Oh. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the lows one year ago. Up 120% since then, but yeah, whoa, that Tether chart is crazy. It looks like people are selling, but the market says otherwise.

BTC has gone up and down many times over the years. What does that have to do with the ultimate bear case?

Also it's funny using investment terms like bulls and bears over an imaginary currency built solely on faith and easy-money speculation.

As a bull, not being slightly worried about this much oversight/enforcement here strikes me as odd. Specially if ETF approval is what's needed for the next leg up.

I'm neutral on crypto right now, seems like way too many variables in either direction to pick one. But not being worried about what's taking place here based on how this (fraud) has worked the last many years strikes me as putting your head in the sand and crying "only up".

I think we've not seen the most interesting parts of how this will play out now. I think the fines and growing resources for this space will also create more velocity for enforcement.

this didn't age very well...

few more in memoriams then up only

That's the very definition of decentralization that works...

And its a reality now. And it wasn't before.

For some of your point you aren't think of a bitcoin standard that has central banks elastically supplying their respective currencies.

For other parts of your point, its not how economics works.

If I post a quote of him talking about a standard that is like a gold standard but not a gold standard, how do you assert that its not germane to the subject of a comparable bitcoin standard?

I don't understand this insanity?

You guys are treating me like I'm saying "oh you won't nash"

Jesus jbouton stop it with 'nash' every word.

Nothing can be more juvenile than asserting bitcoin is going to hyperinflate fiat. nothing can be more relevant significant and critical to our lives than getting people to understand that we can use bitcoin as the basis of a new monetary order that is described in nash's work. The THING DESCRIBED. I want to point to that.

Ok so if we want to talk about how bitcoin should be discussed in the context of how there can exist a money between the competing super powers china and the US, and how interesting it is that neither have to sanction it to be able to reliably settle in it and how stupid it is to only paint bitcoin as a freedom for the individual money then thats off topic?

toothsayer would NOT let anyone talk about bitcoin in the context of a high value settlement medium among nations. he would constantly bring the dialogue because to whether or not it is a good coffee money for joe blow which it isn't and can't be.

everywhere on the internet is infiltrated and forcing the conversation between bitcoin is nothing to bitcoin will destroy fiat. let this place force it to be between hyperbitcoinizatoin and nashification (a gold like bitcoin standard NOT the saifedean kind) and watch it light the world on fire.

you wouldn't use a Commodity for international settlement... you would use something like XRP and settlement would be nearly instantaneous, unlike the current 'text' based system of Swift.

you have no concept of what you are talking.

Ok you wouldn't use an international commodity for settlement. IN WHAT ****ING UNIVERSE?

XRP? YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF TECHNICAL DETAILS. ZERO CLUE.

And in what ****ING universe is talking about bitcoin off topic in a ****ing bitcoin general thread.

You guys are so gross.

You guys need to become better people. You treat humans terribly.

Money is something that arose naturally. It has a curious nature to it such that we all use it but don't realize that we don't' really understand its nature.

Its even deeper than that. At the most fundamental layer of "reciprocal altruism" as Szabo calls it when he draws reference to dawkins, it allows us to make trustworthy arrangements and contracts that otherwise couldn't be formed.

It brings groups that otherwise have different and competing paradigms into cooperative mutually beneficial order. But of course then thats above our ability to really comprehend if we are from one side of the dualistic parties. (are you able to comprehend a world where the us and china agree to the same monetary standard?)

If bitcoin is going to bring all of the nations under a single order, you have to understand how much its nature is such that we dont' really understand the paradigm shift. When people want to hold the dialogue to the petty question of 'is bitcoin a good medium for a daily used coffee type money'. Its because they have ulterior motives other than truth.

The second Blackrock and the ETFs became THE thing for BTC, imho the dream died. The whole decentralized ideal money think went up in smoke right there.

If you are an idiot then your dream died. If you know nothing about economics, your dream died. If you have a false silly narrative your dream died.

If you have any brains at all, you understand bitcoin's price needs these things around the world in order to have a type of strength. Yes 'ideal money' died there. But not "Ideal Money"...

Ideal Money only starts when the price hits that equilibrium of stability...then this starts...




Then what happens when it has that new type of price equilibrium?

You see the world is beginning to ask because of satoshi 'what is the ideal money?'. Nash was beyond clever here, he answered it with completely different context and frameworks, knowing we would be approaching the question naturally eventually...

Its not what is the ideal money...its 'what is the ideal money scenario'....?

I missed this. what do you mean?

When we would rather watch humanity slaughter itself than admit we are wrong.

popcorn.gif

Early front runner for my favorite video of the year.

Pete rizzo and his peers seem to have taken out short positions against silicon valley VC's, betting that ethereum and crypto infrastructure will soon get absorbed by bitcoin. So these guys now have a vested interest in controlling the protocol evolution/development. You can see it in his face.

I stated that the asymptotic cost per hash is stabilized by the DAA

And I got kicked out of the thread.

I'm pushing back. This thread is controlled by an absolutely OUT OF CONTROL mod.

Who is inserting their own political beliefs and holding the community to them.

Show me the cost per hash is determinant on the mining efficacy.

its a god dman math question that you disprove with empirical evidence not just ****ing mod and delete me making the point.

use your ****ing heads.

*******s.