The risk of positioning #Bitcoin as a store of value only is that market downturns can trigger a loss of confidence in the belief that #BTC is actually a strong store of value. This happens at each cycle and Bitcoiners have learnt to factor the high volatility in the store of value narrative. However the core assumption that keeps this narrative alive is that the price of Bitcoin goes higher with each cycle and that every cycle correction put on a higher high. However what would happen if Bitcoin was to fail to make a higher high in a cycle uptrend or would put on a lower low in a cycle correction? Wouldn’t the « store of value » narrative be seriously undermined? In this case, what would be left for Bitcoin to sustain the demand and keep the hodlers from getting scared?

How would you react if it appears evident that Bitcoin fails to put on a higher high or put on a lower low in a cycle? Would you still consider Bitcoin as a store of value?

The bullishness on #Bitcoin correlates directly with the knowledge about money and the history of central banking.

Study. Read. Question.

A small group of committed individuals can change the world, and they don’t have to burn anything or anyone down in the process.

- Stack Sats.

- Run a #Bitcoin Node.

- Promote a #Bitcoin circular economy.

Every single one of us has the power to make the world a better place.

“Bro Peter Tiel is only FUDing Bitcoin so he can buy more.

He admittedly spoke with friends at the FBI & attends the annual Bilderberg Group event as a member of the Steering Committee.

Peter Tiel is such a spook that he believes Bitcoin should be private & ETFs are bad for the project’s mission. His views are not at all consistent with his 2004 essay “The Straussian Moment”, he never wanted Bitcoin to succeed where PayPal failed.

Just listen to Michael Saylor, he is definitely not a spook and wants what’s best for Bitcoin!”

If you know of a better place to store wealth, I'm all ears. Monero clearly hasn't been the place

“When people in the FBI tell me that they’d much rather have criminals use Bitcoin than $100 bills, it suggests that it’s not working the way it was supposed to”

– Peter Thiel, a billionaire investor who says he was in it for the disruptive cypherpunk tech and not for the compliant NGU that’s all about becoming part of the legacy financial system.

Something to really reflect upon. This guy has more money than Michael Saylor, more powerful friends, attends the Bilderberg annual meeting. Says he was in it for the revolution, clearly wanted base layer privacy – while the narrative we’ve been told that privacy is bad for adoption turned out to be just a lie on order to politically capture the system.

Still blows my mind that Signal has an integrated shitcoin.

The real problem with big blockers & shitcoiners is that they don't understand enough about money & economics to have any awareness of the actual problem that #bitcoin was created to solve.

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”

This isn't about fucking coffee payments. It's about ending monetary slavery. We will eventually get the coffee payments too, but not if we let a bunch of wildly ignorant people fuck up base layer security.

No one is saying we should rely on trusted 3rd parties

Didn't you just mention Ecash as the solution in your last reply? Isnt ecash centralized and ruggable?

You guys are blinded by hate for other crypto without seeing trade offs (EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO BITCOIN LAYERS!!! THEN ITS OK!!!). If I slapped on the word "Bitcoin" onto anything piece of trash and started making the podcast rounds and spitting buzzwords yall would gobble it up whatever it was

Not understanding that preventing monetary debasement is the whole point actually makes you literally retarded. Your ignorance seems to be so complete that you don't even know that you don't know enough to have an opinion.

Go read Meltdown by Tom Woods or The Creature From Jekyll Island or Layered Money or The Bitcoin Standard or The Fiat Standard or anything about Austrian Economics & money.

The genisis block message about Bitcoin being in response to bank bailouts wasn't some sort of random accident. Jfc.

Transactions rarely cost more than a few dollars. We need better ways to trustlessly share UTXOs so that they can cost $1000+ because they probably will at some point.

The ~4mb limit has nothing to do with the cost of a harddrive.

It already costs a couple hundred dollars to buy the hardware needed to run a node. Storage & computational demands have grown & will continue to do so.

Lopp has written about past efforts to sync an ETH node from zero, which took weeks when everything went right & it repeatedly failed. Do you understand how fragile the network becomes if downloading & verifying everything takes that long & any significant number of nodes gets wiped out?

If only Google & Visa can run nodes then we have just recreated the Fed banks. They can change the rules & the supply however they see fit.

The cost of running a node gets exponentially larger as the number of nodes shrinks. Everyone who uses bitcoin has to connect to a node, what happens when the number of leechers massively outweighs the number of seeders? What does that do to the cost of seeding info?

We did get to vote. Me selling BCH after the fork was a vote.

You need to understand the incentives better. No one ever promised 1 sat/vB fees and your equation does not take into account miners incentives. On the other hand 90% of the world can not afford couple hundred dollar equipment for a node.

But the most important thing to understand is that for blockchain to compete with traditional rails we need blocks to be larger than 1Gb and that is by current metric where half of the world is not banked so if you wanna bank everyone you need huge blocks and that fucks up everything. So back to my initial point - no blocksize can put everyone on the blockchain

We’ve been there already and no that is not the solution. No blocksize can put everybody on blockchain nor it should. It would only centralize everything and we’ll be at the same place rethinking scaling with just enormous remorse.

Money is layered system and that is the only proper thing to do. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Things have to get very complicated before they become simple 😉

Just take a look at what Satoshi did - he took couple of very complicated things and combined them in very simple way

Because every blockchain with meaningful adoption that has tried to do more txns on the base layer has still ended up with massive txn costs & because of their choices about base layer capacity they became centralized.

And the only reason it hasn't happened to bitcoin is that it is much harder to change. So how else are you going to add capacity if not in layers?

Even Hal suggested bitcoin banks would be necessary. But hopefully we will have something like shared UTXOs backing L2 blockchains which are networked via Lightning, so that everyone gets their own virtual UTXO & doesn't have to depend on trusting people too much.