Cum Rocket

Has he spoken with Powell?

Oh

Don’t know why this has got your goat right now, but the known benefits of large flexible loads to electric grids have been discussed here before. Correct. Bye bye energy transition.

Cry harder for me How often does the federal Govt reverse course and admit it was wrong when litigation is brought against them? I don’t know for certain but my guess would be almost never. That column you posted was a joke.

Womp womp. Still, with the large bitcoin community in Austin and the larger mining community across the state, it would seem to be a natural fit.

I’m annoyed that UTIMCO isn’t on it. They already hold physical gold.

Another one.

A good day to be Michael Saylor. Microstrategy up 20%. This guy will end up looking like a genius and one of the richest men on the planet. All because he “got it” and had big enough balls to go all in with large amounts of money. This is a good heuristic I like to use online. If someone starts a comment or question with So…, 99% of the time that person is wrong. Either they're imagining something you said, or trying to insert words into your mouth. I only commented on it being a hit by CZ. Made no comment on SBF’s fraud or the nature of fraud itself. The fact remains that if he had made it through to the next bull market, the fiat value of all his tokens would've been able to paper over his fuck ups. Would he then have learned his lesson and straightened things up? I guess we'll never know.

The Ftx financial situation wasn't public knowledge until CZ brought it to light with a tweet. Then the run on Ftx started and it was game over. Love these Dave Portnoy Bitcoin cope clips.

CaptainAntifa is the perfect mid curve crypto hater. This is their energy. That was an expertly executed hit by CZ from Binance.

A handful of small sovereigns are known miners. The next big shoe to drop in mining world will be when Saudi Arabia or Russia announce that they've been mining Bitcoin.

This is a good point. Every bit of Fud comes from middle of curve. It's only gotten in the way of people benefiting.

I am not creative or funny enough to come up with this thread. But I am happy to take credit for it.

lol no. You can ask Joseph Stang what he thinks about bitcoin. I'm assuming he has an opinion.

I think it's good that you're finally sticking up for yourself. Jay needs to show his cards. I know for a fact he spent years working on the inside of the Vatican. He's seen the Chronovisor himself.

This is interesting to me for a couple reasons. 1) it shows unique ability of lightning to transport value via micropayments quickly. If AI really is to become ubiquitous and Bitcoin via lightning network is integrated then that would be a clear example of a medium of exchange. 2) if adoption and integration of lightning is substantial it will test the viability of current tax code. Currently if you pay for something with Bitcoin it’s supposed to be a taxable event. But if AI models are constantly routing an untold number of payments, that rule is obviously unenforceable and obsolete.

The faith in it comes from knowing it's difficult to change. Bitcoin's monetary policy and code is not subject to the whims of politicians, developers etc. 21 million is 21 million. If you don't see the value in that then perhaps Bitcoin isn't for you, but if you want to take the value of your savings out of the hands of politicians and big banks then maybe it is. Holding coins does not require running a node. I'd be surprised if blackrock runs a single one. Their coins are held at coinbase that runs nodes, but nodes are distributed all over the globe. Hell, I set one up on a raspberry Pi at home just for shits. A 51% attack would allow an entity to change transactions on the ledger which would hurt credibility of the currency, but it doesn't allow changes to the code or system backing it.

Sure. So this gets a little into how consensus is derived and how changes are made to the network. Bitcoin governance is messy and has multiple layers, but the biggest test of who actually controls the bitcoin network was the Blocksize Wars that culminated in 2017. It was a fight over whether or not to increase the bitcoin blocksize. The blocksize is the amount of data (or transactions) allowed in a block every 10 minutes. As bitcoin was becoming more popular there was concern about escalating fees and how to scale bitcoin to allow more transactions. "Big blockers" as they were called wanted to double the block size. Included in that group were almost all the big miners and exchanges, including Coinbase quite prominently. On the other side were "small blockers" that wanted to maintain the same blocksize and pursue other ways to scale bitcoin, including something at the time called SegWit. The concern of small blockers was that increasing the blocksize would substantially increase the hardware requirements to run full nodes on the network which verify transactions and the ledger itself after miners put together blocks. Larger hardware requirements would decrease the amount of nodes run globally and hurt decentralization of the network. There's all kinds of intrigue behind this including meetings of large entities and holders to plot to force through changes they wanted. This all came to a head and that's when the UASF was performed in 2017 where full nodes all signaled the change to add SegWit and all miners and other companies fell in line. Tl;Dr Nodes (bitcoin users and network participants) are the final gatekeepers to protocol changes. This is incorrect. See above.

Interestingly, there is a way for ETFs to verify their holdings with bitcoin. Only one has done it so far. Bitwise (BITB) Bitwise Become First To Disclose Bitcoin ETF Holdings Address (forbes.com) They also have pledged 10% of their ETF profits for the first 10 years to bitcoin developers. So if you're looking to buy an ETF, they're probably the best candidate.

How will their holding a large amount of BTC allow them to move the price? Their buying and selling of BTC is dependent on etf inflows and outflows, unless I'm mistaken. I believe in the goldbug world there's long been a suspicion that somehow the GLD etf was used to "sell paper gold" and suppress the price, but I'm not sure of the mechanics of that. The difference here would be there is a known, finite amount of bitcoin. Perhaps the resident gold bug @RDCanecutter could elaborate on the GLD thing. Holding a large amount of bitcoin doesn't give any one person or entity more control over the bitcoin network than anybody else.

Damn speculators! What's going to be funny is, as bitcoin pumps, Microstrategy will eventually get added to S&P500, then nocoiners in index funds will become passive investors in Bitcoin.

I don't know it all. I know more than most. Despite my shitposting, I try to help educate posters here while I pass the time and cycles continue. I think over time posters have come and gone but are generally more level headed and understanding. Now, if you bring the same recycled FUD I will not let it go unaddressed. On that note We should be honest with ourselves. Did beanie babies or tulips come back multiple times with even bigger bubbles? What's the ticker of the SEC approved baseball card Etf? The one that's doing big volume. May be worth thinking more deeply about why your comparisons are ridiculous. Your head remains in the sand. That’s ok. You'll get it at the price you deserve.