Full video of Saylorās nonsense answer for why Microstrategy wonāt publish Proof of Reserves.
Every time he opens his mouth of late, heās giving more reason for Bitcoiners to be skeptical. It might fly with financebros, it wonāt with anyone who has studied #Bitcoin.
https://v.nostr.build/eRPWtrluIbxB6usg.mp4
nostr:note106nhek9mgqjsnlas24hk6dmy7nrnp82qnlalw8l37ch46ywa49zqsh5tyg
nostr:note1w4add0nzw622w00wuskh4r95pldeugr2uc7qesvlyxh79mna3u8srk3lqj
Leave Michael alone
Youāre not ready, are you Billy?
nostr:note144au605mp6kvgsknnvuxk7stl0yyx0mrjzqhphj2ug94tusgaapsq46a9m
Hol'up is Saylor on the whole 1 SAT is 1 Bitcoin? Maybe that's why he doesn't want to show proof of reserves, he only has 580,250 SATS š
Itās clear that #Saylor has no interest in publishing #MSTR proof-of-reserve. The ZKP tech he mentions is already functional but he makes it seems like itās not. I take his point on auditing both the reserves and the liabilities but one doesnāt prevent the other. Saylor is missing the point that people want to see proof-of-reserve to make sure that when they are buying MSTR they arenāt contributing in printing paper #Bitcoins.
Saylor is a fiat Maxi, a billionaire, he doesn't understand Bitcoin. He uses the fiat system to purchase Bitcoin and lock it up. He is a cunt
Heās a BitcoinBug
nostr:note1575uxg5xxwlmqpg6r8gu5n7f7fvudmwrd3xy45lmudeqxv3uupaqa8kqcq
Thank god there are people in this space left who get that this guy is full of bullshit. I see really bad bear market because of this person.
It is a echo chamber now around this guy and his followers.
When XXI publishes proof of reserves, the tables will turn, hopefully.
I don't buy companies I buy #bitcoin
What's that saying - don't trust verify
Lol oh Saylor. Hey he's done good things for BTC
I don't want to sound like a MSTR shill but his logic seems reasonable to me.
The investors pouring big money into MSTR are probably not hardcore bitcoiners but people from the traditional finance world. So proof of keys will not win them over. And as he said proof of coins is not proof of a lack of liabilities.
Even though the risk may be small I can see how revealing anything about how you hold your coins could be a security risk.
I see him as having nothing to gain and possibly something to lose by showing on chain reserves.
Perhaps at some point the market will demand it but we are not there yet.
So as much as I would love to see on chain reserves it's hard to see it currently being in Strategy's best interest which is all he would care about.
It is in #MSTR best interest to preserve the #Bitcoin brand as their entire business relies on it.
If a large portion of #BTC is held with custodians that are unable to prove that they have full reserve for their clients then, people will start to suspect the possibility for paper BTCs could be printed in sizable quantity which will then erode the Bitcoin brand as a protection against money printing due to its audibility. This will be especially true if Bitcoin fails to match or exceed price expectations.
#Saylor saying that proof-of-reserve isnāt important when itās technically possible should raise additional questions.
There are two scenarios.
Either he does not have the coins in which case it's impossible for him to provide proof of reserves.
or
He does have the coins in which case if there ever was a significant market scare where sentiment turned against him and investors sold because they feared he did not have the bitcoin he could crush all those fears in 5 mins with a single tweet showing the reserves then.
His logic falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
The only information we could glean from proved reserves is what key scheme they are using. We already know itās a multisig - no way 580k coins held by a publicly traded company are under a singlesig - ok great, now what does anyone do with that information? Nothing. It provides no information that is actionable to a hacker. It doesnāt tell you who has those keys. Where they are. How those key holders might be compromised. What signing processes they have, what duress protocols they have etc. It tells you nothing at all.
The only feasible threat is that when heās forced to liquidate he doesnāt want everyone to see those coins move and front run his selling before a dump. But that has nothing to do with āSecurityā.
He says shit like āask an AI to explain security threats and it will come up with a 50 page bookā as if thatās a real reason. You can get AI to write a 50-page book on anything, it doesnt make it valuable or actionable information.
And if a hacker could plausibly crack Bitcoin wallets; theyāre going after Satoshi first - not Microstrategy.
Saylor is the next Jordan Peterson. Narrowly constrained he can sound quite profound because he does have good subject matter knowledge, but once he strays outside his comfort zone into things that donāt align with his own narrative, the message falls apart.
I understand the threat might be minimal but it's hard for me to accept that providing no information about the coins on chair address adds more threat of loss. It's either neutral to hide address or else it's worse to provide the address from a security standpoint. I see no scenario where security is improved.
To your second point that is completely correct. Any on chain movements could spook the market which is yet another reason he would not want to provide that information.
However I would think in both of these cases him holding this information back is in the shareholders interest. The only fear is they only hold paper bitcoin but I would say most of the capital invested in MSTR is not coming from a "not your keys not your coin" background so this is unlikely to actual impact the majority of investor sentiment.
His AI response was nonsense. Too many people are relying on AI to just validate whatever they want. It's a problem.
The comparison to Peterson is interesting. His downfall has been quite a ride.
You're both making very good points š¤
Youāre not wrong, but none of these points back up his āsecurityā claims.
He could have used any of the shareholder interests/market spooking stuff and left it at that, people may or may not believe those points but at least there is some legitimacy to having a business strategy and sticking to it.
There is no legitimacy to his claims that it undermines security though. Thatās not how Bitcoin works, we all know itās not, and thatās the issue because in trying to sound smart, there are idiots who buy into what hes saying and then Bitcoiners have to undo his narratives.
Key risks for a US-based, publicly traded software company disclosing its Bitcoin wallet address as part of a Proof-of-Reserve strategy include:
Security: Risk of hacking, phishing, and physical threats due to wallet visibility.
Reputational: Public scrutiny of holdings, market volatility, and unintended association with illicit addresses.
Regulatory/Legal: Possible compliance issues or sanctions if malicious actors send funds.
Operational: Exposed strategic moves and potential front-running by traders.
His answer is a bit BS..
However the main point seems correct: proof of reserves wouldn't do anthing to prevent fiat games behind the scenes
If they want to create & trade paper bitcoins they can and will.. only a crash will reveal who's swimming naked and I'm looking forward to it š
Agree. This answer is not satisfactory.
nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m should at least recognize that this is an issue.
In a way his response, which is at least partly valid, is shedding light on the bigger challenge with institutional adoption of Bitcoin.
his answer is bullshit
Gearing up for yet another nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx was right
I don't, and won't, own his stock for moral reaons (mostly because I don't want to give blackrock money for them to buy bitcoin), but he's right on his arguments against proof of reserves. It's bad for security (on the technical side) and it doesn't prove liabilities. But for me it's just not your keys, not your coins.
providing on chain proof for the bitcoin they already publicly claim to own does not hurt security at all
Yes it does. 1. It gives more public visibility on the flows of funds and thus whom to target. 2. Plus, you publish the public key, so you remove the extra security that we get from an used btc address (the public key being hashed).
all key employees of mstr, coinbase, anchorage, etc are already targets
proof of reserves does not change that
flow of funds can still be disguised if that is necessary, dont send in to your public wallets until after you announce a buy
can sign ownership proof then move to new addresses if exposing public key is a concern
The ultimate proof of reserves only exists with spot bitcoin or in-kind redeption:
when the custodian allows 24x7x365 FULL withdrawl of all bitcoin into self custody
ā proof is in the policy, no need for any other *proof*
agreed, i still think proof of reserves will become the standard for public companies with bitcoin treasuries
Maybe it will but I don't think it's wise. Not wise for security of the btc, for the investors, for the employees, and not even wise for us "not your keys, not your coins" humbly stacking privacy-advocating plebs. But maybe that's the way it'll go.
Zero Knowledge proofs. Saylor was correct that doxxing every address is IRL dangerous, and it's all moot anyway if you self custody.
Disagree, it's not enough. Just because there is enough to process the first 50% of withdrawals says nothing about whether the next 50% exists.
Sure, they then would "freeze withdrawls" during the run, which is the same as lying/faking their *proof of reserves* - ie hiding liabilities.
Leaving themselves open to withdrawls ungaurded - to me is a purer signal to the market that they could cover.
I mean, anything's better than nothing I guess! "We don't promise to honor withdrawals in less than 1 month" would be pretty bad. Some hedge funds do stuff like that.
You're also a privacy advocate so I'm surprised to see you suggest that it would be better to make the addresses public. I wouldn't even want that as a precedent that people could point to and say "well, the big guys do it, why can't you".
Is it public knowledge where the MSTR btc are being held? I'm not aware of that but I didn't really look into it. If they're already disclosing that, it's true that it would be less relevant to have the flows tracked. But still, let's say they decide to sell later : if you know what the addresses are and you see them move to an exchange, you could front-run MSTR, etc. It would hurt them getting the maximum value for their investors.
I'll repeat it : I don't invest in any way in MSTR, and I don't want to. But someone who chooses to invest in public markets is accepting those sets of rules.
As for moving the btc to different addresses after the proof of reserves (to not hold btc in addresses for which the public key is known) : wouldn't that pretty much defeat the purposes of the proof of reserves ? In the fiat world, people do that : they get their friends and family to move funds to a bank account just long enough to prove a certain amount in a bank account. The money is redistributed afterwards.
I thought it was pretty good actually.
Without proof of liability, proof of reserve is just feel-good virtue signaling. Dismissing the potential known and unknown downsides of making all the addresses public is shortsighted imo. The only people complaining about this are the same people that tell others not to invest and to only buy Bitcoin and hold in self-custody. He even tells people to just buy Bitcoin and self-custody. The people complaining about this non-issue should follow his advice. Everyone else who is already trusting the team at Strategy to execute has no issues trusting various auditors to verify the assets and liabilities are what the company says they are.
Despite what OPs think, Saylor doesnāt want to share a cell with SBF.
proof of reserves are one piece of due diligence, liabilities still need to be audited
if the public had demanded ftx publish proof of reserves it would have been obvious they had way less bitcoin than they said they did even without proof of liabilities
anyway, im not complaining, there will be plenty of mstr competitors that publish proof of reserves, metaplanet already does, he will likely do it to as well to compete and individuals can always buy real bitcoin directly instead
Here is some insight
in CAPS
BS in caps
so, he is already papering his way into desaster
nostr:npub19kv88vjm7tw6v9qksn2y6h4hdt6e79nh3zjcud36k9n3lmlwsleqwte2qd is right (and bold)
Short MSTR
If itās much better, why not do the proof of keys too? Seems like an easy task since heās done all that complicated work. Unlessā¦
He could have given a short and sweet answer to a simple question but he chose a long-winded one full of falsehoods in an attempt to gaslight the audience by expanding the discussion to the unrelated topic of proof of liabilities.
Trust is gained in drops and lost in bucket.
The USD pizza guy is learning this lesson in real time.
nevent1qqsg5vlqalth0h2dn8zz4mxf96z6trzxthrat4lvm5phg28u4pvtffspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq554x6
Bitcoin will reveal the truth. It always has.
Let the bewilderment continue.
I own MSTR, MSTY, IMST, STRK, ASST, MTPLF, KULR, MARA, IMST, IREN, and SMLR.
Let the bewilderment continue.
I own MSTR, MSTY, IMST, STRK, ASST, MTPLF, KULR, MARA, IMST, IREN, and SMLR.
A powerful allianceāincluding the U.S. government, the IMF, Michael Saylor, and Tetherāis advancing a clear vision: replacing physical dollars with a digital dollar as the global reserve currency and primary medium of exchange.
https://metaplanet.mempool.space/
Guess these guys are wrong then?
I'd do the same if I was Saylor. Spreading FUD to buy cheap šÆ
Everyday you drive down the road and have to trust that the other person is not going to hit you head on.
I donāt trust a man who sits and talks like this. SBF vibes
Saylor will be the next black swan on āæ. I'm supporting him for a while. He will be the one to start the bear market
Spot on!
Michael Saylor is 100% a legacy fiat finance operator, and there's very few probability that "Strategy B"'s bitcoins will escape the big vacuum-cleaning that will deliver them to the US Treasury as the collateral of choice to rescue the dollar...
i.e., the exact opposite of why Bitcoin was born.
Only watched the first 2 minutes, which made sense to me.
The question Iām asking when watching this is what does he position his feet in that way? It appears very uncomfortable to contort you feet in such a manner, which would only manifest if someone was trying to hide something, or if theyāre lyingā¦.
Not good.
real bitcoiners warned about that since years š¤·āāļø
I get the impression Saylor is not aware that ZK proof of assets/reserves exists already; for example both an implementation of the basic idea (clunky and rough around the edges, but still) in my https://github.com/AdamISZ/aut-ct/tree/master/auditor-docs based on curve trees + bulletproofs and halseth's output-zero: https://github.com/halseth/output-zero which doesn't directly do this job but has the machinery to do it (and hooks interestingly into utreexo btw). Liabilities proofs are different but existing ZK techniques already help there. The science basically already exists.
(Note: here I mean cryptoccy liabilities, i.e. user account balances; the whole fiat side is separate)
I don't think companies should be doing what Binance does, posting an Excel spreadsheet with all of their addresses exposed to the public. It's security 101 that this kind of privacy and metadata leak is an attack surface, no matter which way you slice it. We have the technology!
The public Saylor is addressing is TradFi, and he's doing a great job at it.
To convert a barbarian to a new religion, you have to speak their language and give them the impression that it's a polytheistic religion."
