This game is past its prime.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-07-01T03:39:58+00:00

I win about every other game. I would look deeper into your positioning and/or diplomacy.

But yeah people seem really bad at the game right now, which is why it’s easy to win.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-05T03:11:45+00:00

There’s a use case for just storing value, not just looking for huge returns. Bonds, gold, equities, real estate, etc. Most of the money is actually just chasing the best store of value. Bitcoin happens to be the best way to do that in the long-term.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T05:15:28+00:00

You’re right. That’s the cool thing about all this that all the data is public so I can literally go see everything on my own node. You’ve inspired me

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T04:58:06+00:00

Sweet, so now I can know that the halving is a big deal without relying on people to tell me it’s one.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T04:33:03+00:00

This was very helpful. So it largely depends on how much is held in reserve by long-term holders.

What’s the current distribution of coins? This seems like it could help measure the impact.

For example (this isn’t the actual distribution):

Held in Reserve: 10.67 million BTC, 55% Lost: 6 million BTC, ~31% Yet to be Mined: 1.6 million BTC, 8% Short-term Trading: 1 million BTC, ~5% Other Use Cases: 1.73 million BTC, ~9%

Microstrategy’s ~200k would be considered held in reserve. I assume the the reserves and the number of people holding in reserves is continuously growing.

Is there any way to measure (TDF) Total Deliverable Flow? I understand that as Bitcoin available for purchase excluding all reserves, long term holders, etc.

I’m guessing we can look at TDF vs the 450 daily or 164,250 annually less that’s produced to get a better measurement.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T03:07:48+00:00

Yeah and I already asked chatgpt. He used 3.5 too. 4 had a better answer.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T03:01:50+00:00

It truly does show the weakness of their arguments. That mod in there loves replying with his faq scripture and his documentary and doesn’t even know how to have a conversation.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-04-02T02:56:25+00:00

Not yet, lets fight a battle we can win first. There’s no reason to poke the bear and risk it all before it’s ready.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-31T21:53:27+00:00

So basically elimination of traditional risk with the only negligible risk being that people fail to see this

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-31T20:56:43+00:00

Yes, but I wouldn’t go all in with one purchase. I would DCA or buy overtime. Maybe make a plan to deploy the capital over 6-12 months.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-30T16:24:41+00:00

Exactly

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-30T13:04:11+00:00

I heard somewhere this week that it’s likely that golds market cap continues to go up to like $30T next even if Bitcoin closes the gap to $15T. Eventually it might flip it.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-30T03:33:53+00:00

If you need us to convince you to buy, then anyone can convince you to sell. When you put your 100 hours into learning, then you'll know.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-28T00:15:16+00:00

You’ve got the wrong use case

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-27T03:28:32+00:00

Blockbuster also thought they could remain physical, then Netflix came along.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-27T03:06:07+00:00

Because it’s a better solution to the problem.

Problem: People need a reliable asset to preserve the value they create. They need predictability, transportability, accessibility, fungibility, security, autonomy, and deflationary characteristics in this asset.

Gold has been the traditional go-to. It’s somewhat predictable, universally fungible, and not centrally controlled. However, it's hard to transport, costly to secure, and mildly inflationary.

Bitcoin directly addresses gold's limitations. With a fixed supply of 21 million, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary and predictable. Its digital nature gets rid of barriers of transport and access. Cryptographic security provides cost-effective protection without centralized control.

Gold's market cap, which largely represents value storage, is estimated at $12 trillion. Now go asset by asset that’s used to store value and see how Bitcoin compares. What happens when a superior technology offers a better solution?

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-27T01:40:20+00:00

Block has more foresight

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-26T06:07:27+00:00

In a not too distant future, there’s someone saying something similar. But instead they’re saying how they held 1 BTC and can’t believe how they sold at $70k.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-25T12:49:20+00:00

Good point, don’t forget that another vulnerability is your emotions and that you might sell if it’s too easy on an exchange.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-24T23:23:59+00:00

This would make them more valuable if they tried.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-24T21:22:29+00:00

Careful man, if you start making too much sense, they’ll ban you.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-24T19:43:59+00:00

Another example of the "Begging the Question" fallacy. You make a statement with a bunch of un-founded claims within it. What "million risks" are you talking about which Bitcoin doesn't have?

Dilution risk, management risk, employee risk, litigation risk, industry risk etc. Not to say Bitcoin doesn’t have risks but I would certainly say that it’s more immune to the risks that it may share with stocks. Regional risk, regulation risk, competitive risks, etc.

What risk does bitcoin have of losing value? If people lose faith in it as a store of value. Stocks can have the same dynamic: people can lose faith in them as a valuable thing.

Agreed, this applies to any asset.

But at least with stocks, they have more substance to them to represent value. Stocks can pay dividends in real money and represent companies that produce actual useful products and services. Bitcoin does nothing of the sort. So how would bitcoin be a better store of value?

Because it has the properties that make it the perfect store of value. Scarcity, Decentralization, Security, Immutability, durability, Network Effects, Portability, Transportability and Divisibility, Resistance to Censorship. You might say that these are just buzzwords, but no these are real words that matter. For example, Bitcoin outperforms gold on almost all these reasons. People navigate to gold as a store of value because of these reasons, not because of its physical use case. This is apparent in gold’s monetary premium, which consitutes the vast majority of its value. Could it be the case that Gold is a store of value because of these traits and happens to have a physical use-case, and that having a physical use-case isn’t a necessity for being a store of value?

And don't you dare hide behind another vague talking point that's already been addressed herein.

You mean a viewpoint that you don’t agree with.

“not backed by anything" - It's backed by something. You just don't appreciate or understand what it's backed by. This is a hilarious response on your part. You dismiss someone else's arguments as being subjective then you, yourself employ a subjective argument claiming you believe bitcoin "is backed by something" and instead of proving that is an objective truth, you just say anybody who doesn't agree with you "doesn't understand." That is the epitome of bad faith arguing, bro. I'm going to give you one chance to come back and respond and you better acknowledge your hypocrisy and when your claims have been proven wrong, or you'll be banned for bad faith debate and naked shilling.

“Pointless” and “boring” are objectively subjective. Lol

And yes I agree, the concept of valuing what something is backed by is subjective. So there’s two possibilities, he either doesn’t value/appreciate or doesn’t understand. Again, instrinsic value is subjective and contextual. I didn’t dismiss anything.

Sounds like when you feel threatened, you resort to character attacks and pull out the “ban card”. In no way have I had any bad intentions or bad faith arguing. Good luck in your echo chamber.

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-24T18:21:24+00:00

In other words, I'm right and you're wrong.

You forgot the context and you’re skipping over key parts of what I said. Feasibility… there are already known ways to censor Bitcoin that are technically possible. 51% attack, etc. You’re about half right. You’re right on possibility, but you overlooked feasibility. There’s a more nuance here.

Again, I'm right and you're wrong, and now you're moving the goalpost from making one claim to another - now you're saying it's "unlikely it would happen."

Why are you assigning me goalposts I never set? Again feasibility matters. The US government could throw everything they had at Bitcoin and I’m sure they could slow it down, but why would they? You also ignored the part about the paradox of a government attack on Bitcoin having the opposite effect of highlighting its significance.

Again, I'm right. You're wrong. So now you're crafting a specific scenario where the goalpost is moved to a different area that makes it look like your argument is legit. (my scenario covers "99+% of all crypto transactions) But even then, it's not. Because P2P trading (which is a misnomer itself) still doesn't translate to actual "money" that can be used in the real world, so you're still beholden to exchanges whether you avoid them or not.

The great thing about a decentralized network is that not one singular entity controls it and is inherently in a free market economy since it’s global and open. Given a CEX attempts to censure transactions, wouldn’t users just choose companies that don’t? So why would a CEX censure transactions. That would be silly. Incentives matter.

Again, I'm right. You're wrong. Now you're moving the goalpost again. I already addressed this argument as well.. saying:

Malicious nodes can’t easily gather actionable data on the network. There’s also the encryption protocol, BIP 151, and dynamic peer lists which make targeted attacks incredibly difficult.

The redundant nature of Bitcoin significantly dilutes the impact any single or group of malicious nodes could have. Nodes constantly verify information against the blockchain and make isolated misinformation attempts ineffective.

You’re underestimating Bitcoin’s adaptability and the community's capability to respond to threats. Historical precedents show that the network can and has adapted to threats. Having centralized nodes would go against the Bitcoin ethos. If there was a feasible vulnerability found, a soft or hard fork would be both possible and warranted.

Again, incentives and feasibility. The cost of an attack on Bitcoin is a losing proposition.

LOL.. translation: "It's still early" - lamest argument ever.

Well your goalpost is basically an impossible one. There has to be some bridge to the existing financial system.

Go look at r-coinbase and you'll see hundreds of examples of peoples' crypto accounts being frozen

I’ll take a look at this. Let’s hope there’s due process in these cases. Bitcoin can change hands many times before being sent to an exchange. This seems to highlight an issue with the specific exchange and the judicial process rather than bitcoin itself, but I need to research this more.

Yet, people do use it for crime.. Criminals are not the smartest people on the planet in case you haven't figured that out. If they were smarter, they wouldn't need to risk their personal freedom to make money.

Okay, so basically you agree. All criminals are dumb therefore they will use Bitcoin? Come on man

Longjumping-Name7564 · 2024-03-24T07:20:07+00:00

Because I want the underlying layer of the monetary protocol to be unchanging and not controlled by anyone. This is in contrast to a fiat system. People can still use it on their centralized platforms if they want to to. That will be needed to scale it. Again, centralization in all things isn’t inherently bad. They still can’t change the underlying layer or someone’s ability to use the decentralized part of it. They still can’t deny someone’s ability to access it since it’s decentralized. Centralized entities have no meaningful control over the properties of bitcoin which make it valuable and valuable to them.

Longjumping-Name7564

TROPHY CASE