Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[nullius]

IT’s so hard because software sucks.



Yes, that’s original.  I just realized how generally applicable it is.

[1714136205]

1714136205

[1714136205]

1714136205

[1714136205]

1714136205

[1714136205]

1714136205

[1714136205]

1714136205

[Toxic2040]

1h


#dyor
4h

#stronghands

[Biodom]

The levels of unneeded zealotry here are starting to trigger my usually not very sensitive bs sensor.
I can be in bitcoin without giving a second thought to bitcoin cash and it's derivative.

It would be sad if the discussion here was to keep fighting the old and forgotten battles again and again when, as I said, there are more formidable opponents in form of strengthening POS (an/or upcoming POS) and/or de-fi plus all-incorporating (Polkadot) tokens in front of us.
They will try to make us a "shard". Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).
This is what we will be/should be "fighting" (technologically), I believe, instead of dilly-dallying about "big blockers".

[JayJuanGee]

like, who gives a f--k..it is not 2017 anymore...that is done..and what's done is done.
there are bigger 'enemies' or rather 'competitors' arriving
this bolshevik/menshevik nonsense is way passé.

That last is a candidate for some kind of a bad metaphor prize.  Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.  Bitcoin is not an international conspiracy to enslave the world under the false rubric of “liberating” it, steal everybody’s property, and mass-murder as many people as practicable; and for my part, I am not a goddamn Communist.

The rest is myopic and foolish.

Fork attacks remain one of the biggest long-term existential threats to Bitcoin.  That is one of the four major risks that I would disclose in a Bitcoin prospectus, together with creeping regulatory and “KYC” attacks, miner centralization, and potential big-bank manipulation of the market.

The big blockers did huge damage—financially (in case for but the worst, you didn’t notice November 2018?), technologically (throwing monkey wrenches into Bitcoin development), and against adoption.  They should begone and stay gone—dump their remaining bitcoins for forked shitcoins, and fork the fuck off to hell.  I am so very much looking forward to a smooth Segwit v1 upgrade (Schnorr, MuSig, etc.) without the type of bullshit undermining that holds Bitcoin back.

The bitcoin.COM domain is still owned by a sleazy scammer who is abusing it to mislead newbies into fake Bitcoin.

Faketoshi.

I could continue, but it would be superfluous...

Hey... that's largely what I was trying to say (you took the words right out of my mouth - you robber.)... But, of course, you said it first... and better than me.    #nohomo

Likely, I presuming that many of us are also familiar with that expression about consistency and hobgoblins.  

Most people forget the very important qualifier in that quote.  Emerson speaks of “a foolish consistency”, viz., refusing for mere consistency’s sake to consider that one may have ever been wrong about anything whatsoever.  There is nothing glorious about being consistently stupid.

Some of us would argue that Emerson was generally full of it; but he was not wrong there!

I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....

By the way, I do expect that a lot of us may have started out our bitcoin journey with mistakes and even getting drug into some levels of shitcoin investment and sympathies for shitcoins and we also may look back and recognize that we made a lot of mistakes in the way that we invested into bitcoin, whether that was too little of an investment at earlier points of time, selling too many BTC too soon or just failing to take enough safeguarding precautions regarding purchasing, storing or moving our coins.

So, sure in that sense, I would not expect any kind of exact consistencies with each us HODLers because hopefully we are learning along the way in terms of how to be a "better" bitcoiner... or at least, better in terms of our own goals and aspirations, and hopefully we are NOT continuing to make some of the more detrimental of our earlier mistakes - also, sometimes, it could take a while to convert our own lil selfies over to another way of thinking about bitcoin and/or shitcoins and/or how traditional assets and currencies fit into our whole approach to bitcoin and into our investment lives, too (whether we are expecting progeny, or otherwise).

(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc.  The offer stands.)

Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path... whether they are actually just invested in some of the ideology or what are the exact factors that are motivating NON-movement off of that path, I cannot fully know, especially when seemingly illogical positions remain in place for so many years in spite of what some of us in the "shitcoin minimalist" camp (I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays) perceive to be decently convincing evidence that should help the shitcoiners (or big blockers, or bitcoin naysayers) to change their seemingly nonsensical position(s)... but hey, everyone has rights to their (sic) own perspective based upon giving the weight to the factors that they(sic) deem to be MOAR important, or most important... whatever the case may be.

Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).

There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

[Biodom]

Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).

There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?

[nullius]

I just noticed how this started because I am a bit preoccupied here, and I don’t parse cutesy-wootsy abuse of language—WTF, the obsequious fawning over money, spineless as a jellyfish...

I feel like many here are simply jelly of @jbreher and his whale-ness.
I am always eager to hear a person with a different (chain) point of view.

Just like the only possible reason why people could presume to criticize the stock market SCAM is jealousy of Warren Buffet’s “whale-ness”.  Surely indeed, he must make your allegedly rich idol jbreher look like plankton.  All hail Buffet!

Such logic is a plutocrat’s dream.

N.b. that I have no idea how much money jbreher has, your post is the first allegation that I have seen of him being a “whale”—and I couldn’t care less.

The levels of unneeded zealotry here are starting to trigger my usually not very sensitive bs sensor.
I can be in bitcoin without giving a second thought to bitcoin cash and it's derivative.

If it looks like a bcasher, and spins like a bcasher...  ok, I should probably stop wasting my time here.

(No, Jay, I myself don’t “sing kumbaya”.)

Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).

There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

If a depository offers a paper certificate redeemable for an ounce of gold, how is that a risk to gold?  Moreover, there exist blockchains offering tokens that (promise to) represent ownership of gold.  That’s wrapped gold.  Should goldbugs be worried?

Accepting that is a risk to you, in the sense of “not your keys coins, not your coins”.  Arguably, it may be a useful tradeoff in some situations.  I don’t see how some people making that tradeoff affects other people who hold their own gold coins, insofar as a theft by the depository would be just another more or less big gold theft.  Am I missing something?

I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supply—all held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.


Insertion between the above and below:

right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?

Versus how much held in centralized exchanges?

(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc.  The offer stands.)

Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path...

I am not so naïve to expect any non-negligible chance of that; but I thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.

(I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays)

I would be interested to know the original source.  Is it Vays, or someone else?  I saw that in qwk’s personal text.

I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....

I have observed many people mistake it as if Emerson were criticizing consistency as such—as if inconsistency and self-contradiction were good.  Usually, the misquote without the “foolish” qualifier is presented to rationalize some bout of neophilia, or self-contradictory postmodernism, or divers other pseudointellectual navel-gazing.  I should know that you’re smarter than that—but you should know that on the Internet, so many readers are not!

Damn, I wanted to reply to one of your earlier posts, among others.  You keep writing; I keep getting further behind—may need to pick it up later.

[Toxic2040]

[Biodom]

Am I missing something?

I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supply—all held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.

Pretty much everything.
Wrapped bitcoin is a ERC-20 token and "lives" on "their" platform, not their token on "ours".
BTW, it is trading at exact same price as btc, but you can do 'tricks' with it on de-fi.
Those who have the widest platform...
I fear for such ignorance/superiority complex to continue forth unabated.
While btc was the first and I have a great majority of my "crypto" funds committed to it does not mean that I shall ignore the threats to it's dominance.
THAT would be foolish.

[JayJuanGee]

Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).

There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?

If someone has not already started a thread on the topic, then maybe you should/  Or maybe someone reading this will be inspired to start such a thread and to outline the multiple reasons why such a threat to BTC exists.

It seems a bit off topic here, but maybe you believe that the threat is the "flippening?"  BTC is not secure because they are all being sent to WBTC managers?  Currently, $20 Billion is about 10% of BTC's supply..  so that could be a threat to BTC, right?  According to you, right?    So if they have 10%, then they would have 2.1 million BTC (or 1.8 million BTC) that they could dump, right?

I do understand that fractional reserve of bitcoin is a kind of threat to bitcoin, but it also seems that if we get all worked up about speculative threats, then aren't we just FUDding?

There are threads about Tether threats, and there are threads about fractional reserve and there are threads about mining centralization... and there are threads about the rising number of stable coins, so we can combine these various FUD threats and make our lil selfies really scared, right?

Whatchagonna do?  Sell your BTC?  Buy less BTC?  Don't fight the ETHheads and the DEFI nutjobs, and join them - by buying eth and some of the other various shit-tokens that are currently blowing up in the space?

Is this FOMO coming from you, Biodom about missing out on the 2020 versions of the 2017 ICOs and the other creative ways of attacking bitcoin or deluding the whole crypto space?  And you believe that bitcoin gives any shits or is going to be fundamentally damaged by the various baloney schemes that are out there?  yes, some people are going to give up their BTC for nonsense, and even some exchanges such as coinbase (and perhaps some others) are going to wrap themselves balls deep into various scam projects, and coinbase is not bitcoin, even if they might get themselves and their BTC holdings into trouble by engaging in ongoing reckless and scamming and scheming behaviors, maybe even being endorsed by banks and by governments?  Who fucking cares?  They are all getting desperate to attack bitcoin, so sure, whatchagonna do?  BTC price is going down?  you going to sell?  Good luck.   

I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?

Seems to me that you are exaggerating the purported threat.  We have been told about a lot of threats over the years, and you believe that this particular purported threat has some kind of greater import because you happen to be concerned about it at the moment (more concerned than you are about BIG blocker propaganda because this particular threat is a "current" threat?)

[Biodom]

we shall see, not selling anything, only buying.

[nullius]

Am I missing something?

Pretty much everything.
Wrapped bitcoin is a ERC-20 token and "lives" on "their" platform, not their token on "ours".

I have not looked into WBTC.  Does it claim to be 1:1 redeemable for actual bitcoins?  If so, I really don’t see a problem (except perhaps for the people who trust that claim).

BTW, it is trading at exact same price as btc, but you can do 'tricks' with it on de-fi.

So...?  At some point, if it claims to be 1:1 redeemable, the wrappers need to be able to unwrap it.  Meaning that they need to have actual bitcoins.(*)  Otherwise, the holders of the wrapped stuff are left with empty bags—and that is pretty much just their problem.  If (if) the backing is honoured with real Bitcoin, I don’t see any problem with that at all.

(* Another subject that I recently began to write about, and did not yet finish:  Fractional reserve banking is mathematically impossible with Bitcoin.  Because fractional reserve banking is not what most people think it is—it is worse—it creates money out of thin air, whereas it is impossible to loan new bitcoins into existence out of nowhere.)

It runs on a different blockchain, so it also doesn’t have the dangers of various sidechain proposals that could interfere directly with the security of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Those who have the widest platform...

That is Bitcoin.

Defi generates much hype; but contrary thereto, it is not actually taking over the world anytime soon.

I fear for such ignorance/superiority complex to continue forth unabated.

I am not defending WBTC.  I just don’t see how it significantly threatens Bitcoin; and you have not proposed any way it can.

So what if people issue instruments based on Bitcoin?  It is bound to happen; and it’s not necessarily a bad idea.  (I myself have had other, very different ideas for Bitcoin-backed instruments.)  At the bottom line, either the bitcoins are there, or they aren’t.  That is a matter of counterparty risk, which falls on the people who trust the counterparties.

[bitebits]

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1306636046948610049

We acquired 21,454 BTC via 78,388 off-chain transactions, then secured it in cold storage with 18 on-chain transactions.  #Bitcoin scales just fine as a store of value.

[Biodom]

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1306636046948610049

We acquired 21,454 BTC via 78,388 off-chain transactions, then secured it in cold storage with 18 on-chain transactions.  #Bitcoin scales just fine as a store of value.

Fine, paid a lot of fees to miners (good boy)...honestly, I don't see a need to make 78K tx to get "just" 21K btc.
That's just being a bit severely paranoid. Why not buy some otc in chunks?

[nullius]

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1306636046948610049

We acquired 21,454 BTC via 78,388 off-chain transactions, then secured it in cold storage with 18 on-chain transactions.  #Bitcoin scales just fine as a store of value.

Fine, paid a lot of fees to miners (good boy)...honestly, I don't see a need to make 78K tx to get "just" 21K btc.
That's just being a bit severely paranoid. Why not buy some otc in chunks?

Did you not notice the “off-chain” part?  Ridiculous...

He paid fees for 18 on-chain transactions to miners.  Smart man.  He made ≈4355 Bitcoin transactions per tx that actually paid miner fees!

Off-chain transacting is the way of the future—the global public ledger is for secure synchronization of off-chain protocols.

Admittedly, I may be mixing issues and making too many assumptions there.  “Off-chain” could mean on a centralized exchange.  It could also mean Lightning Network, which is what I meant by “the way of the future”.  Or it could mean any number of other things.  (Just thinking aloud, perhaps he scooped up a bunch of WBTC, then redeemed it—LOL, that would also be “off-chain” in this context.)

[JayJuanGee]

Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).

There is no such thing as WBTC....

I mean that WBTC is not BTC...  So don't get fooled by what they are calling it.  It is a fucking token.  

So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.

Just for clarification, this is how it works.

You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher.  What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?

You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.  

If a depository offers a paper certificate redeemable for an ounce of gold, how is that a risk to gold?  Moreover, there exist blockchains offering tokens that (promise to) represent ownership of gold.  That’s wrapped gold.  Should goldbugs be worried?

Accepting that is a risk to you, in the sense of “not your keys coins, not your coins”.  Arguably, it may be a useful tradeoff in some situations.  I don’t see how some people making that tradeoff affects other people who hold their own gold coins, insofar as a theft by the depository would be just another more or less big gold theft.  Am I missing something?

I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supply—all held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.

Sure Biodom seems to identify a kind of fractional reserve threat to bitcoin, but he seems to be also suggesting that WBTC is winning over BTC because it has functionality that regular grandpa BTC does not happen to have.

Therefore, since WBTC is so much more versitile, it is going to attract all of the value and cause grandpa BTC to lose its value because it is not as good.

In essence, Bitcoin 2.0 is actually coming, and it happens to have  a W in front of it...  

Sucks to be on grandpa BTC and all that we happen to have is actual security of our coin.  sure wished that i were on a smoke and mirror scam project to hold my value rather than being on too much hashing power and cannot do anything fancy grandpa coin.  

Insertion between the above and below:

right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?

Versus how much held in centralized exchanges?

There are a variety of fucktwat centralized holders of BTC that may or may not attempt to manipulate BTC in a variety of ways..

Will it work this time, though?   And, sure wrapped BTC is one of them.. and sure any one of them (or in unison) could either fail, exit scam or attack the BTC network by dumping.  So sure, these attack vectors existed previously, and there is another one.  What is going to happen?  I am so scared that I am going to HODL even harder.  

(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc.  The offer stands.)

Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path...

I am not so naïve to expect any non-negligible chance of that; but I thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.

Sure.  It does not hurt to have the offer out there.  You cheap bastard.

 

I know it is meant to be symbolic rather than any item of considerable value.

(I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays)

I would be interested to know the original source.  Is it Vays, or someone else?  I saw that in qwk’s personal text.

Probably Tone did not originate the expression.. but I had heard an interview today on the Swan Signal podcast in which Max Keiser and Tone Vays were being interviewed (It's an hour and 20 minutes), and at some point in the interview - maybe in the middle?  i cannot recall the exact location of the interview, Tone Vays said that he was wearing a Tshirt or something like that, and it said shitcoin minimalist.. that is if I recall the context correctly.. I was doing something else while I listened to the podcast, so I may have misremembered.. but that was what I had recalled Tone saying at some point.

Here's the link if you are interested in listening to that interview.  It is an interesting interview because they are talking about the Microstrategy acquisition and a variety of other sound money ideas, and I also had appreciated that Max Keiser is much more bullish that Tone Vays.. and Vays still has some conservative estimations of where he expects the bitcoin price to go in the next year or two...... yet during the interview Tone was able to admit that 2019 was "rough" for him and he was "wrong" quite a bit in 2019.... hahahaaha.. Tone does not really concede as much as i would like regarding how wrong he was, and even though Tone is a bit bearish sometimes, i don't really have major problems with him, even though from time to time I would like to strangle him for his sometimes bearish BTC predictions.

I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....

I have observed many people mistake it as if Emerson were criticizing consistency as such—as if inconsistency and self-contradiction were good.  Usually, the misquote without the “foolish” qualifier is presented to rationalize some bout of neophilia, or self-contradictory postmodernism, or divers other pseudointellectual navel-gazing.  I should know that you’re smarter than that—but you should know that on the Internet, so many readers are not!

Ok.  Fair enough.  I probably should have put the "foolish" part in my quote just to make it more clear about what I was bringing up... even though I probably was not really getting into that deep of a level of analysis, even though I can now see why you would be a bit perturbed by the whole thing... because I can see how values go all over the place, and surely I have been guilty from time to time (and maybe I still am sometimes) in terms of NOT really appreciating the meaning of the quote that I am using or getting wrong the thing that I am attempting to say.

Damn, I wanted to reply to one of your earlier posts, among others.  You keep writing; I keep getting further behind—may need to pick it up later.

NO problema.  Sometimes I have found that I put a post to the side (try to remind myself that I am going to get to it), and i continue to think about responding to such set-aside post, but somehow topics move on and move on and at some point, I may no longer be interested in such topic... but surely, sometimes there might be a topic that might linger along in the back of my thinking (with a reminder, perhaps?) for a while longer, and I keep thinking about such topic, and at some point such topic needs to be addressed.

I will brace myself for if such reply happens or if such reply does NOT happen...

A slogan that is frequently repeated in bitcoinlandia (especially by me):  "gotta prepare for either way..."    

[Paashaas]

Clearly, we’re at the start of another giant wave up. Since just 2011, bitcoin is up 11,000,000%. Yes, 110,000x

Now we’re on our way to $200,000 per coin. We know the disinflationary supply schedule every 4 years, so we know the cycles

It’s math, it’s science, it’s truth.

           
https://twitter.com/RiggsBTC/status/1306430215984484352   

[Paashaas]

Bakkt volume made another ATH.

[Paashaas]

Domain Registration Service NameCheap Now Accepts Bitcoin Via BTCPay.

The Los Angeles-based domain registrar service Namecheap on September 17th announced that it will be supporting Bitcoin payments made through BTCPay, an open-source, self-hosted cryptocurrency payment processor focused on security, privacy, and censorship-resistance. Namecheap's decision to integrate BTCPay comes after a number of the service's customers said they preferred that payment processor over its competitor BitPay, which Namecheap has long supported.

[FullNode]

I want to print and hang it on my room.

Here you have a link to the Hat Gallery in a larger size, place the cursor over the image and click on it, you will have the gallery in large format.

https://i.imgur.com/Y2EKCiH.png

I hope it is useful to you, I cannot make it bigger without losing quality.


edit: updated www.wohats.com philipma1957

Good size for a poster with all the hats, one day I hope to have one in my avatar.

[JayJuanGee]

we shall see, not selling anything, only buying.

Well, at least, on a personal level, you have not been shaken that far into SCARED status.

On the other hand, the way you express your worry, you might need to reallocate a bit into one of those other projects if you think that they are so wonderful in terms of potentially flippening bitcoin or whatever it is that you think might be so great about WBTC that is supposedly providing a greater threat (greater competition) in order that BIG blocker nonsense like jbreher pales in comparison (from your kumbaya-singing wannabe perspective).

Fractional reserve banking is mathematically impossible with Bitcoin.  Because fractional reserve banking is not what most people think it is—it is worse—it creates money out of thin air, whereas it is impossible to loan new bitcoins into existence out of nowhere.)

You know better than that nullius (or at least your way of framing the matter does not really represent the difference between what is possible and what custodians are likely to do, even complicit with governments, banks or whatever).

As the vast majority of us likely appreciate, when a third party holds bitcoin, they can act like (on their internal books) they have more bitcoin than they have.  There are all kinds of examples of third parties engaging in such behaviors, and surely we know about the ones who have gotten caught (and we likely do not know about the ones who have not gotten caught).

So they can do the deed.. they can fractional reserve... Can they get away with it, might be another question.

Sure, when push comes to shove, if the bitcoins that are held by the third party are claimed by those who believe that they own such bitcoins and the third party does not have possession of such bitcoin that they claim to have, then such third party could be fucked if they still have to give the bitcoin's to the proclaimed owner.  On the other hand, we do not know if the law is going to be on the side of the rightful owner because many states (and other governments) grant such ownership rights to third parties (banks) to be able to engage in such fractional reserves.. and bitcoin exchanges are frequently less than regulated in terms of the rules of bitcoin...

So who's side is the law going to be on?  Poor lil johnnie?  Or fat cat bank (exchange)? -

So, sure the people who entrusted their bitcoin to such third parties could be the ones who end up getting fucked, rather than the exchange (fat cat banker).

And, sure part of the power of bitcoin is to be able to demand immediate custody of bitcoin, and it is quite possible and practical, in bitcoin, to be able to obtain quick and easy delivery of such custodial bitcoin.  The third party custodian cannot convincingly proclaim that the transaction of the bitcoin is in process for several days and the security guards and large ass trucks trucks are getting in position to deliver, blah blah blah, logistics, blah blah blah..

Within seconds the proclaimed owner can receive custody, so long as the custodian is going to agree to send such bitcoins... and such proclaimed owner is going to be a dumby if he creates relationships with third-party custodians who are not actually holding a sufficient quantity of coins to cover those requests for immediate delivery of such coins.

Anyhow, I agree with you, nullius, that attempting to engage in fractional reserve banking could be much more problematic for the third-party custodians who engage in such fractional reserve because delivery and verified authenticity is much easier than other asset classes, and perhaps actual BTC owners are going to realize that they cannot trust certain third parties to hold their coins, so BTC HODLers will choose to either hold the coins themselves or find a third-party custodian that they can trust (and or verify that they are holding such coins and that the owner can get custody upon demand).

Admittedly, I may be mixing issues and making too many assumptions there.  “Off-chain” could mean on a centralized exchange.  

I am thinking that Michael Saylor purchased the Bitcoins on exchanges, too, which does seem a bit strange, but as long as it worked for him, then so be it.  Saylor and company got their coins, and they seem to be happy with the quantity of coins that they got for the price that they paid for them, as far as I could tell from the Pomp interview with Saylor, too.

In today's podcast (which would be yesterday, now) Guy Swann, from the bitcoin audible podcast, said that he would be interviewing Saylor "tomorrow," which would actually mean that such podcast should be released later today.

Swann's interview with Saylor is likely that Saylor will say quite a few similar things that he already had said on the Pompliano podcast from a couple of days ago... perhaps a few new developments or things that Saylor might be willing to disclose at this time.  Perhaps?

I plan to listen to such podcast once it releases because Guy Swann is a pretty smart and interesting guy too (Not that Pompliano is not smart and interesting).