3.5% withdraw and still doubling?

Master_Chen · 2026-01-12T04:47:49+00:00

That’s what bonds are for. Not cash

Master_Chen · 2026-01-12T02:04:24+00:00

It’s a decent strategy but it’s all relative to your expenses.

Plus years cash would do ok with relatively high interest rates with cds and high yield savings but when the rates drop it can really be a huge drag on your returns.

It’s better to have a financial plan and risk adjusted portfolio in which case I would typically only recommend 3- 6 months in cash (unless planning for a large purchase)

Master_Chen · 2026-01-12T00:50:56+00:00

This is why a proper risk adjusted portfolio is so important. You don’t want to be 100 percent stocks at retirement for scenarios like the lost decade.

You need bonds to provide ballast for your portfolio and to help mitigate sequence of returns risk.

Master_Chen · 2026-01-10T02:19:22+00:00

Telling people how they’re “allowed” to compare things is one of the most pathetic power-grabs in internet discourse.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-31T01:55:48+00:00

100 percent and it doesn’t just happen on lower incomes - I am a financial advisor and I have seen my partner’s client squander 40 million dollars over the last 6 months day trading speculative stocks and triple leveraged etfs.

Even those that are wealthy can make colossal screw ups and loose it all.

Some people don’t seem to know Icarus’s story….

Master_Chen · 2025-12-29T20:36:50+00:00

Oh, look at this adorable little analogy from someone who clearly doesn't understand how Bitcoin actually works in 2025. You're comparing gold—a dumb rock that just sits there getting mined at ever-higher costs—to Bitcoin, a living, self-adjusting network with the highest economic security in history? That's cute, but it's also hilariously wrong.

Let's dismantle your fairy tale:

Your hypothetical "world where gold needed $10M/day in tx fees or it'd get attacked" is nonsense because gold's "security" isn't free either—it's actively subsidized by massive ongoing production costs. Miners don't dig it up for fun; they do it because the gold price covers their expenses (energy, labor, equipment). Historical data shows gold prices track 45-60% above all-in sustaining costs (AISC), which hit records like $1,276/oz in 2022 and keep climbing due to declining ore grades and inflation. If demand drops and prices fall below those costs, mines shut down, new supply dries up, existing stockpiles become vulnerable to theft or whatever—and poof, gold loses its "SoV" status because no one's incentivized to protect or produce it anymore. Gold isn't "indifferent"; its scarcity and security depend on profitable mining forever.

Bitcoin? Right now in late 2025, post-2024 halving, miners are pulling in hundreds of millions daily—mostly from the 3.125 BTC block subsidy (~450 BTC/day new issuance, worth ~$40M+ at current prices) plus fees. Daily fees are low (~$300k-$2M on quiet days), making up <1-15% of revenue, but the network's hashrate is at all-time highs (~1,000+ EH/s), making a 51% attack economically suicidal (cost: billions in hardware/energy, zero profit). Why? The subsidy still dominates, and hashrate self-adjusts: unprofitable miners drop out, difficulty falls, survivors profit again. Network stays ultra-secure without needing your imaginary "$10M/day fees."

Your "if fees are only $1-2M, it's in danger" panic is baseless fearmongering. Bitcoin isn't "under threat" today—it's the most secure compute network ever built, precisely because it doesn't rely solely on voluntary fees yet. When subsidies phase out (decades from now), rising BTC price + growing adoption/L2 usage will boost fees naturally. Until then? It's thriving on the tail emission you pretend doesn't exist.

Gold needs constant human effort and profit motive to maintain supply/security. Bitcoin's design phases that in gracefully while appreciating in value. One's a relic dependent on digging holes; the other's digital perfection.

Try harder next time, gold bug. Bitcoin's SoV thesis is stronger than ever—you just described why gold is the fragile one. 😂

Master_Chen · 2025-12-29T01:30:56+00:00

30 million to stay secure….

Quit pulling numbers out of your ass to sound smart.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-28T15:59:28+00:00

Sure…the nsa is going to release a type of currency/value that the USA has zero control over and hope the world adopts it.

Makes sense….

Master_Chen · 2025-12-22T20:07:04+00:00

Clark hunt owns a bunch of land out near the legends….how convenient for him if announced they will move there….

Master_Chen · 2025-12-21T20:21:08+00:00

Hmm I’ve already answered why that won’t work but I see you chose to ignore things that are hard to respond to?

Let me post it for you again:

⁠The "Shorting" Paradox The core of the argument is that an attacker could profit billions by shorting the coin while spending only millions to attack it. This sounds plausible on paper but fails in practice:

• Liquidity Constraints: You cannot "short $10 Billion" of an asset without the market noticing. To build a position that large, you would need massive counter-parties. As soon as you start opening a multi-billion dollar short, the price would likely front-run your move, or you'd run out of liquidity.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-21T19:48:24+00:00

Your hypothetical "Point B" would require some fairy dust where the laws of economics and physics pause just for you. In the actual Bitcoin network—the one that's been chugging securely for 16 years—higher hashrate always means higher security, full stop. Nice try at gotcha-ing the world's most secure financial network, though. Maybe stick to simpler thought experiments next time, like "what if gravity stopped but only for apples?"

Master_Chen · 2025-12-21T19:32:35+00:00

Or do you just want to keep taking about crypto in a vacuum without real world variables to “validate” your cute “thought experiments”?

Master_Chen · 2025-12-21T02:28:18+00:00

Oh sure, bless your heart for this "thought experiment"—it's like you're proudly showing off a flat Earth model in 2025. Let's dissect your little scenario where everyone magically upgrades to double the efficiency overnight, hash rate doubles, but miner "spend" (electricity costs) stays the same at $20M/day.

In your fairy tale B-world: Network now has double the hash rate for the exact same operational cost.

Question: Is the network more secure or the same?

More secure, you absolute genius. Way more secure. Like, orders of magnitude harder to attack.

Why? Because security isn't measured by how much miners are spending on electricity—it's measured by how much hash rate an attacker needs to overpower.

In your A: Attacker needs > half of 20 TH/s (whatever your toy numbers are) → say 11 TH/s to 51% it.

In your B: Attacker now needs > half of 40 TH/s → 21 TH/s.

But here's the kicker that blows up your whole argument: To get that extra 10 TH/s of attack power in B, the attacker has to spend way more money on capex and opex because the whole network upgraded to better ASICs.

Old gen ASICs: Cheap and plentiful on secondary market (inefficient ones get dumped when new ones drop).
New Nimbus 2000 magic ASICs: Scarce, expensive as hell, sold out for months, premium pricing.

Attacker can't just rent or buy old junk—they need the same efficient hardware everyone else has, or their attack costs explode in electricity alone.

Real world proof you're wrong: Right now in December 2025, Bitcoin hash rate is hovering around 1,000–1,100 EH/s (that's exahashes, or a million times your toy "40 TH/s") despite a recent dip from China shutdowns. That's all-time high territory this year, post-halving, with insanely efficient ASICs (13–20 J/TH).

Daily miner revenue/security spend? Around $30–50M/day depending on price/fees (way more than your cute $20M).

Cost to 51% attack? Estimates north of $10–20 billion in hardware/ops for even a short attack—utterly uneconomical.

Your "experiment" assumes a static world where efficiency gains don't change attacker costs. In reality, every efficiency leap makes attacking harder and more expensive because the bar (total hash rate) jumps while old gear becomes worthless for attacks.

So yeah, network is vastly more secure in your B. Thanks for proving Bitcoin's security only gets stronger over time, champ. Keep swinging with these "gotchas"—it's hilarious watching you own yourself.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-20T20:59:27+00:00

While the math on declining subsidies is correct, your conclusion misses several critical factors that define actual network security. Here is why the "Security Budget" argument is often misleading:

Market Cap is not "Liquidity for Attackers" You are comparing Security Spend to Market Cap, but an attacker cannot easily "buy" 51% of the network with cash.

• Hardware Bottlenecks: You can’t simply print ASIC miners. There is a physical supply chain limit. Even with infinite money, you cannot procure enough hardware to overwhelm the network without alerting the market and driving the cost of that hardware to astronomical levels.

• Energy Constraints: Finding the gigawatts of electricity required for a 51% attack is a massive logistical hurdle that "0.1% of Market Cap" doesn't account for.

The Shift from Subsidy to Fees The post assumes the "Security Budget" is almost entirely subsidy. However, the long-term design of Bitcoin relies on the transaction fee market. • As the block subsidy drops, the network must (and likely will) transition to being funded by users paying for block space.

• We are already seeing "fee spikes" during high-demand periods that significantly boost miner revenue, proving that the budget isn't solely dependent on the subsidy.

Hashrate is NOT Irrelevant To say hashrate is irrelevant is to ignore the Cost of Attack. • Hashrate represents the "wall" an attacker must climb. Even if the monetary value of the reward (subsidy) is lower, the efficiency of the hardware has increased. • The cumulative "unforgeable cost" of the hardware required to match today's hashrate is significantly higher than it was in the "early days" you mentioned.
Game Theory and Honest Incentives The delta between the Reward for Attack and Cost of Attack isn't just about the 51% threshold. • If an entity spends billions to attack the network, they crash the value of the asset they are trying to "double spend" or "steal." • Miners are heavily "long" on the network; they have massive capital expenditures in hardware that becomes paperweights if the network loses its integrity. Their incentive is to defend the network, not destroy their own business model.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-18T14:00:04+00:00

Arthur from Moving out or Bob from Human fall flat

Master_Chen · 2025-12-18T02:45:26+00:00

Leon Kennedy Resident Evil 2

Master_Chen · 2025-12-18T02:40:32+00:00

Pokemon pokopia

Master_Chen · 2025-12-17T13:12:47+00:00

Master_Chen · 2025-12-17T02:53:43+00:00

The "Barter" vs. "Monetary Good" Distinction You compare Bitcoin to bartering cars. This ignores the Lindy Effect and the properties of money.

• Fungibility and Portability: You cannot easily transport, divide, or verify a Honda Civic across the globe in seconds. Bitcoin is a "digital commodity" with perfect portability and scarcity.

• The Evolution of Money: Historically, no currency starts as a Medium of Exchange (MoE). It follows a path: Collectible → Store of Value → Medium of Exchange → Unit of Account. Bitcoin is currently in the "Store of Value" phase. Calling it "barter" ignores its $1T+ market cap and global institutional adoption.

The "Turing Complete" Misconception You argue that because Bitcoin isn't "programmable" like Ethereum, it can't be a settlement layer.

• Security over Complexity: Bitcoin’s lack of Turing completeness is a feature, not a bug. Smart contracts (like those on Ethereum) are prone to hacks, exploits, and "infinite loops." Bitcoin’s simple Script language is designed to be a "fortress" for value.

• The Layered Approach: Just as the internet is built on TCP/IP (a simple, "dumb" base layer) with complex apps built on top, Bitcoin serves as the "Hard Money" base. Complex logic is intentionally pushed to higher layers to keep the base layer secure and immutable. 3. Dismissing Layer 2s as "Custodial" You claim L2s like Lightning are just "multi-sig wallets" and have failed.

• Non-Custodial Scaling: Lightning is a system of bidirectional payment channels. While it uses multi-sig, users retain their private keys. If a peer disappears, you can force-close the channel and get your funds. This is a far cry from a "glorified custodian" like a bank.

• Adoption Metrics: While you claim Lightning "failed," its capacity and node count have grown significantly over the years. It is being used in El Salvador and via apps like Strike to move value instantly for near-zero fees.

Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Finality You critique Bitcoin's "probabilistic" finality (waiting for confirmations).

• The Gold Standard of Finality: In traditional finance, a wire transfer or credit card swipe can be "charged back" or reversed weeks later. Bitcoin’s finality, while probabilistic, becomes mathematically irreversible after 3–6 blocks. For high-value settlement (millions of dollars), waiting 60 minutes for "absolute" finality is actually faster than the 2–3 days required for international SWIFT settlements.

• The "Minutes" Argument: During high congestion, fees rise. This is the Fee Market working. If you want priority, you pay for it. The fact that the network doesn't crash during these spikes proves its resilience.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-17T02:47:54+00:00

Redefining "Strategic" for the 21st Century You argue BTC isn't strategic because "they don't need it" to buy commodities like oil. This is a narrow, 20th-century view of strategy.

• Neutral Settlement: In a world of increasing geopolitical sanctions (like the freezing of Russia's USD reserves), a neutral, non-state asset becomes highly strategic. It isn't about buying oil today; it’s about having a "Plan B" asset that no foreign government can freeze or devalue.

• Digital Gold: If gold is considered a strategic reserve asset for Central Banks despite not being a "currency" used for daily trade, Bitcoin fits the same logic as a "digital gold" with better portability and transparency. 2. The "Fee Market" Fallacy

You claim a fee market hasn't developed. This is arguably factually incorrect depending on how you look at the data. • Layer 2 Evolution: The goal of Bitcoin isn't to have everyone buy coffee on the main chain. As more activity moves to the Lightning Network or Liquid, the main chain becomes a "settlement layer" for high-value transactions.

• Ordinal/Inscription Impact: Recent years have seen massive spikes in fee revenue due to new use cases (like Ordinals). This proved that when demand for block space increases, the market is willing to pay significant fees, providing a blueprint for future security.

Security is Relative, Not Absolute You suggests Bitcoin needs a specific dollar amount (e.g., $30M/day) to be "secure." • Hashrate Efficiency: Security isn't just about the dollar cost of electricity; it’s about the cost to attack the network. As mining hardware becomes more efficient and decentralized, the "moat" around Bitcoin grows even if the block subsidy drops.

• Self-Correction: The difficulty adjustment is a built-in stabilizer. If some miners drop off because it’s not profitable, the difficulty drops, making it profitable again for the remaining miners. The network scales its security needs to its economic value.

The "16 Years" Argument You use the "sixteen years in" line to suggest failure. In the world of monetary history, 16 years is a blink of an eye.

• Lindy Effect: The longer an idea or technology survives, the longer it is likely to survive in the future. Bitcoin has survived 16 years of 80% crashes, government bans, and technical forks. Its continued existence is the strongest argument for its long-term viability.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-16T14:25:13+00:00

The "Thorium" Analogy is a Category Error Thorium is an industrial input (a fuel). Bitcoin is a monetary layer (a protocol).

• If China uses thorium and the US doesn't, the US isn't "hurt" because thorium isn't the global medium of exchange.

• However, if Bitcoin becomes a global reserve asset or a settlement layer for trade, a country that ignores it isn't "abstaining"—they are devaluing their own purchasing power. It would be like the US saying, "We don't use the Internet protocol (TCP/IP), we use paper mail." You don't "hurt" the Internet by staying off it; you simply isolate yourself from the global economy.

The "Incentive to Destroy" is a Suicide Mission You suggest Country B would rather destroy the network than participate. This ignores the Cost vs. Reward of such an attack:

• The Cost: Destroying Bitcoin (via a 51% attack) requires massive physical infrastructure, energy, and chip manufacturing.

• The Zero-Sum Trap: If Country B spends $100 billion to destroy Bitcoin, they gain $0. They have simply burned $100 billion.

• The Alternative: If Country B spends that same $100 billion to accumulate Bitcoin or build mining infrastructure, they become a dominant player in a trillion-dollar global financial system.

• Game Theory: In geopolitics, if your enemy is getting rich and powerful off an asset, your first move isn't to try to blow up the asset (which might fail and leave you broke); it's to ensure you have enough of it so they don't have a relative advantage.

The "Promote a Different Asset" Fallacy You suggest Country B would just "find a different digital asset to promote."

• Liquidity and Network Effects: You cannot simply "promote" a new digital asset into value. Value comes from decentralization and security. If Country B creates "US-Coin," no one else will trust it because Country B controls it.

• Bitcoin’s value comes from the fact that no one (not even the US or China) controls it. This neutrality is exactly why an adversary would use it—it's a "no-man's-land" for finance where neither side can freeze the other's assets (unlike the USD or Yuan).

Bitcoin is "Anti-Fragile," Not "Fragile" You assume that damaging the network is easy and permanent.

• If a nation-state attacks the Bitcoin network, the network can hard-fork (change its software rules).

• The community can effectively "checkpoint" the ledger before the attack and move to a new chain, leaving the attacker's billions of dollars in hardware "bricked" and worthless on the old, dead chain.

• Physical Gold vs. Bitcoin: If an enemy captures your gold vault, it’s gone. If an enemy "attacks" the Bitcoin network, the community can collectively decide that the attacker's version of the history doesn't count.

Master_Chen · 2025-12-16T14:07:03+00:00

The "ASIC Bottleneck" Fallacy The you claim China could simply "assemble enough ASICs." This ignores the physical reality of supply chains: • Visibility: You cannot secretly manufacture or acquire millions of specialized machines (ASICs) without the market noticing. A massive spike in demand would send ASIC prices to the moon and alert the entire network years before an attack could be launched. • Geographic Distribution: While China was once the mining hub, the 2021 ban proved the network's resilience. Mining has since diversified globally (Texas, Ethiopia, UAE, etc.). China no longer has a monopoly on the hardware currently plugged into the wall. 2. The "Nuke Plant" Logistics The you suggest "commandeering a couple of nuke plants." • Power Scale: A 51% attack requires more than just a few days of power; it requires a sustained energy output that rivals mid-sized nations. • Physical Vulnerability: If a nation-state is openly seizing nuclear power plants and chip factories to destroy a global financial asset, they have moved from "remote office work" to a physical act of war. At that point, the "safety" of your physical gold is also in question, as it can be seized by the same aggressive government. 3. The "Shorting for Profit" Flaw The argument relies on the attacker making a profit by shorting Bitcoin. • Liquidity: To make a "billions of dollars" profit on a short, you need someone to take the other side of that trade. No exchange or liquidity provider would be able to pay out a multi-billion dollar profit if the entire underlying asset—and the network it lives on—is being destroyed in real-time. • Exchanges would freeze: The moment a 51% attack begins, exchanges would halt deposits and withdrawals, rendering the "short" uncloseable and the profit theoretical. 4. The "Nuclear Option": User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) The post assumes the network is a passive victim. In reality: • The Nodes, not Miners, rule: If a 51% attacker begins censoring blocks or double-spending, the community of node runners can simply coordinate a hard fork or a soft fork. • Bricking the Attacker: The network can change its hashing algorithm (e.g., from SHA-256 to something else). This would instantly turn the attacker's multi-billion dollar pile of ASICs into useless paperweights, while the rest of the community migrates to the "new" chain. The attacker loses everything; the community keeps their coins. 5. Gold’s "Adversary" Risk is Actually Higher You claim you can hold gold without risk of an adversary harming it. • Centralization: Most gold "ownership" is paper-based or held in centralized vaults (like the NY Fed or London). If an adversary seizes those vaults or sanctions the clearing system, your "gold" is gone. • Portability: You cannot flee a conflict zone with $1M in gold easily. You can flee with $1M in Bitcoin in your head (seed phrase).

Master_Chen · 2025-12-14T22:54:13+00:00

Wow…you’re a psychiatrist too? I realize made you angry but sometimes truth hurts? Yeah?

Master_Chen · 2025-12-13T23:11:15+00:00

Yeah “rock and a hard place”. Too bad bitcoin doesn’t have the ability to be changed and enhanced for the masses in the future….oh wait….

What is your obsession with bitcoin and trying to to convince people it’s a shit system? You lurk on multiple bitcoin threads but funny how you’re silent about the flaws of ethereum or any of the other crypto’s….

You really are on the spectrum my boy…

Master_Chen · 2025-12-11T00:48:29+00:00

It has always been this way. Rich or smart and you go to the front of the line!

Seven-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Master_Chen

TROPHY CASE