And this is exactly why I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. I did a pod last year with Jeff and have written articles using the Titanic as an analogy for this very position.

You can recognise Bitcoin as the lifeboat, but if you're underwater on the bottom deck of the Titanic and you can't breathe, then a lifeboat won't save you in time.

That's why I'm a big believer in reading the likes of 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' and 'The Richest man in Babylon' as a starting point. You've got to pay yourself first and save something (in bitcoin) for your future self. It's existential. You'll then start to see the polarity of the two systems, as one gets worse and the other gets better.

And clearly, fiat inflation will make life more and more difficult in this system, but Bitcoin will reflect this, literally like a mirror image. It has to.

Both paragraphs you've written are absolutely true. And it will get worse and worse. So the question should be which system are you going to give more of your energy to if you know this?

Honestly, I tread a horribly fine line in my day to day life and have witnessed it as a small business owner getting progressively more difficult for several years. But transferring what energy you can into Bitcoin, both literally and financially, is the only thing I believe you can do. I just see it as a priority, not as something to do at the end of the month.

Honest yes, but for $97 a month, I'd want better guidance than this. It never ceases to amaze me how people can claim to have been around since 2013 and still treat it like a tradeable asset within the fiat system.

This is awesome - I'm from the UK, but still, this is awesome.

Reposts?

The point is that it greatly reduces the friction points to do so. Yes, it's true that governments can pressure commercial banks to restrict access, but a CBDC would eventually remove the intermediary and give them absolute control.

It's mission creep towards a system whereby the issuance, usage, access and activity are all under one umbrella.

My take would be that commercial banks are gradually disintermediated. So, we don't all immediately have accounts directly issued by the central bank, but perhaps access via products issued by commercial banks at first.

If this happens, I'd say it's a decent bet that the end goal would be for everyone to have direct CBDC accounts with the central bank, perhaps on the premise of financial inclusion for everyone.

Once commercial banks lose their status, there's nothing between the customer and the central bank issuing and, most important, programming, the currency. They can then do what they want (link access, rates, privileges, to your social credit score).

Like I say, I'm not overly concerned either, but I think this is the gist of most people's fears.

Thanks for your reply, but I'm not sure I agree.

Negative interest rates for example. It's true that they could be employed now. But this would be through commercial banks. If this happened, people would rush to withdraw their money, a run on the banks. Through a CBDC, the commercial banks would be disintermediated. The policy would be set and implemented by the central bank directly.

It's true that there's already a net surrounding us, but CBDCs allow that net to be tightened further. For what it's worth, I don't particularly fear this, as I think attempts to employ it would push more people into Bitcoin. There are two systems we can choose from. A CBDC just makes the choice even more stark and obvious. It's an act of desperation from a failing system.

When it's digitally created by the central bank, it gives total control to the central bank.

The threat is not that it's digital, we already have that. It's that it becomes programmable with it.

Imagine a money whereby your access to it can be turned off. Where negative interest rates can be issued instantly and personally to individuals based on behaviour.

It's a totalitarian's wet dream and Bitcoin is the antithesis.

I didn't actually realise that until the end of the film, but will definitely check it out, thanks.

I'll follow...

"Quality memes, 1-sat zaps"

nostr:nprofile1qqs03ekxgdp0rczjfqrrpcn7zqtdec6lcwnpfesyxnl0f239qvege2gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wc9dqmsh

Respectfully, I disagree. He's been an incredible spokesperson for Bitcoin, but it's a new paradigm, not an asset within the fiat system.

This whole rebranding of Bitcoin as digital gold or digital capital is the threat to Bitcoin. It's a store of value yes, but his reluctance to embrace it as a medium of exchange of unit of account is telling.

I prefer not to speculate on individuals, but he will ultimately have some decisions to make. It may well be that he's the one wheeling in the Trojan horse, but this phase is accumulating massive amounts of bitcoin in centralised, corporate hands.

What do you think?

I credit Farage with being one of the people who made me realise many of the opinions I held were not my own. Rather, they were the opinions of others that I subconsciously believed were mine.

I was probably slightly repelled by him back in 2020, but found myself watching a YouTube advert for his newsletter after going down the inflation rabbit hole. Imagine my surprise when I found his financial insights and commentary, much of which centered around gold, quite in line with my own. I read it for a while before moving on, but vowed that I would always be a practitioner rather than a theorist from then on.

A few years on and I realise that much of what I thought I knew, particularly when it came to opinions on individuals, was actually subconscious programming formed from the habits of my consumption. A few thousand pages of David Icke later and I definitely have my own viewpoints, not always right and certainly open to change, but my own nonetheless.

I don't believe the answers necessarily lie within the political sphere, but Reform and Farage have done plenty to bring debate into the mainstream. He's Diet Trump at best.

Really enjoying your content, thanks.

Maybe. Honestly, I've got more questions than answers at this stage. The two systems are fundamentally incompatible. These products use bitcoin as an asset within the current financial system, rather than recognise it as something completely new, freestanding and independent.

I appreciate nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqngza3a. He's one of the best orators on these topics in this space. I fully believe he's a good actor and simply creating things in response to customer demand. He's a prolific contributor and we're lucky to have him. I'd like that to be completely clear.

I just can't square the circle of using bitcoin as collateral within the debt based fiat system, when I see it as a replacement. Perhaps it's part of the bridge to get there, hence why I ask the questions.

Appreciate the suggestions. nostr:nprofile1qqsf9jl9scw0c5snmkylpfhkppzgd7z7dupul6ms5yl52kfcz9jr8wqpz3mhxue69uhk2mmnw3skwunpd5hxxmmd9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dxqcju7tpdd5ksmmwdejjucm0d5hskuddf9 was kind enough to speak with me in my second episode. His books are some of my absolute favourites.

To be fair, Daniel didn't name you or Strike specifically - I brought Strike into the conversation simply because I'm a customer of yours, and a happy one at that. I'd rather tag you and engage than post without giving you a right to reply.

For the most part, I don't think this counts as mob or cancel culture, rather bitcoiners who have valid questions who are trying to navigate a new emerging system.

My issue has been with the framing of how these products work in principle, not in theory. Newcomers ought to be very clear that bitcoin's CAGR is not a steady 50%. Bitcoin is freedom money and people can do exactly as they please with it - they should be fully informed however, and asking questions will always be a vital component of that.

A 5% price drop is hardly big news, but a true bear market like we've seen before could trigger margin calls and I don't think continuing to make people aware of this is encouraging mob behaviour.

Agreed. But they will know full well that many people will gamble with larger portions of their stack.

My brother works in finance and he's always seen 2008 as a result of irresponsible borrowing. But there are two sides to every coin. Predatory lending is the enabler of irresponsible borrowing.

We need more boxing content on here...#boxstr

I'm a Strike customer and have a huge amount of respect for nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5tm8sjr , but the borrow against your bitcoin narrative has been something I've struggled to reconcile in my own mind. I've tagged Jack as a Strike user, but it could have been any number of people really.

As I understand it, Strike have partnered with financial service companies like Nydig to offer the funding for their loan products. That's Nydig led by Ross Stevens, who was interviewed by Saylor at the MSTR world conference in 2021. I reference that because Nydig clearly understand bitcoin deeply.

Amongst that understanding will be that, if measured in dollars, as an asset within the current system (which it's not), it has a CAGR of roughly 50%. It begs the question then, why would they sacrifice this return for an interest rate of 10% on capital lent out to bitcoiners? Particularly if they understand this at a fundamental level.

The play here is to amass bitcoin and it seems clear to me that they will have run the probabilities and come to the conclusion that enough people will get overstretched, under-collateralised, and ultimately margin called.

They're always 12 month terms, which is not a safe investment period given bitcoin's volatility. Jack and Mark Moss have both given examples of how these products could work, but always with a 12 month loan, whereby magically, at the end of this period, bitcoin's price will have risen 50%.

I find it totally misleading and, given that bitcoin is perfect collateral and doesn't require credit checks, people will be able to enter into these loans very easily.

I'm sure I'm getting something wrong along the way, maybe with how the funding process works behind the scenes, but I'm old enough to remember 'not your keys, not your coins'. This message seems to have been lost in the name of 'collaborative custody'.

I can't help thinking that a lot of people are going to have to eventually make a choice between defaulting on their loans or continually posting more and more of their stack as collateral.

I'd love to hear a response as to why I'm getting this wrong.

Agreed. It's becoming increasingly clear that Saylor sees Bitcoin as something that will revolutionise the current system, whereas Jeff sees it as a replacement and fundamentally incompatible. Saylor's interviews were a key component in my initial understanding of Bitcoin, but it's hard to see how the path he's forging doesn't lead to precisely what Jeff has guarded against. It's not an asset within the credit based system, it's a new system entirely. It's not a store of value, but new money that satisfies all criteria as money, including medium or exchange and unit of account.

nostr:nprofile1qqsg86qcm7lve6jkkr64z4mt8lfe57jsu8vpty6r2qpk37sgtnxevjcpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqaktkhj . I hope you're well. I wondered if you'd take a moment to read the article below and give me your thoughts.

https://open.substack.com/pub/anotherbitcoinpodcast/p/jeff-booth-ruined-my-podcast?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1nivjq

Now do the same keeping 12 words in your head and it's absolutely mental.

Written by the podcasters right?

Just playing devil's advocate here, but do you not think that point 2 is exactly his point?

His concerns around Knots seem to be centred around Luke being the only lead maintainer. As far as I'm aware, he's certainly never recommended upgrading to version 30.

What we need is to keep all aspects of bitcoin as decentralised as possible - mining, ownership and node software.

As a prominent voice in the space, if he were to give put his full weight behind Knots it could have a large impact. Maybe it's correct that he's cautious with his opinion and guarded about what he recommends.

For what it's worth, I recommend Knots. But not to everyone. Multiple node implementations are what's required and people should have more than one choice. Not upgrading is still a vote against version 30.

To be clear though, Core version 30 has been a shit show and is an open arms gesture to spam and non-monetary transactions.

I'm reading 'The Power of Now' at the moment and this is the essence of Tolle's message. Honestly, I'm flirting between it being psycho-babble and ultimate enlightenment. It's fascinating to think you can observe your own thoughts from afar.

I asked Grok the same question and it said Dogecoin.

Roughly 20 million voters didn't vote for Starmer in the election, so there's that.

We are not a serious country.

Yes. For me it's always about being grateful for what you already have, whilst striving to get better in all aspects of life. As I've got older, I've realised how I've underappreciated the relationships and friendships I already have.