Perhaps he forgot to add two more zeros in his offer. Haha. Although, he might be right. Because what if the Federal Reserve made the pivot from QT to QE?

There are projections from the more bearish economists illustrating that a recession is inevitable, and the timeline could be late 2023 or early 2024. And because the Federal Reserve has the susceptibility to over-adjust, the first small signs of a recession would probably make the printer go "BRRRR". IF "BRRRR" does indeed happen during March next year, then we have already seen its effects on Bitcoin and other markets during March, 2020. They will SURGE.

 

And you have never made one honest post in the forum. It was my mistake to say that you're one of the people to learn from. Maybe one to learn from THE HARD WAY because everything you teach is WRONG.

Everyone should go to your trust page and read what gmaxwell and achow101 wrote, and ask themselves why they wrote them and who to trust.


Do they? Really? I believe not, or should not. The government doesn't have 24/7 access to your cash, they can't monitor all your transactions with it, and it's fungible and private. A CBDC removes all that.

That "party" WAS Satoshi. He has left since Gavin Andresen announced that he was going to the C.I.A. headquarters in Langley.

Plus the network was always decentralized after that time when more and more full nodes started joining the network. Tell you friend to read this blog, https://medium.com/hackernoon/bitcoin-miners-beware-invalid-blocks-need-not-apply-51c293ee278b


Paraphrase Satoshi - "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry".

It's his problem.

But we're here in the current situation.

The easy way out of the debate is "because Satoshi", or "because the white paper".


I truly respect your opinion, but not finding out the actual reason why saving Bitcoin makes more sense than spending it like it was a network merely for coffee transactions, makes me believe that we might have only started to scratch the surface.

I'm also still in my Bitcoin journey, and I'm not saying that I'm 100% on the right path. Perhaps I will get a new understanding and agree with you one day.

Although what pooya87 posted is technically true, I believe OP was talking more about Turing-complete programming and smart contracts that Ethereum has.


Probably true.


Definitely not true. Haha.


On a technical level the bandwidth and processing requirements for each node will increase, forcing the network to centralize towards the entities who have the resources and/or the willingness to spend more to run a full node.

Being a centralized project built on top of Bitcoin won't matter, what matters is the network.


No, they'll be just narratives.


Probably true.


We shouldn't say "it's perfect" but it's good enough for what the world needs, and in my opinion, the world needs at least one censorship-resistant cryptocurrency network as a back up in case the financial system crashes.

There are some parts in Bitcoin that have ossified and will never change, but some parts probably need more development.


It will widen the protocol's attack vector.

Sorry, the point I was making was made through an incomplete post. I was talking more about from an investment perspective and how Bitcoin isn't designed to use for mere "coffee transactions".

Bitcoin's purchasing power grows after the end of a 4-year cycle, so unless you have no choice and truly need to spend your Bitcoin, it's better to use fiat to purchase your personal needs.

Plus "money", could be spent AND held.


That's partly true. In my opinion, Bitcoin's main value proposition derives from the fact that it's censorship-resistant. The way it's spent and the way the network is utilized also matters. If people truly believe that Bitcoin was built to be a network for personal/consumer finance, then they're only scratching the surface.

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

It's not just you. In fact, I believe there are many people here in BitcoinTalk who also has the same opinion, although they don't express it as much they should. But they should to educate the newbies and make them think hard before spending their precious Bitcoins. A Bitcoin now is better HODLed than spent.


But have a shower thought about a simple concept - Unlimited fiat, only 21,000,000 Bitcoin in existence and demand for sats is increasing.

Plus while the "attacking-entity" is secretly investing a lot of money accumulating ASICs and booting them up to start mining Bitcoin, in theory, the entitly might have found out that it's actually better to be honest and be rewarded in Bitcoin. Haha.

What we plebs might have misunderstood about Game Theory is, it's about finding an equilibrium to do what's good for the individual, and the group. If the Game Theory behind Bitcoin is flawed then the network would probably have already died.

OR, why not carry out the most effective strategy for newbies and just Buy the DIP and HODL? Why play the game of "survival of the fittest" when the game could also be played by simply doing a time-based strategy? We should refuse to become the product, the very people being forced to buy high/sell low, the people who are scammed for affiliate fees, ad revenue and TRADING BOOKS we don't actually need.

There's truly nothing wrong with writing a book, a guide, or any investment material as long as the writer is honest with his/her audience. There's also nothing wrong with shilling referral links as long as the person doesn't "market" himself like he did in this screenshot. Haha.



Twitter is starting to include "for context" information in tweets.

Sometimes the wallet, and probably most wallets, will have the wrong fee estimates especially during those times of high network congestion.

Before making a transaction, next time check how much transactions are in queue. You should always visit https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight

People should patient and opportunistic during a bear market.

There's always a Silver Lining somewhere. Instead of being stressed that there's some probability for Bitcoin to crash below $28,000, try to find good price points and plan your next bids if you have some disposable income. If you don't, try finding a job/a second job to earn extra income and keep them as savings in Bitcoin.

That's the point of the Game Theory behind Bitcoin, there may or may not be. How much should an entity spend to start a 51% attack on Bitcoin? If the entity is willing to spend millions to profit in millions more, then OK. But in Bitcoin that probability is much MUCH lower than what you're trying to suggest because it makes more sense to be honest and be incentivized in Bitcoin.

Either you get lucky and buy when Bitcoin is at a very big discount, OR, based on Bitcoin's four year cycle, you wait for the bull market when a lot of new investors are in FOMO. If truly limited in capital, wait for either of these events and use as much of your savings as possible to buy Bitcoin.

OK.


If you mean GBTC's current discount to Net Asset Value, then it will be a gamble. I heard Silbert has been having bankruptcy issues involving one of his companies?

MSTR is up 200% since January, Bitcoin is up probably just 90%. Once ETF approvals are taking place = Bitcoin will surge, and I'm very confident that MSTR will again surge more. But, saying it like a broken record, I'm the stupid pleb.

No, for nascent shitcoins there's no debate. Because the incentives to attack those chains would potentially be MORE compared to the cost of attacking it. Why be honest if attacking it gives more incentives? In Bitcoin, if it pays more to be honest, then there's no point in attacking it.

The game theory fully works.

But the point is if an ETF is approved, Bitcoin will surge then expand the value of MicroStrategy's balance sheet, therefore making the actual value of MSTR go up. But if MSTR is sold because "reasons" and its price crashes down, THEN the stock is undervalued because of MicroStrategy's surging Bitcoin in the company's vaults. It will be a golden investment opportunity.


That's a strawman and outside the context of the debate. Because those other industrial activites could add value to the company too, and Chad Saylor could also decide to buy more Bitcoin from company profits.

What where those "other cryptocurrencies"? Nascent POW shitcoins? I believe 51% attacks towards those networks would require the attacker considerably less resources than they would if they attacked a POW giant such as Bitcoin. Would Foundry USA and Antpool really risk everything just to attempt a double spend?

Ser, are you sure? What an irresponsible advice to suggest. Because even if there's an ETF approval for many asset managers, it doesn't change the fact that MicroStrategy still HODLs 152,800 Bitcoin in their balance sheet. If that surges in value, then their balance sheet will have a BIG PLUS sign in it, which will definitely be very good for MSTR's market value.

But I'm the stupid pleb, I could be wrong.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's just a name/label.

But what do you propose, frankandbeans? That development should have no order, no organization? Are you proposing those developers from Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC, and BCash should be given authority to commit code to the main repository? To the same people who tried to co-opt Bitcoin and fork it away from the Core Developers? That's a very funny joke, ser.