our new channels have been very dormant this time.  Kind of odd... I get lots of traffic.

So... I see we must have had a pretty big difficulty jump, and a drop in hashrate at the same time.  Blocks coming in 20% slow?

I have been meaning to post this as more of a prediction for a couple of days here...  But I procrastinated and now will just seem somewhat less smart.   But the idea holds... RSI needing to cool off and then could begin some chop as the price continues to rise.  No way (IMHO) this is not poised to run.  But we HAVE to cool down a little first, and along the way, probably.



Also think if we heat up like I think we do we will be spending some time quite ABOVE the 70 RSI mark unlike that last climb...

I have run a node for years...  On that map, I can zoom in, and there is a dot about 2 miles from my house.  I always wonder if that is actually me... or if someone else in my neck of the woods does it too...  My node may be part of the ones consolidated into my service provider.

A good point.  And the tail emission is a deceptive twist in a way.  I have to admit my knee jerk reaction to it was negative.  I do not think Bitcoin will need it.  But only because the ecosystem will evolve to the point where the fees make mining still worth it, and the fact that Bitcoin will (probably?) always have big hashrate pointed at it.  But unless Monero actually flipped bitcoin, which I would give it about a 2% chance of doing, then it will need the emission to remain secure.  Particularly if we do not intend to let the fee market do what the Bitcoin fee market will (hopefully).

A huge point of contention and one of the arguments that is often used to pit Monero against Bitcoin.  I think very few coins will survive with a hard cap.

But the part that's not easy to see at first is the the supply is only "infinite" over infinity.  A release rate asymptotically approaching 0 forever will not add enough coins across the span of a human lifetime to make the coin a bad store of value.  I think Bitcoin will be BETTER as long as it survives (which it will).

I think a good way to digest it is to say how many coins will you have to hold to have 1/1000000th of the supply.

At the very start of the tail emission that will be: 18.4
Then TEN YEARS into the tail emission it will be: 19.19
At the end of a HUNDRED YEARS into the tail : 27.07

And so on.  So even after a hundred years your original 18.4 coins will only have diminished to ~68% of it's former percent of the total.  And this does not even account for lost coins.  Only 788k coins lost a year would mean you broke even.

But a reduction of 32% of your value over a century?  Not such a big deal... and certainly not what you feel like it would be when someone says "INFINITE SUPPLY!!!"  Plus your percentage of former value is constantly decelerating on the way down...  The longer you hold Monero the less the inflation will impact the total percentages.

It is easy to look at the privacy value prop of Monero and see that as the key selling point.  But the market does not have that ANYWHERE NEAR priced in yet, and it is completely ignoring other design choices like dynamic blocksize, the tail emission, and ASIC resistance.  Those are also deeply complimentary strategies when compared to Bitcoin.  Each coin will charge the users a fee to use it.  Bitcoin will charge people at the time of the transaction, incentivizing holding.  Monero will penalize holders slightly, but most likely remain cheap to transact in.  Incentivizing velocity slightly.

That said one problem we may still face is a large and unwieldy blockchain...

Monero truly is an exception in a giant field of cowshit that is the alts...

This is something I am also facing, and kind of feel like you do.  I am going to need to come up with some cheddar due to things going on in my world...  This is one option.  Borrow against my stack?  Or just sell some.

Or another option is a line of credit... a loan not collateralize against the corn, but backed up by it for me.  In other words... get a loan and then HOPEFULLY pay it off with a smaller amount of Bitcoin than it would have taken to do right now.

But on the other hand there is ALWAYS the possibility that BTC goes down, and I lose that bet. 

Meh.