Why exactly you didn't want nordstream2?
Discussion
The entire project was full of graft, an attempt to silence pro-nuclear, and a blatant attempt to undermine German sovereignty.
Even if we wanted only natural gas, we should have focused on pipelines to other sources, like other EU countries did.
No, i don't think so. Russia is the biggest producer with the best prices. Having a pipeline coming straight to you with cheap energy is a big advantage and a serious infrastructure. Moreover as ricemoon tells you distribute to other countries and benefit from that as well. Also right now you and everyone else, continue to buy russian gas but through India and more expensive. There is no alternative in gas, you have to buy russian. And finally a good relationship and collaboration between Russia and Germany changes everything in the area. That's what USA and Britain never want to see...
About the nuclear energy i don't like it, it is too dangerous. But i am in an earthquake zone, the last thing we want to see in Greece are nuclear power plants. In fact we don't even like that neighbours like Bulgaria has, because we consider them as dangerous.
I don't want to see it, either.
America is clearly going to be the base for the Bitcoin revolution and the resurgence of free speech principles, and I am so ready for that.
This is a very interesting thought 🤔 .
I don't have much faith in bitcoin. America is in decline and there is not much free speech there. It would be very good to have a resurgence of free speech, but higly unlikely.
Why don't you want to dee it either?
You are literally using Nostr. 😂
Yes but do we owe this to America?
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
How is that?
Stop asking me to explain things that 15 minutes of reflection would answer.
I am not ChatGPT.
Ok. That means, for me, there is no connection between bitcoin nostr on one hand and usa russia on the other
No, it means you like to play dumb and it's tiresome.
Look, i really, i mean really, i don't understand what you mean.
Which big, public relay is based in Russia?
Which country is Bitcoinizing fastest?
I have no idea. Let's say USA. Does it give us the right to say that usa is a free speech beacon? Is that what you mean all along? If so, a quick answer is Julian Assange, Gonzalo Lira etc.
Julian Assange can be countered by any political activist in a Russian prison.
No, I do not believe that Russia will preserve individual freedoms as well as Americans do.
Ok i don't disagree much with that, but i have to mention three things. First, i wrote to russian telegram channels that Putin didn't really care for the civilians that the Ukrainian Nazis bombarded in Donbass, with thousands of civilian deaths btw, and that he activated when the west went for his head and i did't got a ban. I got a ban in the opposite side because i said they were losing. Second, it was the west that banned rt and sputnik because they like censorship, while bbc which is spreading lies all the time, still operates in russia. Third, russians never claimed to be a beacon of democracy and free speech, the west does all the time and in the meanwhile, censorship, terrorist and genocide sponsors are all over the place in the west. Since we were talking about nordstream2, like said above, usa blew up your cheapest source of energy without asking you. They imposed this on you, while typically an ally. You have to know that the world believes that Germany is a puppet state now, no matter what the propaganda says in Germany. Is it wrong to say that? Something similar happened to us btw...
You are asking me if I'd rather be in a puppet state of America or Russia and I say
🇺🇸
Hahaha no i didn't asked that 😃.
I meant that it is better not to be in a puppet state at all. I am still impressed by the fact that they made you "officially " a puppet state in such a way and you still want bonds with them. But hey, i prefer weed over vodka too (basically i don't need either of them)
Here is a song, related to this topic, for you, which i believe you 'll like
Wait. You don't have much faith in Bitcoin? :(
No. I don't...
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree, on that one.
Bitcoin + Nostr >>> Russia
Wai, what has bitcoin and nostr to do with russia?
Would you zap me $50 in BTC if I successfully convince you?
Would you do the same? 🤣
I am going to do some onion gardening and come back later. Meanwhile read this
" For me bitcoin is an asset with value, as long as there are people who believe it has value, but... I think that if it doesn't start to be used for everyday transactions, it will deflate at some point after the last halving and with a big chance to deflate till zero. If it does start being used for everyday transactions, it will need regulation at some point just like the fiat money need, and since there is not such authority... It will deflate, with a big chance to deflate till zero..."
Yes. I would do the same.
2 arguments
1. Will bitcoin ever be used as money? If not it'll lose its value.
2. Bitcoin needs regulation.
I'll tackle the 2nd one first. Why is there a need for regulation if we use Bitcoin as money? Money doesn't need any regulation from any state. What kind of regulation are you talking about?
Hey nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl wanna split $50? Back me up.
I don't think Bitcoin will need regulation, but the spending of it might. Otherwise, one whale could buy all of Angola and Bermuda, or something. Or purchase all water rights in a country, or buy up all animal feed.
You would need strong governments and property laws to counteract the wealth inequality.
But that has nothing to do with regulating Bitcoin and has everything to do with regulating your assets. If a whale could buy up all the water sources in a country, they would just convert their Bitcoin into local currency and buy a river or two. What has Bitcoin got to do with any of that?
Bitcoin does not need any kind of regulation. Countries already have regulations for who can own properties. I don't understand why Bitcoin being permissionless is a problem here. nostr:npub1cm87c625x3tzqu2qzf7e845749k58u7xvx2gc8ym0wmg9sytwwuqdrzwm4
So it was hot despite the oak shadow. I'll go for some onions later. Now to the topic. Except what Leserin said, what's the most significant difference between fiat and bitcoin? It's the fact that there is a fixed amount of bitcoin that can be ever produced and you can't change that amount. In other words you can't regulate it (unless you have the 51% of it). Fiat regulations are made to deal with inflation etc. Some reading about gold backed currencies will help too...
But my question is, why is there a need to regulate it at all?
Oh, let me tell a few more things, i am not good at explaining, especially in a foreign language.
So, if you use bitcoin as everyday money, there will, for sure, come a moment you will have to deal with the problems all currencies have. Let's say inflation. If you can't regulate it, then you can't solve the problems, then why having that money, then why should it have value? Quite simple...
We do not need inflation
Still we have it though...
Bitcoin doesn't :P
Doesn't till now because bitcoin is not everyday money. That's the point anyway. So, can you guess what happens if doesn't ever be used as everyday money after the last halving? Why it's quite the possibility that it will deflate?
Bitcoin precludes monetary inflation. Prices can rise for other reasons, but then they have to go down elsewhere, eventually.
Bitcoin has value because miners mine blocks to make changes to a ledger of who owns how much money in the world. A global ledger of everyone's balance. And millions of people believe in this ledger. A fixed supply is a feature of Bitcoin. Its not the whole thing. "Store of value" is just one of the narratives of Bitcoin.
I want to write about why Bitcoin will be used as the default currency in the world. There's this another narrative. Bitcoin is the aligner of energy. Something that's not talk about enough. I will have to write an article about it to make it convincing.
We don't have a deadline for our bet ;).
About the bet... I can't lose it, so making a bet on this is like stealing almost... There can be a draw though, because under specific circumstances bitcoin could be treated as an asset and thus keep some value in general. But you would need these specific circumstances for that.
Ahaha. Its cool nami. It stirred up a good discussion here.
About the fixed supply...
It's not the only characteristic of bitcoin, ok, but that's what makes the main difference with fiat. That's why they said we would not need banks anymore etc. Because through central banks you have regulations on fiat. There is a reason for these regulations though...
I didn't say it was a problem. I was just noting this, because a lot of hodlers think Bitcoin will promote anarchy.
They haven't considered that most people won't have enough Bitcoin to live independently. They will need government and militaries to enforce laws AGAINST Bitcoiners.
Bitcoiner did not become wealthy by simply buying Bitcoin in 2015 for cheap. Remember, wealthy bitcoiners is why we are still here. Hodlers especially.
Early Bitcoiners bought Bitcoin with their own hard earned money, worked throughout the time to buy more Bitcoin, had enough conviction to not sell their Bitcoin even when they are millionaires in Dollar value which requires conviction of an unimaginable degree.
They did not sell. They held their SATs. That's the value they provided to the network. They will be wealthier but they earned it. It was NOT easy.
If you want their Bitcoin for you to be wealthy, provide value to the Bitcoiners. Solve their problems. Everyone has problems.
Money concentration nearly eliminates the distributory effect. One bitcoiner with 500k Bitcoin doesn't need 500k shoes.
Money moves primarily in the lower and middle classes.
The wealthy tend to horde wealth and then spend it on strategic purchases, designed to preserve their overall wealth. They don't lose wealth, by spending it, they only lose money.
And use debt for day to day spending. It’s cheaper that way.
They wouldn't be able to do debt-based spending with Bitcoin, at least, not like they do today.
But they could simply spend at a rate slightly-less than deflation and have a rise in purchasing power despite a nominal loss.
They would have a growing share of a shrinking pie, in other words, if they play their cards right.
Try your hardest to explain any comment made in this discussion to a typical everyday person. They won't comprehend a single sentence. People really don't seem to understand that many wealthy individuals and families really only have one giant line of credit 🤷♂️. It's up to the individual to figure out methods of wealth preservation.
nostr:npub1hv64t0jlg94p0tpq6zc8mrc5kyfhzwwn8fxp6m45jwdn9pmfs53q0yrjjm that just isn't true. At least, not as often as you would believe. Wealthy people do not always have to work hard to generate more wealth. Lol. It can actually be rather easy.
It is not always true. Some will stumble upon it by sheer luck. Or through inheritance, stealing. But most Bitcoiners worked for it I say. It is possible that some wealthy trust fund kids would have rode the way by putting their money into Bitcoin.
No but that Bitcoiner will need:
1. Health
2. Private jets
3. Freedom of speech (ahahah)
4. Space tours
5. Mega yachts
6. Mars bases
Elon Musk is the best example of how much a smart wealthy person can help our humanity. He has created employment for thousands of highly gifted individuals. He helps us fight climate change. He put a bandage on freedom of speech by buying Twitter. He is funding neuralink, space exploration, safe cars, etc.
That is the best use of wealth in my opinion.
Elon Musk is a complete departure from the norm.
But there are many people like him.
You are underestimating who we are up against. The US govt, if you consider it as a company, is worth 100s of trillions. Elon is nothing in front of the US cabal. He is nothing in front of Putin or the Saudi Crown prince.
We need more money at the top to solve these problems. Without money we can't do anything. And a solution to these problems that requires investment will probably make Elon like figures wealthier for solving such big problems.
And he took billions of dollars to do what he does.
Unicorn companies you know?
Everyone can make a unicorn company when gets billions of dollars from some government...
Those are not grants. The govt is paying for those services. I don't see anything wrong here ahaha
Or they bought some coke and then forgot about it for a bit…
Wise words🌅
Why is a Russian nordstream bad while other EU sources are good?
I don't understand the anti Russian sentiment in Europe. When did this sentiment start?
Multiple large sources better than one big source. Basic logistics management, which pipelines are part of.
Same way we suffer from the fact that certain chemicals used in essential pharmaceuticals are produced in only one factory in India.
So which large sources? Are there any that satisfy the demand?
Okay, agree with you, I just asked because you said you didn't want it built at all.
But you can always diversify while having the big source of Russian nordstream pipeline as a simple strategic move.
There has to be big reliable sources to do that. How could this be done? By using much more expensive LNG and depend on Greek shipowners who transfer the LNG? Are you sure you want to do that?
Don't need to use it when you don't have with nordstream but good to have alternative plans. Well, that's what is happening right now, isn't it?
But yeah the Germans should be angrier about the US blowing up their primary energy source.
No, it is not possible to diversify, while there is a cheaper option. The market will punish you and you will be crushed by your competition.
Same way it took Corona completely destroying logistics chains, to get manufacturing to diversify out of China.
Yes of course. The market will punish you for buying expensive alternative for no other reason but not having the nordstream pipeline built is also bad isn't it? German products woud've been more expensive than other country products.
I was suggesting to alternative plans if Russia was to increase price for their gas.
And I agree with you that nuclear is one of the best alternatives to have. Nami disagrees because of the "danger". Note that there are many countries using and still building new Nuclear plants. We need to mitigate the danger rather than giving up.
Yes. You are right but hear this. A friend used to work on windmill parks. He said to me that there is a law which says that you have to bild such windmill parks as an environmental counterweight if you want to make nuclear plants. I think that's why some things happen the way they do...
Diversifying suppliers is an investment in future resilience.
We wouldn't even need all that natural gas, if we turned the nuclear back on. We use a lot of the gas to produce electricity.
They created a problem on purpose, and then they told us Russia would solve it. 😕
Yes having alternatives is always good. Having the alternatves as the main choice is not good.
So, you say they created this problem why exactly?
That is the question, isn't it?
It's interesting, i never heard this narrative. I am really interested
I think they might have created this problem because it is probably hard for politicians and corporations bribing them to extract value by building new nuclear power plants.
First of all, it requires competence. You can't really accept bribes by allowing low quality equipments in the nuclear power plants because if they fail, you'll never get elected again. Why take such a risk when you buy Russian oil which requires a lot more moving parts where you can extract value?
And of course the incumbents that are already rich because of oil based products also bribe govts to lean towards oil.
Nuclear energy is pure. Energy is generated and goes into the grid. The govts lose some leverage if they go full nuclear.
That's a fair argument.
Still everything nuclear frightens me. After Fukushima i wouldn't approve anything like this though.
Also , russians make nuclear plants also. I think that they would have more profit doing so... So why promoting gas?
Because there is demand for gas. Why wouldn't they promote something they have?
Gas is good but you can cut it without having such big consequences as with nuclear power. When they depend on you about maintenance, fuel etc on nuclear is a different story. For example look at this
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/climate/enriched-uranium-nuclear-russia-ohio.html
Even USA is dependent on Russians. In fact Russians can kneel the West instantly for sure if they want. So why they don't do it? I can think of only two reasons. One, they don't want to play with the possibility that the West in its despair will do something to lead to a nuclear war, especially when it seems that they will win in the long run anyway. Two, there is a possibility, and that's my biggest fear, that Putin wants to be friends again with the West, or his partners as he used to say. In that case, the elite's grip on common people will be very tight...
What do you think guys?
Another problem with countries is that they are not run as companies. They don't care about diversifying, they do not own shares of the country rather get paid peanuts to run the country for a short period of time. They just want to be corrupt, accept bribes in their tenure and live happily ever after.