Tiny or not, it means that you cannot claim that all machines have makers. Of course, there exist machines that have makers, but you can't use that statement to prove that the universe was made by a god (how ever you define "god"), because the universe can be one of those machines with no maker.

And while we are rehashing your broken proof, remember that we can't use probability as an argument here, since we have no way to measure it.

Scarcity does not give something value, though it can affect the value.

For example, I have a stone in my hand. It is unremarkable in every way except that it the only one like it in the world. It has the ultimate scarcity, but I don't think that it has any value. I have no problem dropping it on the ground and forgetting it.

Likewise, because scarcity does not give something value, neither does stock-to-flow, though again that can affect the value.

What gives something value is the desire to obtain it, interact with it, or just experience it. The most prominent sources of value that I can think of are utility and beauty. I believe that the value of Bitcoin was originally derived from its beauty (in the form of cleverness and elegance). Without value, Bitcoin has no utility, so once it established that original value, it then gained value from its utility.

I don't know exactly what "a lot of X's" means, but my point is that he is hiding events that don't fit his pattern in order to claim that there is a pattern

Also, there were other significant events that I omitted because they happened more quickly. Such as:

7 ) high June 26, 2019, bottom March 13, 2020 (though it wasn't an ATH)
8 ) high January 8, 2021, bottom January 27, 2021

I am in complete agreement, though nobody has yet described a concrete mechanism by which the halvings affect the price (other than psychological), so I remain skeptical.

Sorry to ruin your pattern, but you neglected to include these ATHs:

4) high June 8, 2011, bottom November 19, 2011
5) high December 5, 2013, bottom January 14, 2015
6) high December 17, 2017, bottom December 15, 2018

Smells like a scam.

In a reorg, the unique transactions in the shorter chain are returned to the mempool and re-confirmed in subsequent blocks.

You keep repeating these "proofs", but simply repeating them does not make them true.


You assume that the original complexity of the universe could only come from a god, and therefore a god must exist. That is a logical fallacy called "begging the question".


I have already demonstrated that the water cycle is a machine with no known maker. Therefore, you cannot claim that "all machines that we know of have makers". Furthermore, the lack of evidence of the water cycle being created without a maker is not proof that it has a maker. Inability to prove a statement is not proof that the opposite of the statement is true.

The primary problems that reconciling the split cause are the invalidation of block rewards and the possibility of double spending.

• Block rewards in the shorter chain would be invalidated. That could create a huge problem if the split is longer than 100 blocks and the miners spend their block rewards.
• If a UTXO is spent on both chains but differently, then one of the transactions (and all of its subsequent UTXOs) will become invalid when the chains are reconciled.

For that reason, I believe that the users of one or both of the chains would probably do a hard fork in order to avoid this situation.

If you are here to learn, then welcome. My advice is to read a lot before posting. If you read as much as you can, then you will be better informed and people will find your your posts to be more beneficial, and you will earn merits.

On the other hand, if you are here only to make money by posting, then you have come to the wrong place.

So, then your proposal is to sell a coin that represents equity in a city, and I could own 10% of Miami, for example. What would that mean? What would be my incentive? Would I receive dividends? Would I get 10% of the vote?

Or is it a stablecoin, and I am loaning the city money when I buy the coin?

There have been many attempts at local currencies in the past. None have succeeded in any significant way.

I think that the probability of forgetting the phrase is much much higher than the probability that someone recorded you.

Fiscal policy is determined by a government and Bitcoin is independent of any government. But, that doesn't mean that a government that adopts Bitcoin couldn't have a fiscal policy. Furthermore, Bitcoin is not immune to fractional reserve banking so a government can also set monetary policy by controlling interest rates, though it would be much less effective than if it also controlled the monetary base.

Actually, it is the other way around. The production cost depends on the price due to the economics of mining.

Also, the value of a bitcoin is subjective -- different for each person. I think that price is an effective representation of the aggregate value assuming that the markets are liquid and efficient.

Tax-loss harvesting does not affect your gains. It only affects the accounting.

The purpose of tax-loss harvesting has nothing to do with the specific asset. It is simply a way to reduce your capital gains in a particular year for whatever reason you may want to do that.

Here is a specific example for the U.S.:

Suppose you sell asset A and have long-term capital gains of $500,000. The gains above $445,850 are taxed at 20%. If you sell another asset B for a loss of $54,150, then you will avoid the 20% tax. Later when you sell asset B (assuming that you bought it back), the gain will be greater than if you didn't sell at a loss, but it will be taxed below 20% if the gain is below $445,850. In short, you have reduced your taxes by spreading the gains out over two years.

Nice try. I guess you aren't aware that Dave Kleiman died before BIP-39 was drafted.

If you send bitcoins to a merchant (for example), who isn't "centralized service", the public can still know your identity if the merchant makes the transaction public.

Furthermore, while individual leaks of privacy and anonymity might seem small and inconsequential, a dedicated and comprehensive effort by any entity, such as Facebook, Google, or a blockchain surveillance company, can uncover information about you and your identity, by collecting and analyzing huge amounts of data.

Your charts are incredibly misleading. The vertical ranges of the charts are very different:

GOOGL: 75
AMZN: 6000
FB: 20
XBT: 10,000,000

Ignorance is not proof. Your lack of imagination is not proof.

I don't see anything wrong with his opinions. They show his preferences and they are not based in ignorance. Personally, I'm not bothered by the educated opinions of others. I feel no need to defend Bitcoin, except to dispel the myths and misconceptions.

Bitcoin may become the most important invention in the 21st century, or it may fade into obscurity or be reduced to nostalgia. People that pin their hopes and dreams on Bitcoin are missing the point.