They might begin bitcoin mining death spiral fud again after this news

[bbc.reporter]

Similar to what I have predicted, it has begun. I have an additional prediction, they will use what is written in this article to spread another type of fud that will question bitcoin's high price and high market capitalization.

There will also be the developers and influencers from the Ethereum and the Solana community who will take advantage of this and they will tell everyone why Ethereum or Solana is not no.1 in market capitalization because their blockchain has more economic activity.



Bitcoin's 'Mempool' Nearly Empty as Prices Trade Near Lifetime Highs

The Bitcoin blockchain lacks meaningful on-chain activity, even as its native token, bitcoin BTC, trades near a record per-unit price. That's according to mempool – a holding area for unconfirmed blockchain transactions waiting to be included in a block by miners.

"Bitcoin's mempool (queue of transactions waiting to be processed) is almost completely empty. The percentage of miner revenue coming from fees (instead of inflation) is down to a fraction of a percent," Joël Valenzuela, director of marketing and business development, said on X.

"Simply put, almost all of Bitcoin's actual users have gone away. At all-time price highs, too!" Valenzuela added, calling the situation a major crisis where the network goes bankrupt or becomes "completely custodial asset run by governments and institutions."

Read in full https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoins-mempool-nearly-empty-prices-135525397.html

[adaseb]

Oh man another China fud article. I remember back in 2013 or 2014 when China banned bitcoin and it caused a huge stir in the market.

I honestly didn’t think you were allowed to mine in China for the last few years. That last hashrate drop we had was due to China cracking down on mining. I remember people were mining in the jungle outside or China because it was still profitable at the time.

[shinratensei_]

Oh man another China fud article. I remember back in 2013 or 2014 when China banned bitcoin and it caused a huge stir in the market.

I honestly didn’t think you were allowed to mine in China for the last few years. That last hashrate drop we had was due to China cracking down on mining. I remember people were mining in the jungle outside or China because it was still profitable at the time.

These kind of article comes out once in a while and yes I also think the same, I thought mining was banned in china and people were already migrating but as it turns out china still contribute about 7% hashrate which honestly I think it's better than in 2021 where they got 65% hashrate and can pose risk.
It's looking a lot more decentralized now.

[nutildah]

"Simply put, almost all of Bitcoin's actual users have gone away. At all-time price highs, too!" Valenzuela added, calling the situation a major crisis where the network goes bankrupt or becomes "completely custodial asset run by governments and institutions."[/i]

Personally speaking, I'm pretty happy with the low fee situation and shift in trading to ETFs and retail investments. Takes the pressure off-chain, albeit while simultaneously defeating the entire purpose of BTC, which is to have control over your own money.

However, its never been up to me what people decide to do with Bitcoin, and I can't control it. All I know is I would rather pay low fees than high fees.

BTW it will never become a "complete custodial asset," that's ridiculous.

[pooya87]

They usually start the "mining death spiral" FUD when there is a drop in the market because they want to contribute to the panic sell and push the price down and fill their own shorts. At the time being the price has been staying above $100k strong resistance and doesn't show any signs of wanting to drop. So I don't see any reason for that FUD to be started without a price drop taking place first.

[Satofan44]

Similar to what I have predicted, it has begun. I have an additional prediction, they will use what is written in this article to spread another type of fud that will question bitcoin's high price and high market capitalization.

There will also be the developers and influencers from the Ethereum and the Solana community who will take advantage of this and they will tell everyone why Ethereum or Solana is not no.1 in market capitalization because their blockchain has more economic activity.

The fees are very low and mempools are empty across all blockchains right now. This is after you include for the fact that there are countless bots doing fake activities on blockchains like Solana and ETH, Therefore, the situation on the other side of the fence is much worse.   This is just very low level FUD, anyone with a working brain will ignore it. It is quite intellectually boring to be honest.

[d5000]

There's absolutely nothing to worry about. Simply zoom out to see the whole picture and expose the FUD:


Source: Bitinfocharts

We see that we have more transactions (~400k per day) than at any time in history, with the exception of the Ordinals/BRC-20 wave in 2023/24. Even if you look at the "all time" graph here nothing changes, there were only two very short spikes in 2017 and 2019 where the amount of transactions came close to 400k too. But in 2020-22, most of the time there were less than 300k.

It's possible that Bitcoin's user growth rate doesn't fully translate into the growth rate of transactions, even if we look at second layers (Lightning activity continues to be slightly declining). And that would hint that indeed the share of "custodial" transactions is growing. Well, there's some work to be done for the community to install the "not your keys not your coins" principle in bigger user groups.

[Satofan44]

We see that we have more transactions (~400k per day) than at any time in history, with the exception of the Ordinals/BRC-20 wave in 2023/24. Even if you look at the "all time" graph here nothing changes, there were only two very short spikes in 2017 and 2019 where the amount of transactions came close to 400k too. But in 2020-22, most of the time there were less than 300k.

Good chart and good data.

It's possible that Bitcoin's user growth rate doesn't fully translate into the growth rate of transactions, even if we look at second layers (Lightning activity continues to be slightly declining). And that would hint that indeed the share of "custodial" transactions is growing. Well, there's some work to be done for the community to install the "not your keys not your coins" principle in bigger user groups.

The concept of money is foreign to most people, and it is even harder to understand the concept of hard money. Even if one is not able to fully understand the reasons why, one can at least remember some facts and consequences that come from money hardness. Given that Bitcoin is the hardest money to have ever existed, and nothing else comes even close to it, there is good reason not to use it actively. Superficial understanding of economics and money leads people to repeat the false notion that frequently using something is required for it to have high utility. This is wrong in several cases. Why would I actively transact with my Bitcoin, risk my wallet's security, privacy and create more inconvenience for myself (e.g., if you always rebuy after spending) when I still have dirty fiat left? Spend the bad money, keep the good (hard) money.  

Bad money drives hard money out of circulation, it is actually the original law of HODL.  

[d5000]

there is good reason not to use it actively

From an individual perspective I agree that there seems to be no direct incentive to use Bitcoin for purchases, and Gresham's law is indeed probably an impedement for Satoshi's "P2P cash" vision. This is also probably the core problem which makes Lightning stagnate. People hoard. But that doesn't mean they will HODL. I see currently more of a "hoard and sell" or "ride the waves" pattern.

The question "if it's good for Bitcoin if Bitcoin is only used as a store of value" is more complex though. If the "Bitcoin standard" should become true at any time, i.e. the "Bitcoin replacing fiat" or even "Bitcoin as an anchor for a new kind of money" concept, then Bitcoin would eventually have to gain share against fiat also in the payment market. The economy would need other means to grow than the pressure on customers to get rid of their money.

You could say "that doesn't matter, Bitcoin works well as a store of value only!". It can grow also still a bit driven by this idea, for sure. It can take a more substantial part of gold's market for example. The problem is: I believe the Bitcoin standard vision is the main reason why Bitcoin's price is so high even with such a low adoption on the payment market. This means that the bullish trend gets more stale over several years, and people begin to believe the Bitcoin standard vision has failed, Bitcoin is outcompeted by other assets again, Bitcoin's price will eventually probably fall very low -- and perhaps become much more niche than many would like here.

There are more objections to the notion of "not using Bitcoin for payments". One is that the Bitcoin+L2 transaction cost is potentially smaller than fiat's, because you don't need intermediaries apart from miners. Credit and debit card payments are expensive, because the merchants have to add a percentage to their price to be able to pay the fees. And thus, it could be argued that Bitcoin could outcompete fiat for low transaction cost. Of course only in a "L2 driven world".

Also Bitcoin has more advantages, like being censorship resistant. Nobody needs permission to use Bitcoin. IMO this advantage is bigger and more unique than the "hard money" notion.

To return a bit on topic: I guess a healthy growth of BTC even by the popularization of the "not your keys not your coins" principle alone (i.e. without more "P2P cash" adoption) should result eventually in fuller blocks again, just because you need block capacity to store your BTC on your own wallet. Thus if we don't see fuller blocks and Bitcoin is at $200k+, then I would be beginning to worry about centralization.

[Satofan44]

there is good reason not to use it actively

From an individual perspective I agree that there seems to be no direct incentive to use Bitcoin for purchases, and Gresham's law is indeed probably an impedement for Satoshi's "P2P cash" vision. This is also probably the core problem which makes Lightning stagnate. People hoard. But that doesn't mean they will HODL. I see currently more of a "hoard and sell" or "ride the waves" pattern.

It is also possible that Satoshi did not know about this law, at least I don't remember any posts about it. Satoshi is not a "god-like" entity that could foresee everything that is going to happen in the future. The current situation just shows just how bad fiat currencies have become. Would many people have expected this to happen if you asked them 20, 30, 40 years ago? No way. Everything else is so bad in comparison, that as long as you have any other fiat you are more likely going to use that.

While I am leaning to agree with your view that it is probably an impedement, at the same time I am skeptical. Forget about Bitcoin and P2P cash, think about places where there are multiple currencies being used. If for whatever regionally dependent reason one currency is more preferred than the other, does that invalidate the other currency as cash money? I don't think so. The world is very complex. There are places where they may even be using Bitcoin more frequently than anything else right now. Bitcoin's position as P2P cash is just going to vary wildly over time and depending on the location as the economics of the world are currently in a garbage bin, and all fiat is maximally corrupt. Furthermore, Gresham's law does not hold in extraordinary circumstances for example when a currency is experiencing hyperinflation. In that case the existence of bad (worthless) money does not drive out good money, it does the opposite.

The question "if it's good for Bitcoin if Bitcoin is only used as a store of value" is more complex though. If the "Bitcoin standard" should become true at any time, i.e. the "Bitcoin replacing fiat" or even "Bitcoin as an anchor for a new kind of money" concept, then Bitcoin would eventually have to gain share against fiat also in the payment market. The economy would need other means to grow than the pressure on customers to get rid of their money.

These examples are not equal though? Bitcoin as an anchor for a new kind of money would not create much transaction activity. Why would it? If we are talking about Bitcoin-backed money, you'd just need to acquire the amount needed to issue it and then you'd use that money for payments. What also should be remembered for this is that outsider viewers will never be able to truly tell how much activity is going on. If someone wants do to Bitcoin payments but wants to limit public exposure, then it would be better to do it via a public or private L2. A private L2 could have millions of transactions per day and we would no see any of this. Anyhow, I see that as a more preferable choice for companies or financial institutions as long as they don't need the full security of Bitcoin's L1.

You could say "that doesn't matter, Bitcoin works well as a store of value only!". It can grow also still a bit driven by this idea, for sure. It can take a more substantial part of gold's market for example. The problem is: I believe the Bitcoin standard vision is the main reason why Bitcoin's price is so high even with such a low adoption on the payment market. This means that the bullish trend gets more stale over several years, and people begin to believe the Bitcoin standard vision has failed, Bitcoin is outcompeted by other assets again, Bitcoin's price will eventually probably fall very low -- and perhaps become much more niche than many would like here.

Actually, I think most of the value that it has gained comes from its function as a store of value rather than its function as a means of exchange. At this point I'm purposely ignoring all other beautiful features from censorship resistance, decentralization, permissionless, hard limit, etc., they are obviously part of it. Think about the function as a means of exchange, cash, and why do people use the cash that they do. Is it because they want to use that? No. It is because they have no other choice but to use that so it became the status quo! Now remember the earliest Bitcoin transactions, like the large pizza purchase. That was a transaction that was done because the owner wanted to use Bitcoin for it, not because he needed to. It is an entirely different motivation behind the "P2P cash" transaction. I believe that most uses of Bitcoin especially in the early days were of this kind, and as such it can never compete with traditional cash in this arena as we are moving towards a "many means of payment" world.

There are more objections to the notion of "not using Bitcoin for payments". One is that the Bitcoin+L2 transaction cost is potentially smaller than fiat's, because you don't need intermediaries apart from miners. Credit and debit card payments are expensive, because the merchants have to add a percentage to their price to be able to pay the fees. And thus, it could be argued that Bitcoin could outcompete fiat for low transaction cost. Of course only in a "L2 driven world".

I like this view, and most intermediaries are scam operations anyway. They serve to further enrich the rich, and the world would be better off without them. That said, the problem is complex and partially related to the previous point. Under the assumption that an L2 like LN is easy to adopt, which it still is not, I can't hold on to many of the coins that I receive even if I would benefit. Sometimes the problem is of a legal nature, other times it is of a practical nature. How do I pay my suppliers if I get too much transaction volume with Bitcoin if they do not accept it? Having to convert back to fiat somewhat reduces the utility/benefit here, and some may ask himself why go through the trouble at all. It is much easier to simply accept fiat and pay my supplier in fiat and so on. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, just with a sprinkle of technological complexity.  

Also Bitcoin has more advantages, like being censorship resistant. Nobody needs permission to use Bitcoin. IMO this advantage is bigger and more unique than the "hard money" notion.

I would argue that you can't have hard money without censorship resistance anymore. If I remember correctly the usual definition of "hard money" does not require this but permisionless amplifies a hard money's core strengths. This is one thing that the altcoin folk fail to understand. A "coin" that is created by a "team", "company", "foundation" and so on can never compete directly with Bitcoin simply because its core strengths are amplified to such a high point that comparing an altcoin to Bitcoin is like comparing copper to gold.  

To return a bit on topic: I guess a healthy growth of BTC even by the popularization of the "not your keys not your coins" principle alone (i.e. without more "P2P cash" adoption) should result eventually in fuller blocks again, just because you need block capacity to store your BTC on your own wallet. Thus if we don't see fuller blocks and Bitcoin is at $200k+, then I would be beginning to worry about centralization.

I would not yet. As I said previously, it is important to look at the wider picture. Is this happening with Bitcoin only or is there a low sentiment all around crypto which is the case right now. Further, we can't use the last cycle for the sake of comparison either as that was a very unusual time. Bitcoin and altcoins were skyrocketing, everyone was home from COVID and people were consuming news all day long. Many people who would not discover crypto for countless years to come stumbled upon it and got involved. It is strongly skewing the picture of all metrics. To get a proper comparison you would have to adjust for this, but I think that would be a massive research project. For example, you'd have to account for the increased daily screen time at the very least.

[betswift]

Similar to what I have predicted, it has begun. I have an additional prediction, they will use what is written in this article to spread another type of fud that will question bitcoin's high price and high market capitalization.

There will also be the developers and influencers from the Ethereum and the Solana community who will take advantage of this and they will tell everyone why Ethereum or Solana is not no.1 in market capitalization because their blockchain has more economic activity.

The fees are very low and mempools are empty across all blockchains right now. This is after you include for the fact that there are countless bots doing fake activities on blockchains like Solana and ETH, Therefore, the situation on the other side of the fence is much worse.   This is just very low level FUD, anyone with a working brain will ignore it. It is quite intellectually boring to be honest.

Yep.

Sometimes, people do things just to get your attention, not to really "alert" you.

And, we have such "bots" even with runes and such - but still, it won't end, never - as long as these dust pieces would have some possibility to make something out of itself in the end for people that do it, with low chances even.

[d5000]

Forget about Bitcoin and P2P cash, think about places where there are multiple currencies being used. If for whatever regionally dependent reason one currency is more preferred than the other, does that invalidate the other currency as cash money? I don't think so. The world is very complex.

I agree here, and it matches my own experiences in countries where the local currency is competing with the USD as a "harder" currency. However, much depends on the type of money you actually get for your work. If you get the "hard" money directly, you may as well spend it directly if you have the opportunity. Thus, if Bitcoin really begins to circulate, the hesitance to spend it should be lower than in a scenario like now when you've to constantly re-buy BTC. This is of course a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I think if you like the idea of Bitcoin as a global currency, and have the opportunity and see good deals, you should support merchants offering the BTC payment alternative so the circulation can gradually improve.

These examples are not equal though? Bitcoin as an anchor for a new kind of money would not create much transaction activity.

While that wasn't my point here, you're of course correct that Bitcoin only as "backing" currency for some "new kind of fiat" would not generate that much onchain activity. It depends though how this is organized. If it's backed by a trusted entity, like a government or a large corporation (just like stablecoins today) then indeed the blockchain footprint should be minimal, but in a more decentralized backing scenario which is organized more like a second layer, more activity should also be recorded on the base layer.

My point was more the following idea: In the "Bitcoin bull" world, I often see very utopia-ish predictions where Bitcoin one day magically "changes state" from a speculative asset to the "world global currency". This transition would probably not happen that smoothly if current use patterns contininue to prevail (hoard and sell). All major cyclic crashes have been of more than 75% which means there was always massive profit taking, and the downside volatility decreases much less than upside volatility.

And it's possible that this bumpy ride to the Bitcoin standard will mean that this utopia will never materialize. Just a random scenario:  imagine the US buying a large stash of Bitcoins for their strategic reserve and running into a deep bear market just afterwards, followed by a government change which changes the Bitcoin policy again to restrictive, which amplifies the bear market. This would hurt the "strategic reserve" idea much more than El Salvador's meager results in their adoption, and could end the dream of a lot of Bitcoin bulls. It's a scenario with a certain likelihood, considering the current high valuation of Bitcoin.

A smoother transaction would happen if Bitcoin achieves the "world currency" status not by speculation by nation-states and companies, but by P2P cash usage, at least for international payments, larger online purchases and such stuff (not for your day to day coffee). This would boost liquidity and lower volatility in a more natural way. Currently I think the largest impedements to that "alternative utopia" is volatility and lack of hedging methods which preserve the decentralization, followed by the bad usability of L2s. There's progress but still a lot has to be done. But it doesn't hurt to promote the P2P cash idea.

I largely agree with the other points of your post, for example the chicken and egg problem for merchants and the amplification of the characteristics of "hard money" by being censorship resistant. I also agree with the multi-currency idea, I don't think Bitcoin will be the "one and only" world currency. But it could, on a global level, become something like the USD today, an alternative, harder currency, and this is more likely if the P2P cash idea thrives.

Further, we can't use the last cycle for the sake of comparison either as that was a very unusual time. Bitcoin and altcoins were skyrocketing, everyone was home from COVID and people were consuming news all day long.

This is indeed an interesting argument, but as these times are over (and they were already over in 2023/2024 when the intermediate transaction activity high was recorded), I still think if retail interest picks up again (current Google Trends values hint that this is still not the case), and then we're not seeing an increase in on-chain activity (including L2's of course), it may be time for a "not your keys, not your coins" campaign to avoid further centralization.


A point which is a bit less important for the topic but I wanted to ask anyway:

The current situation just shows just how bad fiat currencies have become. Would many people have expected this to happen if you asked them 20, 30, 40 years ago? No way. Everything else is so bad in comparison, that as long as you have any other fiat you are more likely going to use that.

What do you refer to "bad" in relation to fiat here? The inflation wave in 2022/23? Because currently, most money supply charts (e.g. M2) show a contraction or at least stagnation again, which hints that at this moment, fiat is relatively "healthy". I may agree more about the burden of debt in selected countries, but also here, not all have deteriorated, most countries in Europe for example were lowering their public debt in relation to GDP in recent years.

[Satofan44]

Forget about Bitcoin and P2P cash, think about places where there are multiple currencies being used. If for whatever regionally dependent reason one currency is more preferred than the other, does that invalidate the other currency as cash money? I don't think so. The world is very complex.

I agree here, and it matches my own experiences in countries where the local currency is competing with the USD as a "harder" currency. However, much depends on the type of money you actually get for your work. If you get the "hard" money directly, you may as well spend it directly if you have the opportunity. Thus, if Bitcoin really begins to circulate, the hesitance to spend it should be lower than in a scenario like now when you've to constantly re-buy BTC. This is of course a chicken and egg problem. And that's why I think if you like the idea of Bitcoin as a global currency, and have the opportunity and see good deals, you should support merchants offering the BTC payment alternative so the circulation can gradually improve.

Yes, I think the root here is the chicken and egg problem and the fact that Bitcoin is simply different from traditional currency than this being a real problem or deficit of Bitcoin. There is no country with millions of workers that get paid in Bitcoin because it is the only legal tender. There are only a few workplaces that maybe give you the option to receive your salary in Bitcoin, but again wherever you are you will be faced with the same problem. Why would you take your salary in Bitcoin when you have issues spending it? In most cases people would take a small amount or none at all.

These examples are not equal though? Bitcoin as an anchor for a new kind of money would not create much transaction activity.

While that wasn't my point here, you're of course correct that Bitcoin only as "backing" currency for some "new kind of fiat" would not generate that much onchain activity. It depends though how this is organized. If it's backed by a trusted entity, like a government or a large corporation (just like stablecoins today) then indeed the blockchain footprint should be minimal, but in a more decentralized backing scenario which is organized more like a second layer, more activity should also be recorded on the base layer.

My point was more the following idea: In the "Bitcoin bull" world, I often see very utopia-ish predictions where Bitcoin one day magically "changes state" from a speculative asset to the "world global currency". This transition would probably not happen that smoothly if current use patterns contininue to prevail (hoard and sell). All major cyclic crashes have been of more than 75% which means there was always massive profit taking, and the downside volatility decreases much less than upside volatility.

I agree with you, I don't think that we will see a fast transition. I personally think and expect the major crashes to continue to weaken especially now with the interest of institutional investors and treasuries. A serious treasury will not sell in the short term in hopes of chasing the bottom. They are more likely to buy more and DCA down to increase their profitability from other's panic at limited risk. The problem with massive downside volatility is that the price increases are still massive. It will take quite some time before this stabilizes completely, and I'm excited to see one cycle where it goes notably down let's say to a maximum of 50% for the first time ever!

And it's possible that this bumpy ride to the Bitcoin standard will mean that this utopia will never materialize. Just a random scenario:  imagine the US buying a large stash of Bitcoins for their strategic reserve and running into a deep bear market just afterwards, followed by a government change which changes the Bitcoin policy again to restrictive, which amplifies the bear market. This would hurt the "strategic reserve" idea much more than El Salvador's meager results in their adoption, and could end the dream of a lot of Bitcoin bulls. It's a scenario with a certain likelihood, considering the current high valuation of Bitcoin.

The risk of political shifts in a large nation state is acknowledged. It is a good point. As much as it pains me to say it, a reserve by countries with centralized and sustained leadership such as China and Russia would be safer for Bitcoin should they really commit to it. Further, a reserve is a funny thing these days. Should governments sell depending on the market behavior of the assets and try to acquire more, or should they sit tight? I would only consider it a proper reserve if it seems like a quasi permanent thing, i.e., subsequent parties don't try to sell it just because its price performance in the short term is not particularly good when there is no economic need.  

A smoother transaction would happen if Bitcoin achieves the "world currency" status not by speculation by nation-states and companies, but by P2P cash usage, at least for international payments, larger online purchases and such stuff (not for your day to day coffee). This would boost liquidity and lower volatility in a more natural way. Currently I think the largest impedements to that "alternative utopia" is volatility and lack of hedging methods which preserve the decentralization, followed by the bad usability of L2s. There's progress but still a lot has to be done. But it doesn't hurt to promote the P2P cash idea.

I think that the current laws and regulations are making this very difficult. There is too much KYC and AML going on, and I don't know whether many merchants or service providers ask for information on the source of your coins. Probably for large purchases they might. Depending on the country and regulations you may need to provide a very extensive list of documentation or history. This is completely contrary to cash up until the imposed limits by a country. You go somewhere, you spend it. That's it. No questions, no need to track any history and hope you have sufficient documentation to pass. The problem is amplified by the fact that there is no automatic refund if you are unable to provide enough information, the money may be locked for months or even years depending on the situation! Who wants to risk all of this?

I largely agree with the other points of your post, for example the chicken and egg problem for merchants and the amplification of the characteristics of "hard money" by being censorship resistant. I also agree with the multi-currency idea, I don't think Bitcoin will be the "one and only" world currency. But it could, on a global level, become something like the USD today, an alternative, harder currency, and this is more likely if the P2P cash idea thrives.

I agree.

Further, we can't use the last cycle for the sake of comparison either as that was a very unusual time. Bitcoin and altcoins were skyrocketing, everyone was home from COVID and people were consuming news all day long.

This is indeed an interesting argument, but as these times are over (and they were already over in 2023/2024 when the intermediate transaction activity high was recorded), I still think if retail interest picks up again (current Google Trends values hint that this is still not the case), and then we're not seeing an increase in on-chain activity (including L2's of course), it may be time for a "not your keys, not your coins" campaign to avoid further centralization.

I was also thinking about the price performance in this context. What is good to use for retail interest besides Google Trends is app store rankings of main exchanges. Usually during peak sentiment they start topping the charts. Currently they are nowhere to be found. For transaction activity in particular it is even more difficult to make proper comparisons and draw conclusions as it is influenced by some many social and economic factors and hype. To name two examples: For Bitcoin the ordinals and runes created a temporary and extraordinary high. For Solana the memes did. Sustained economic activity would not lead to significant reductions in on chain activity, but activity that occurred largely due to hype would. I think when running comparisons at the very least we have to somehow take into account these events.

A point which is a bit less important for the topic but I wanted to ask anyway:

The current situation just shows just how bad fiat currencies have become. Would many people have expected this to happen if you asked them 20, 30, 40 years ago? No way. Everything else is so bad in comparison, that as long as you have any other fiat you are more likely going to use that.

What do you refer to "bad" in relation to fiat here? The inflation wave in 2022/23? Because currently, most money supply charts (e.g. M2) show a contraction or at least stagnation again, which hints that at this moment, fiat is relatively "healthy". I may agree more about the burden of debt in selected countries, but also here, not all have deteriorated, most countries in Europe for example were lowering their public debt in relation to GDP in recent years.

Fiat has been very bad probably for at least 2 or 3 decades, but it was corrupted a long time ago. If you trust the very manipulated government numbers, it has lost a significant amount of value since we came off of the gold standard. The reality is much worse though. I'm ignoring this year because of Trumps policies to keep it simpler, but just before his election the USD has lost at least 50% of the value it has before the pandemic (and so have most currencies, some less others more). This is the reality, not cherry picked individual data points where it shows minor price increases or even decreases because of improvements in supply or supply chains or other reasons. For rich people that have infrastructure and connections fiat is great. Debt is cheaper to pay off, in similar ways to what Saylor is proposing. For everyone else it is a complete scam. Everything is getting significantly more expensive and wage increases usually do not keep up with this.

The real and only reason why money printing became a thing is the ability to finance wars. Before money printing, wars were constrained by the country's budget and by the amount of money that it can reasonably borrow. Now the state is able to utilize everyone's wealth to finance war. Every dollar printed is a dollar of value that is stolen from the country's population divided by the number of its people. Because it is equally divided, it hurts those that have less much more than those that have a lot. It has nothing to do with economic activity, fighting deflation or any other of that pseudo scientific bullshit that comes out of lobbied universities. There was not a single period in history that empirically proves that controlled deflation is bad and must be fought with any means necessary, a key argument of money printing proponents. The USA great depression thing is a bullshit example which had nothing to with deflation itself but was caused by a combination of many catastrophes such as bank panics. Please note my emphasis on controlled deflation, it is most probably significantly better than controlled inflation but for status quo reasons they won't even try this temporarily. You could argue that one should not gamble with the economy in this way, but they make all kinds of gambles all the time so this argument is very weak.

 My last statement here would be that inflation promotes all kind of irrational behavior, dangerous consumerism and degeneracy. We could split this into a separate thread entirely and discuss where appropriate.  

[d5000]

(sorry for the late reply, thread fell out of my watchlist so I had to search it...)

Why would you take your salary in Bitcoin when you have issues spending it?

Good point. Breaking this barrier, for me, would thus likely have to begin at the merchant's side. Above all in bear markets and early bull markets it can be an attractive option to accept Bitcoin and just hodl, instead of using payment processors (which charge fees and thus take away the advantage against credit cards). Merchants could set up promos when Bitcoin is really cheap, to capitalize from those who think Bitcoin is dead.

As you wrote, I think it would be a big milestone for BTC if we see the next bear market only losing 50% of the ATH. That could even start a kind of supercycle if people become less and less afraid to catch the falling knife. I believe though we're still not there. For the next bear I'd be glad with only 66% loss.

As much as it pains me to say it, a reserve by countries with centralized and sustained leadership such as China and Russia would be safer for Bitcoin should they really commit to it.

I'm not that sure about that. China for example shifted some policies in the recent 20 years (compare the more left-leaning and more authoritarian Xi era with previous leaderships). Dictatorships can be quite unpredictable because of the high amount of power the elite concentrates. For me, thus the kind of government isn't that important -- it's more important that the reserves are distributed among several countries/blocs.

And yeah, I agree that a reserve would have only really a positive effect (distinct from other large holdings) if it's done like in El Salvador, i.e. anti-cyclic and "permanent" in the sense to not try to take profits and speculate too much.

I don't know whether many merchants or service providers ask for information on the source of your coins. Probably for large purchases they might.

I think Bitrefill for example indeed has a limit for purchases. And in some countries you can only use bank-based methods for purchases over $10k or so. But regulations are muss less strict with merchants than with exchanges, and for example the European AML regulations only require KYC for specific businesses (like lawyers or real estate agents).

I was also thinking about the price performance in this context. What is good to use for retail interest besides Google Trends is app store rankings of main exchanges. Usually during peak sentiment they start topping the charts. Currently they are nowhere to be found.

Ah that's indeed a good metric (Could be part of a "retail interest index", might such a thing exist already?)

To measure "real" transaction activity taking out memes and that stuff it's not that difficult to filter out transactions with specific scripts, consolidations and so on. It becomes more difficult however if you want to distinguish between activity for "P2P cash" and for trading/speculation. Glassnode, Arkham and other chain analysis companies could of course measure transactions that do not go to/from exchange wallets.

A superficial search has however brought up no good metrics for retail activity. There are charts like this one based on the holdings of addresses, but they're not what I'm searching for -- and this chart in particular is even more flawed because it's quite obvious that at a Bitcoin at $100,000 the average/median address holdings will be smaller than when Bitcoin was at $1000.

My last statement here would be that inflation promotes all kind of irrational behavior, dangerous consumerism and degeneracy. We could split this into a separate thread entirely and discuss where appropriate.  

Thanks for yor explanation. In part I agree. Yeah I think that is too OT to deepen the discussion here. If you want you can open a thread about it, I'll participate in the discussion ...

[roemer]

The power that china is generating is dangerous for bitcoin overall. They are difficult to compete with and have a lot of cheap power available compared to other countries. Without tarriffs, the price of electricity is the sole issue on what country is generating the most bitcoin.

[Satofan44]

Good point. Breaking this barrier, for me, would thus likely have to begin at the merchant's side. Above all in bear markets and early bull markets it can be an attractive option to accept Bitcoin and just hodl, instead of using payment processors (which charge fees and thus take away the advantage against credit cards). Merchants could set up promos when Bitcoin is really cheap, to capitalize from those who think Bitcoin is dead.

I agree, but in practice I don't see it happening. If you think about merchants from the smallest food stands (let's not falsely assume that all of these are poor, they are not, some earn good money because of their quality or the location) over small, medium to big retailers, I think we are thinking about this too much as Bitcoiners or as investors. I'd say that fewer than 1% merchants have any considerations regarding price appreciation and are focused on every day business. It is not because they are too busy, I reject such assumptions. If anything most people are way too free these days. I'd say that combination of lacking education regarding inflation theft and ubiquitous presence of comforting material things has cemented most people into an unhealthy and passive lifestyle.

Again this goes back to the need for education. You can onboard merchants this way, you can make a difference but it must be done on a very small scale or individual basis. If it is a presentation in some big merchant conference, a few people will respond with interest from the audience but next to nobody will really look into it. Bottom-up on-boarding works much better than top-down. The issue here is that this is very slow. Each person is limited in their total lifetime capacity for on-boarding individuals, irrespective of whether you are going to do this full time or just for a period of your life (of course, the limits are different for each respective scenario).

As you wrote, I think it would be a big milestone for BTC if we see the next bear market only losing 50% of the ATH. That could even start a kind of supercycle if people become less and less afraid to catch the falling knife. I believe though we're still not there. For the next bear I'd be glad with only 66% loss.

I agree, but it depends also how high we score. If the maximum ATH ends up at $200k, a 50% loss would bring us back down to $100k. Still big but still small. Let's remember some posts where we mentioned this so we can come back to it in retrospect.

As much as it pains me to say it, a reserve by countries with centralized and sustained leadership such as China and Russia would be safer for Bitcoin should they really commit to it.

I'm not that sure about that. China for example shifted some policies in the recent 20 years (compare the more left-leaning and more authoritarian Xi era with previous leaderships). Dictatorships can be quite unpredictable because of the high amount of power the elite concentrates. For me, thus the kind of government isn't that important -- it's more important that the reserves are distributed among several countries/blocs.

I agree with you here too, my point was more a relative rather than an absolute comparison. China and similar are inconsistent, sure, but this is nothing compared to the flip flopping that happens in the USA. Remember that Biden undid basically all executive orders from Trump on day one? Compared to that, China is very consistent.

I was also thinking about the price performance in this context. What is good to use for retail interest besides Google Trends is app store rankings of main exchanges. Usually during peak sentiment they start topping the charts. Currently they are nowhere to be found.

Ah that's indeed a good metric (Could be part of a "retail interest index", might such a thing exist already?)

To measure "real" transaction activity taking out memes and that stuff it's not that difficult to filter out transactions with specific scripts, consolidations and so on. It becomes more difficult however if you want to distinguish between activity for "P2P cash" and for trading/speculation. Glassnode, Arkham and other chain analysis companies could of course measure transactions that do not go to/from exchange wallets.

A superficial search has however brought up no good metrics for retail activity. There are charts like this one based on the holdings of addresses, but they're not what I'm searching for -- and this chart in particular is even more flawed because it's quite obvious that at a Bitcoin at $100,000 the average/median address holdings will be smaller than when Bitcoin was at $1000.

There are a few things that go through my hands sometimes, but it is hard to find them afterwards. These summarize many indicators, I think the same ones but it is good to have both links to compare in case some data on one is corrupted.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/crypto-market-cycle-indicators/
https://www.coinglass.com/bull-market-peak-signals

Let me know what you think about some of them.

My last statement here would be that inflation promotes all kind of irrational behavior, dangerous consumerism and degeneracy. We could split this into a separate thread entirely and discuss where appropriate.  

Thanks for yor explanation. In part I agree. Yeah I think that is too OT to deepen the discussion here. If you want you can open a thread about it, I'll participate in the discussion ...

I'm working on a thread, but it is gonna take weeks or months to complete with my schedule. I don't have much experience writing coherent threads on topics that you could write a full book about. In any case I'll DM you once it is ready.

[BitGoba]

You have to understand that Bitcoin has many enemies. These include the owners of banks and central banks, like the Federal Reserve, who see Bitcoin as a threat to the monetary system they established, where they have a monopoly over money creation. Then there are various scammers who create their own coins and try to sell them to naive people. For example, Ethereum o had a 70% pre-mined supply, XRP 100%, and Solana, too. All these shitcoins creators and owners of these “shitcoins” dislike Bitcoin and spread stories to discourage people from learning about and researching Bitcoin, trying instead to push them toward their own shitcoins. That’s why various FUD  are created,claims about security budget, quantum computers, and many other things,to prevent people from studying Bitcoin and understanding what money really is.

[bbc.reporter]

This is a late news update. This article was written last week heheh. However, similar argument. The cryptonews media and mainstream news media has begun their new season of the mining death spiral fud.

Also, on the last death spiral mining fud, it was the news signal that everyone needed to know for bitcoin to begin pumping very fast and very vigorously to a shocking all time high where performance has very much surpassed everyone's expectations. Arthur Hayes might be proven correct. Bitcoin might pump to $250k on December.



Why Bitcoin miners say times are ‘grim’ as fee drought poses existential threat to network

What was once a bustling network is quickly turning into a graveyard of onchain activity.

Daily transaction fees on Bitcoin have plunged more than 80% since April 2024, according to an August 20 report from Galaxy Digital.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin miners, the specialised computers that dedicate themselves to securing the network, are watching their revenue plummet as transaction fees dwindle.

“It is grim for miners right now and there are no real catalysts on the horizon,” Nick Hansen, CEO of mining outlet Luxor, told DL News. “In fact, I’d say there’s mostly the opposite.”

Read in full https://www.dlnews.com/articles/markets/bitcoin-mining-suffers-grim-time-as-activity-craters/

[Satofan44]

This is a late news update. This article was written last week heheh. However, similar argument. The cryptonews media and mainstream news media has begun their new season of the mining death spiral fud.

Also, on the last death spiral mining fud, it was the news signal that everyone needed to know for bitcoin to begin pumping very fast and very vigorously to a shocking all time high where performance has very much surpassed everyone's expectations. Arthur Hayes might be proven correct. Bitcoin might pump to $250k on December.



Why Bitcoin miners say times are ‘grim’ as fee drought poses existential threat to network

What was once a bustling network is quickly turning into a graveyard of onchain activity.

Daily transaction fees on Bitcoin have plunged more than 80% since April 2024, according to an August 20 report from Galaxy Digital.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin miners, the specialised computers that dedicate themselves to securing the network, are watching their revenue plummet as transaction fees dwindle.

“It is grim for miners right now and there are no real catalysts on the horizon,” Nick Hansen, CEO of mining outlet Luxor, told DL News. “In fact, I’d say there’s mostly the opposite.”

Read in full https://www.dlnews.com/articles/markets/bitcoin-mining-suffers-grim-time-as-activity-craters/

The article is just dumb. It fails in its basics.

What’s draining the world’s largest blockchain of its activity?

Ironically, it’s the arrival of what enthusiasts craved for a while: institutions.

Correlation does not equal causation. Institutions are not draining on chain activity, that does not make sense in any scenario.

[d5000]

Well, the article is not that bad as I thought initially, although the title of course exaggerates and smells to FUD. It "gets it right" about the long-term problems of low onchain activity. While there is probably nothing to panic about, we could see indeed a hashrate decline in the next years if the BTC price increase is not high enough to compensate halvings.

I don't believe that "actively managed Bitcoin Treasuries" like the article suggests could however change anything of that situation. That "trading volume" will probably not show up on-chain very much. There would have to be millions of treasury companies to make a difference.

I guess however that the current fee situation may be close to a substantial low, we might be still influenced by the Ordinals wave which made Bitcoin's on-chain usage too expensive for most payments. Bitcoin users now know the tricks to save fees, and some have already Lightning channels or perhaps use LTC or Doge for smaller payments.

In another thread I came to the conclusion that about 80% of Bitcoin users seem to have absolutely no onchain activity, i.e. they hold everything on exchanges or custodial wallets.

So my guess is that there are two effects which could make fees increase again in the next years:

- more "real" Bitcoin users trickling in: CEX users which will embrace the "not your keys, not your coins" paradigm and change to non-custodial wallets,
- payments in Bitcoin, even only for typical "nerd stuff" like hosting and domains, ramping up a bit, because it's affordable again.

Of course that depends on sustained adoption progress.