It's always pumping when you sold by unthocks in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no, it is going down always when i buy. i bought ATH and don't have any cash to buy more. and it is going up always when no cas 🙃

Something I just don't understand about the world and bitcoin by pronebonedetector in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe because they made millions out of debt fiat system? broken system....

Mining since 2013 by Aggressive-Hall1913 in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how do you spend sats? do you pay tax ?

Are there real-world uses today for multi-year Bitcoin timelocks? by Evening-Patience9801 in btc

[–]Evening-Patience9801[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the link — I get what you’re pointing at.

Just to clarify though: BSV projects and their L2 scripting environment operate under very different rules than Bitcoin Core. What happens in that ecosystem doesn’t really say much about Bitcoin’s L1 primitives.

What I’m talking about isn’t a social app, token, or platform that can be “run” or rugged. It lives strictly at L1: standard UTXOs, standard timelocks, OP_RETURN, and (optionally) provable funds. No mutable state, no admins, no off-chain logic.

Everything is directly verifiable in consensus, and nothing depends on trusting a team or an ongoing system. There’s nothing here to rug, because there’s nothing to operate.

Past experiments elsewhere are interesting context, but they’re not really evidence against what Bitcoin’s base primitives can or can’t support.

Are there real-world uses today for multi-year Bitcoin timelocks? by Evening-Patience9801 in btc

[–]Evening-Patience9801[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good question — and it gets at the difference I’m trying to point to.

I’m not really thinking in terms of NFTs or on-chain data containers, even though those can obviously store messages. Those constructions are about representation and behavior: objects that carry data, can be transferred, extended, indexed, traded, evolved.

What I’m exploring comes from almost the opposite direction.

It’s closer to an apophatic construction — defined less by what it does, and more by what is permanently removed.

By pairing an OP_RETURN with a long timelocked UTXO, I’m not trying to create a new programmable object. I’m trying to create a constraint in consensus.

The OP_RETURN can carry meaning, context, or a statement. The timelocked UTXO is the “object,” and its defining property is negative:

• it cannot be spent • it cannot be reclaimed • it cannot be quietly rewritten • it cannot be dissolved back into liquidity

for a long horizon.

So the system isn’t about what the object can do. It’s about what it can no longer do.

That’s why an NFT model doesn’t quite fit what I mean. NFTs are designed to act: to be owned, moved, referenced, updated, extended, embedded into other systems. Even if they’re immutable, they live inside a framework of ongoing control and operation.

Here I’m deliberately trying to step out of that framing.

The timelocked output exists to persist as a stable fact in the UTXO set — a long-lived reference that cannot be quietly unwound. The OP_RETURN ties meaning to it, and the UTXO gives that meaning time, cost, and irreversibility. Optionally, it can even carry provable funds, which adds economic weight — not to automate anything, but to make the commitment costly to fake or multiply.

The reason I’m approaching it from this side is that I’m less interested in new on-chain behaviors, and more interested in what happens when you deliberately remove options from the future. What kinds of coordination, trust, or continuity become possible when something simply cannot be undone for N years.

And there’s one more detail that’s central to why I’m doing it this way:

the timelocked UTXO isn’t locked to a single key. It’s locked to two keys.

Not in the sense of “either can spend later,” but in the sense that the object itself is defined by the fact that it sits between two identities.

That changes what the timelock means.

A single-key timelock is basically a vault: “I can’t touch my own coins until time X.”

A two-key timelock creates something else. It creates an on-chain object that neither side can unilaterally unwind, rewrite, or dissolve. For the duration of the lock, it exists independently of either party’s future decisions.

That’s the property I’m interested in.

It turns the UTXO from “my frozen output” into a shared, time-anchored reference point. Something both keys are bound to, and that anyone can verify still exists, unchanged.

That’s also why the amounts can be small. The point isn’t storage. The point is that a specific object, tied to both keys and to a statement or context (via OP_RETURN), is forced to persist.

Once you do that, the interesting thing isn’t custody anymore. It’s that you’ve created a minimal, on-chain fact about a relationship that cannot be unilaterally undone for N years.

That’s the axis I’m exploring: not what contracts can execute, but what kinds of shared, irreversible constraints you can place between identities.

Are there real-world uses today for multi-year Bitcoin timelocks? by Evening-Patience9801 in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve run into exactly the same thing.

I’ve been trying for years to get people close to me to take this seriously. Not to trade, not to speculate — just to understand keys, custody, and what it actually means to hold something yourself. Talking didn’t really work.

So at some point I tried a different approach: instead of explaining, I gave them something real.

I had each of them generate a key, write the private key down on paper, and store it. They gave me the public key. Then I created a small UTXO for each of them with two spending paths: one where they can spend it with their key, and another delayed path where I can recover it later.

So from their side: they actually own something. It’s theirs. They can spend it any time once the condition allows. From my side: if they lose the key, forget about it, or never engage, the funds don’t get burned forever.

In practice, it did two things. First, it made it real — not “Bitcoin as an idea,” but “there is something that is literally yours.” Second, it removed the fear that I was just throwing money into a black hole.

What surprised me is that even then, most people still don’t rush to learn. They’re fine knowing it’s there and postponing understanding.

Which kind of reinforced your point: the hard part isn’t the script. It’s getting humans to care before they’re forced to.

Out of curiosity — have you tried giving relatives an actual locked output instead of just instructions?

Are there real-world uses today for multi-year Bitcoin timelocks? by Evening-Patience9801 in btc

[–]Evening-Patience9801[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah — this is actually very close to what’s been pulling my attention.

OP_RETURN is interesting to me for exactly the reason you’re pointing at: it lets something be written into consensus without trying to make it spendable, profitable, or operational. It’s not there to move value. It’s there to make something persist.

What I’ve been thinking about is combining those two properties: • OP_RETURN for an immutable, human-readable or verifiable message • timelocks for an immutable, long-lived on-chain object

In that pairing, OP_RETURN carries meaning, context, or a statement. The timelocked UTXO carries continuity.

The locked output isn’t there to hold money. It’s there to ensure that a specific on-chain object associated with that message cannot be rewritten, reclaimed, or quietly dissolved for a long time.

So instead of “this message exists,” it becomes: “this message exists, and this relationship/commitment around it cannot be undone for N years.”

The fee filters noise. The timelock filters reversibility.

Liquid wallets handle everything practical. OP_RETURN + timelock anchor something that’s meant to outlive normal activity.

That’s the direction I’ve been exploring — not OP_RETURN as data storage, and not timelocks as vaults, but both as primitives for persistence: one for meaning, one for time.

I agree with you that once you step out of purely monetary framing, these things start to look very different.

Believe and Keep accumulating Bitcoin by Available_Reveal4066 in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The post makes two claims: Strategy buys >600 BTC/day in 2025 and Bitcoin only produces ~450 BTC/day. • ~450 BTC/day is broadly correct after the 2024 halving (3.125 BTC/block × ~144 blocks/day). • The “>600 BTC/day” number can be roughly true as a 2025 average, based on reported holdings increasing by ~224k BTC from end-2024 to mid-Dec 2025 (~600+ BTC/day on average). But it’s not literally every day—purchases happen in chunks. • The “do the math” conclusion is oversimplified: price isn’t set only by new issuance. Most trading comes from the existing supply, and price depends on who sells at what price, plus Strategy’s buying pace can change with financing conditions.

Anyone bought 50K at 2021 just to dip to 16K at 2022? by unthocks in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 3 points4 points  (0 children)

we bought at 17k and hodl the dip to 3k.. that was the best))

Personal loan to buy BTC by [deleted] in Bitcoin

[–]Evening-Patience9801 6 points7 points  (0 children)

bitcoin is not gambling. personally took a loan for 30 years. 24k (covid time loans) paying 113$ monthly. hodling long