So you think maybe Yellens logic is “there’s not enough demand to finance the government via the long term. We don’t know how soft the long term demand is, so we will over issue on the short end just to be safe”?

Good observation. I‘d assume that demand is not strong enough, which is why issuance has to be suppressed by scaling down long-dated issuance.

Yes!

maybe

I haven’t listened to it either cause I get it already. He hates Drake. Don’t need to write a whole album about it. 😂

Putting btc into wbtc is extremely careless to begin with, this is applicable to bitcoin as well but this is why we stress over not complicating things and HWWs that can check this for you.

Someone privately asked me why I am wasting my time refuting the hyperbitcoinization narrative. They suggested that if I’m right, it doesn’t matter in the end. They also suggested this represents an unnecessary argument *within* the bitcoin conversation.

One, I don’t feel like I’m wasting my time at all. Because my goal isn’t even to convince people who hold the view that hyperbitcoinization is inevitable. In fact, given their predilection for simple, self-consistent narratives and their tendency to dismiss my attempts as nuance as a “lack of critical thinking skills”, I don’t actually expect to convince them of anything. But I do want to debate them, if for no other reason than I can test the strength of my own ideas. Which for me, is pretty important to being intellectually honest with one’s self. Alas, it does not surprise me that they refuse the opportunity of debate. Because, well, you can guess where I’m going.

The audience for things like this are always the unconvinced. The people who are coming to bitcoin for the first time and trying to make sense of it. I seek to give them a theory of bitcoin I think makes sense, and steers it towards its potential. That focuses people on believable use cases, that will hopefully, on balance direct research and development into more productive products and ideas.

Also, I am just generally fascinated by people who think they have everything figured out, and can smugly claim that something in the future is “inevitable”. I’ve never thought anything about the future is inevitable. To me, the future is an epistemic fog-of-war. The fact some people think they see it with overwhelming clarity (even in the narrow issue of money and markets) by playing forward some theory from a first principles foundation, says to me something about human nature that, quite frankly, I see as the seeds of fanaticism at worst, and sophistry at best.

As for the worry that I’m trying to create unnecessary discord within the bitcoin conversation, this just offends my intellectual and truth-seeking sensibilities. If I think something is wrong, and I feel strongly enough about it that I want to say something about it, then I’m going to. I don’t know what to tell you. Suggesting that it’s counterproductive to engage in a debate against a relatively popular strain of thought, in a field I work in, that I think is wrong, is just bizarre to me.

It’s the anti-intellectual golem showing up again.

My Twitter feed has turned into mostly ETF & Saylor talk.

Is this what excites most bitcoiners these days? Am I missing something here?

You're operating upon an unproven assumption that the default state is nonexistence rather than existence.

I find it astounding that folks can honestly believe, have actual faith in that they can not know if God exists. Existence of creation is literally everywhere. But if one doesn’t have eyes to see or have ears to hear what can a man do?

Instead of elliott just playing video games, i’m trying out #habitica for gamifying chores and learning tasks. For example: finish a page of worksheet, get xp. Never seen him so excited to read a book and clean his room 😅

Not sure. Seems credible that a lot of the Renaissance era manuscripts found that are the basis of everything we know outside of architecture were forgeries. There was a big market for Roman stuff, so a lot was faked. Many have subsequently been found out, including some of Gibbons sources. But there’s forgery questions even around things like Tacitus.

Curious to see if the ETFs will be allowed to stake, I assume they will.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons. 2nd time through recently. Read it when I found out the founding fathers were obsessed with it while fighting the revolution. Even if Roman history is mostly fake, it’s sensational.

Letters from Cortez. Correspondence from Cortez back to Spain during his expeditions in Mexico. Including a fun bit on Charles the 5th not understanding inflation when the gold market is flooded in Europe.

My favorite two old books from last year.

Amethyst has 3 taps to switch profiles.