1. Yes, again, you cannot fractionally reserve something with a fixed issuance very much until it's obvious you are lying. This isn't gold where the supply is unknown.
2. The money blackrock controls is not it's own, it's the money of it's investors. Mis-managing investor funds is what caused Bernie to die in prison. I doubt Larry wants to share that same fate.
3. this is absolutely incorrect. Again, I direct you to the 2017 fork war where the vast majority of miners signaled on-chain support for the big blocks. But the node operators simply did not update their software to that version, and the rest is history. Stating this claim of yours without supporting evidence and in the face of clear contrary evidence is just you not wanting to admit your fantasy is mismatched with reality.
4. If you run your own node and are educated about bitcoin then you give zero fucks about the brand. I give zero fucks what you call the proof of work chain that I run a node against. It doesn't matter. You can brand your proof of stake shitcoin "bitcoin" all day long I, and anyone else who actually understands the protocol, will never run a node against that network.
If bitcoin is going to be compromised it will be either:
1. soft-forking in some new opcodes that can be co-oped. Covenants are a good example of this. This is a major vulnerability.
2. Hash pool consolation which allows controlling interests to censor the network. This is an attack that is happening now, as we speak.
1. The addresses that hold #BlackRock BTC ETF are not known, so yes, fractional reserves could be run in this case. By your argument we could say that centralized exchanges without proof of reserves necessarily have full #BTC reserves which makes no sense.
2. IMO, it’s a naive view to think that BlackRock couldn’t in any way subsidize the miners he has invested in. Investment is already a form of subsidy. You’re referring to Bernie who is an individual who ran a Ponzi scheme. This is a totally different scenario.
3. That’s your interpretation that because node operators signal for one side that is the reason why this side has kept the ownership of the #Bitcoin brand but in reality the side that get to keep the brand is determined by a social consensus that goes beyond node operators and include the entire ecosystem including exchanges and miners. Node majority isn’t a hard coded consensus rule, it is a social one. Also, node majority voting isn’t resistant to sybil attacks that BlackRock could attempt.
4. Go tell that to Bitcoin Cash folks on how not owning the Bitcoin brand had impacted the value of this side of the fork. The Bitcoin brand is the greatest asset to Bitcoin for its numbers to go up. The side that lose the brand will lose the network effect over time.
I agree on the risks that #covenant represent for Bitcoin.
Use your logical mind a bit.... What happens when the total ETF AUM of bitcoin is 15 million? You cannot fractionally reserve an asset with a fixed supply where the majority of it IS known.
Where is blackrock going to get the money to subsidize it's miners? It's going to steal investor money? It's going to do this as a minority investor in these companies? How does it actually control the miners as a minority investor? It's like you don't understand how an ETF manager actually operates.
Node operators do not signal, miners signal, you have to make blocks to signal. Ok so we've determined that you don't actually know enough about how bitcoin works to be having a conversation about the way hardforks are driven in the space. Nodes don't vote, that's not how it works.
Study more, speculate less.
You keep recycling the same arguments so no need for me to add to this discussion.
yes i'm trying to help you understand but you keep saying the same thing "they will rehypothecate" and then i explain why that's not really possible but then you said it again.
You're also confused about what fork signaling is, you're confused about why the node operators control the network, you're confused about many things.
Just like previously when I was trying to help you understand what the real threats are, like the covenants you are so fond of.
But you don't listen or learn, you just stubbornly stick to your fantasy theories about blackrock controlling all the hashpower somehow, even when i explain why that's not possible.
Dude, you must be talking to the wrong guy. I’m not so fond of convenants…
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
You seem to not understand how easy it is to pull of fractional reserves on an internal ledger. Coinbase (BlackRock I'd a shareholder) could just sell empty claims. They show 1M in reserves. But they sell 2M of coins. Nobody even would notice.
That's not true. The price would reflect it. Suppression. Easy to dump and scare the market. Scoop up coins at the bottom and reduce fractional reserves. Rinse and repeat.
That's how Binance has done it. And that's his BlackRock will do it.
so your theory is they will rehypothecate, and then dump the market with bitcoin they don't actually have because they rehypothecated it, and then somehow buy back all the bitcoin they have rehypothecated and also the bitcoin they sold all because they "panicked" the market?
Not how bitcoin works.
Thread collapsed
I always find it amusing when people imagine that the most bullish asset in human history is having it's price suppressed. Boggles the mind.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
So now they control 3 million coins the ETF is insolvent, when bitcoin goes to 250k and people take profit, blackrock execs go to prison.
Don't forget that ETFs are cash settled.
They will just print enough USD to not go insolvent. It's the endgame or the prelude to the endgame and they will go to extremes.
What bothers me is the naivete of sine self-proclaimed BTC maxis.
if they are going to print money off the books, defrauding the federal reserve, give that cash to blackrock to settle ETF profits, while not actually buying the bitcoin, why wouldn't they just buy the bitcoin? Makes no sense.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
bitcoin cash did not fail because they did not control the brand. it failed because it used big blocks and did not adopt segwit. Again this is a serious misunderstanding of history on your part.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
