Bitcoin

[andromedaaudio]

Shitcoin i love it .
I think people would actually buy it .

My dream is to cash in on goldstocks in a couple of years and make an audioshop in the netherlands or germany with a state of the art room .
Become a Boulder dealer make a nice combo 2110 - -3060 or 3010 - 3050 with expensive cables .
And then just crush that system soundwise with a Convergent legend pre - JL5 and cheap cables .
I love it , cant wait to see all those audiophiles looking at the 20 euro interlinks / 3 euro powercords

 

[Ron Resnick]

I put $1000 in it yesterday thinking I was an idiot and didn't look at crypto prices till 3pm today. Saw it had gone up >200% on the day and my $1000 was now $2500. I sold it Z

Perfectly played!

 

[Zero000]

Perfectly played!

It's made me smile and it does have a history of pump and dump, so players and idiots like me beware!

If it continues to pump I'll be more than amused

Technically the coin has no real merit, but as Elon surmised it would be ironic if a coin that was created as a joke became a major currency.

It's only code. It can always be changed and made into something else. There's food for thought there. It's true of all of them if the players involved in their development agree by consensus.

Bitcoin's supply is supposed to be immutable, but basically it's just a load of C++. It CAN be changed if there's agreement to do so.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I read the Satoshi white paper last night. Of course I did not understand the mathematical formulas, but the underlying concepts are intelligible, and the merely nine page paper is succinctly and clearly written.

The white paper's brevity and declarative clarity reminded me of the U.S. Constitution.

My current understanding is that Bitcoin is permanently, irrevocably hard-capped. Even if it might be theoretically possible for the hard cap to be raised, it would require the collusion of miners, nodes and developers. The resulting hard fork still would leave the original hard-capped BTC blockchain in place, I believe.

I'd rather take my chances with the decentralized Bitcoin governance system than with politicians and central banks.

 

[Folsom]

Bitcoin's supply is supposed to be immutable, but basically it's just a load of C++. It CAN be changed if there's agreement to do so.

That's an over simplification. The code, yes, but the blockchain? NO.

 

[Zero000]

That's an over simplification. The code, yes, but the blockchain? NO.

But the code controls how the Blockchain is interpreted.

Do you think the 4 year mining supply halving is data contained in the Blockchain?

If it is, so what? Change the code to ignore it.

I really shouldn't say things like this...

That said, I believe is basically safe. It's has been for a long time now. But nothing is certain.

 

[Folsom]

But the code controls how the Blockchain is interpreted.

Do you think the 4 year mining supply halving is data contained in the Blockchain?

If it is, so what? Change the code to ignore it.

I really shouldn't say things like this...

That said, I believe is basically safe. It's has been for a long time now. But nothing is certain.

I'm sorry but you shouldn't say things like that because you don't understand it well enough.

The code does not interpret what is saved on the blockchain. What is saved is as much in stone as anything can be. When people talk about a 51% attack they neglect to mention that you can't change particularly old blocks - in fact only very recent ones would stand a chance. The only way you could really get away with it is by one that isn't sealed, but even then you're almost guaranteed to make a fork instead. This is because you can't reprocess, the means don't exist.

Code change without creating a fork requires consensus. But again it doesn't change the blocks. Consensus is on implementing things like the Lightening. People run their own nodes frequently so even an egregious (nonsensical, no-reason, improbable) attack isn't a way to mute anyone from their wallet.

 

[Zero000]

I'm sorry but you shouldn't say things like that because you don't understand it well enough.

The code does not interpret what is saved on the blockchain. What is saved is as much in stone as anything can be. When people talk about a 51% attack they neglect to mention that you can't change particularly old blocks - in fact only very recent ones would stand a chance. The only way you could really get away with it is by one that isn't sealed, but even then you're almost guaranteed to make a fork instead. This is because you can't reprocess, the means don't exist.

Code change without creating a fork requires consensus. But again it doesn't change the blocks. Consensus is on implementing things like the Lightening. People run their own nodes frequently so even an egregious (nonsensical, no-reason, improbable) attack isn't a way to mute anyone from their wallet.

Think again.

I am a software engineer with 38 years industry experience. Plus another 5 outside of that as a kid.

So what I say just has to be true

 

[Folsom]

Think again.

I am a software engineer with 38 years industry experience. Plus another 5 outside of that as a kid.

So what I say just has to be true

If that's true you should know better. If you just said I don't know much about Bitcoin that would have been fine.

 

[bonzo75]

But the code controls how the Blockchain is interpreted.

Do you think the 4 year mining supply halving is data contained in the Blockchain?

If it is, so what? Change the code to ignore it.

I really shouldn't say things like this...

That said, I believe is basically safe. It's has been for a long time now. But nothing is certain.

You can't change blockchain rules like that without consensus. That's the whole point.

 

[Zero000]

You can't change blockchain rules like that without consensus. That's the whole point.

Which is what I said. Which means it isn't immutable, as I said.

 

[Zero000]

If that's true you should know better. If you just said I don't know much about Bitcoin that would have been fine.

All I did was try and probe someone for where the

If that's true you should know better. If you just said I don't know much about Bitcoin that would have been fine.

Actually, it's you that doesn't understand.

 

[Folsom]

You can't change blockchain rules like that without consensus. That's the whole point.

Yes, and there isn't enough processing power to change old blocks. You would never catch up. Any changes in old blocks require that all blocks between it and the contemporary one be reprocessed. (or rather sealing keys harvested)

 

[KeithR]

I have no idea about Doge, but BTC is going up....because it's going up. Really has no use or store of value concept still. In fact, it is actually correlated to SPX and doesn't hedge anything.

Basically Elon bought some and everybody jumped on board again thinking companies would diversify cash holdings. This is an overstated concept imo. The whole world has thought about institutional ownership for awhile now. I've kept 1/3 of my BTC as a long term hold but definitely wouldn't be adding. the easy money has been made.

What's really sad is how the media pumped up $COIN and people lost their shirts this week. Imagine buying it on the open lol.

 

[Folsom]

Doge is a meme coin... a learning tool if you will.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . BTC is going up....because it's going up. Really has no use or store of value concept still. In fact, it . . . doesn't hedge anything.

. . . The whole world has thought about institutional ownership for awhile now. . . . the easy money has been made.

This post stopped me in my tracks. KeithR is an investment professional and I am not, so I have to weight his opinions heavier than I weight my own opinions. His opinions give me pause.

I think Bitcoin is a store of value.

I think Bitcoin is a hedge on the unlimited printing of fiat currency.

I think institutional acceptance and adoption of Bitcoin as an investment and as an asset class in broadening.

Bitcoin maximalists assert that Bitcoin is going to US$500,000 and then to US$1 million over many years. My personal investment thesis is far more modest. I believe Bitcoin is a competitor to gold. I think this is one reason the price of gold has stalled in the face of unprecedented printing of US dollars.

Right now BTC is about 10% of the market capitalization of gold. I think it is very reasonable to assume that BTC will get to at least 20% or 30% of the market capitalization of gold in the next few years. That would suggest that BTC doubles or triples in price from here. And that is before we even consider any use of BTC as a currency or as a token of commerce.

In the first three months of this year, it became clear to me that Bitcoin will now become a standard part of almost every investment adviser's and money manager's asset allocation pie chart showing allocations to stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities. My personal view is that BTC will not go below the January low of $32,000, which was the beginning of the "a-ha moment" for the institutional investment world.

I think there now are institutional and high net worth investors all over the world looking to buy significant BTC dips to establish initial investments and to increase their exposure to BTC. I think this is why the dips since the Morgan Stanley announcement have been shallow compared to BTC's prior dips.

Finally, I believe that a "Minsky Moment" favors literally only BTC and gold.

I used to think in the traditional investment terms of buying Bitcoin, hoping it goes up, and selling it at a profit. I thought of Bitcoin as the means to make a profit. Now I think of Bitcoin as the end. Now I hope my other investments go up so I can sell them and buy more Bitcoin. I am never selling Bitcoin again.

But KeithR is the investment professional, and I am not. Keith is more successful in the difficult field of investing than I am.

It will be fascinating to see who proves to be more correct over the years.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Public Service Announcement:

Galaxy Digital is 27% below its recent all time high.

 

[DaveC]

User211 is correct that btc is vulnerable and it's just a matter of time. This is my father's opinion anyways... It WILL be hacked. When, who knows, it just depends on technology. All it'll take is a quantum leap in computing power, and looking at history it might come sooner than later. My Dad was in charge of computer security for Sandia Labs and gave advise to the DoD before his retirement.

As far as it being a store of value like gold, I'd agree except gold has some inherent value and is used to plate our connectors. BTC is worth what people agree... Kinda like fiat come to think of it... And once again, Americans should support the USD as it's in our own best interest. BTC is in nobody's best interest except the speculators and miners and those who use it for nefarious purposes. I'd argue it's harmful to the US dollar, and maybe that's exactly the point. Much of the US population has been brainwashed to think stuff like "shitty fiat", so here we are valuing alternatives that have no real value as a hedge against our own fears and negative fantasies about the future of the USD and the US government.

 

[bonzo75]

User211 is correct that btc is vulnerable and it's just a matter of time. This is my father's opinion anyways... It WILL be hacked. When, who knows, it just depends on technology. All it'll take is a quantum leap in computing power, and looking at history it might come sooner than later. My Dad was in charge of computer security for Sandia Labs and gave advise to the DoD before his retirement.

As far as it being a store of value like gold, I'd agree except gold has some inherent value and is used to plate our connectors. BTC is worth what people agree... Kinda like fiat come to think of it... And once again, Americans should support the USD as it's in our own best interest. BTC is in nobody's best interest except the speculators and miners and those who use it for nefarious purposes. I'd argue it's harmful to the US dollar, and maybe that's exactly the point. Much of the US population has been brainwashed to think stuff like "shitty fiat", so here we are valuing alternatives that have no real value as a hedge against our own fears and negative fantasies about the future of the USD and the US government.

I agree that banks have been hacked. Some of the so called defi companies too. Btc not. If you try to find out why...

 

[Ron Resnick]

User211 is correct that btc is vulnerable and it's just a matter of time. This is my father's opinion anyways... It WILL be hacked. When, who knows, it just depends on technology. All it'll take is a quantum leap in computing power, and looking at history it might come sooner than later. My Dad was in charge of computer security for Sandia Labs and gave advise to the DoD before his retirement.

As far as it being a store of value like gold, I'd agree except gold has some inherent value and is used to plate our connectors. BTC is worth what people agree... Kinda like fiat come to think of it... And once again, Americans should support the USD as it's in our own best interest. BTC is in nobody's best interest except the speculators and miners and those who use it for nefarious purposes. I'd argue it's harmful to the US dollar, and maybe that's exactly the point. Much of the US population has been brainwashed to think stuff like "shitty fiat", so here we are valuing alternatives that have no real value as a hedge against our own fears and negative fantasies about the future of the USD and the US government.

Thank you for your post.

I interpret Boomer skepticism about Bitcoin as bullish for Bitcoin.

Please do not rope in any discussion about politics or the U.S. Government.

It is fair to ask whether a breakthrough in quantum computing could jeopardize 256 bit encryption. Bitcoin maximalists reply:

1) As any company or team gets close to achieving quantum supremacy, blockchain developers can take action to counter this development, and

2) Quantum computing capable miners would for a time have the sole ability to mine additional Bitcoins, but that eventually the naturally increasing mining difficulty would require hash rates which would impede the progress even of a quantum computer.

These are the Bitcoin maximalists' responses. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever if these replies are valid or plausible.