You would think an MIT grad and subsequent computer simulations modeler would've understood Bitcoin back in 2013.
I'm no MIT grad and I got it almost immediately back then.
Hell within a few days of research, I completely understood how groundbreaking a breakthrough it was, and how it would fundamentally change the financial world.
While that all makes sense, one must first actually stick their head in the rabbit hole before one can start to understand.
edit: 'tis one of my regrets that I did not give the rabbit hole more than a cursory glance at first sight. Oh well. C'est la guerre.
Huh, jbreher?
What's your rabbit hole story? You may have said. I cannot remember specifics.
You did not start buying BTC right away? At least small amounts? You may have sold too many too soon. I think that i heard you reveal something like that, previously.
I have probably been interacting with you since mid-to-late 2014.. perhaps early 2015, and seems that you had accumulated some BTC in Bitcoin's pre-2013 era.
Sure, maybe a lot of us do not accumulate as many BTC as we retroactively conclude that we should have, and of course, June 2011 would have given you a whole year to accumulate single digit BTC and then a bit more than another 1/2 year to acquire BTC in the teens (below $20).
So, sure, there could have been some selling too much too soon (to the extent that you acquired very many).
Another problem that seems to have been present in those early days would have been feeling comfortable with locations to buy, and by the time I got in late 2013, Coinbase had been decently established and in operation for a bit over a year from what I can see from my research.. So, Coinbase was pretty easy for me, even though they had buy limits, I don't recall running too heavily up against those limits, for some reason (although the first 30 days or so was the worst, while they were validating my account).
Anyhow, the introduction of exchanges like Coinbase, and then Circle in 2014 and Gemini in 2015 (and sure some other exchanges, depending on location, too) did seem to help some peeps onboarding quite a bit easier in those early days of uncertainty regarding just how to safely to get a hold of some little fiends.
Some of us are well into the divestment phase.
Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself.
Could be one of the reasons that you seem to have a decent amount of relative valuing of dollars rather than bitcoin? Can't completely blame you for that without knowing many mOAR details.
On the other hand, such a purported status would not seem to justify your seeming tendency to have been spending many years gambling with long shot bcash nonsenses.
But, hey, many of us retain some amounts of internal contradictions in order to stay "interesting."
Likely, I presuming that many of us are also familiar with that expression about consistency and hobgoblins.
The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.
Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright.
To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator.
Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly.
Those appeal to authority (attempted) BIG block arguments should be recognized as long rejected in terms of the costs of BIG blocks outweigh much if any benefits that could be derived from such BIG blocks, even if there were supposed benefits to such seemingly nonsensical and ongoing persistent disingenuous claims.
In other words, pretty much long settled that BIG blocks are not the way to go, whether we are talking about propagation times or inclusiveness of "little people."
I think that BIG blockers continue to persist with such nonsense arguments is that they are trying to preserve value in their bcash bags and justify any further pumpenings of either of those crap coins, to the extent that there are anyone willing to pump them (or to get retail interested in unwittingly supporting such scams).
Poll
