npoc

For example, that its precursor WW1 was orchestrated and that many of the people who died were lied to and died unnecessarily. There are also theories that Hitler did not order the death of jews (no evidence found) - that "gas chambers" were actually group delousing showers and most of the mass deaths that occured in the concentration camps were due to breakouts of typhus.

So have I, but they don't have any of my data.

In what way is energy usage in creating money a negative?

e.g.

If money took no energy to create, what would it be worth? What if you limited its effortless creation to just a few people?

What do you think about the enormous energy usage (far more than bitcoin) in mining gold?

Why is saving up negative?

You crucially missed the "halving" out of that model.

The block reward halving every 4 years means that in 3 halvings (8-12 years), miners will spend roughly the same on electricity at $1M/BTC as they do now at $125k/BTC.

Further, at historical rates of dollar devaluation, in a decade $1M will only be worth ~$500k today, and so really only roughly two halvings are required to even the electricity use between $125k/BTC and $1M/BTC

Why would anyone accept a private key as payment? It's not very private if you gave it to me.

Too difficult to audit the total supply, and tail emission. Bitcoin is anonymous enough while remaining fully auditable (nobody secretly printing it out of thin air) and perfectly scarce.

If you think it's one of the least interesting technologies, then I suggest you don't understand the power of ideal scarcity in a liquid, digital asset

He's a guy who understands the fundamental attributes of money and economic value, and enough technical know-how to have confidence in Bitcoin's design

Financial experts (of whom many don't get bitcoin) understand finance.

My brain isn't capable of the mental gymnastics performed here.

It's a shame about the tail-emission and the difficulty in auditing the total supply

No money is more efficient than bitcoin.

decades

Shame about it's tail emission and poor supply audit-ability

My claims not only support my conclusion but they're also in the public domain.

The only story is your condescending description of my reply.

So again, as I said, please GFY.

I explained the evidence very clearly in my last answer. You're clearly not acting in good faith. You try and help people on here and this is what you get every time. GFY.

Fiat currencies are collapsing in value. It's a fact. Price fiat in any hard asset like gold, real estate, bitcoin etc and it's obvious to see. The devaluation can be seen to be almost directly linked to the increase in the supply which approximately doubles each decade (no coincidence that real estate prices do the same).

There is something very special about gold. It has the best monetary qualities of any physical substance. It is only bettered by bitcoin which essentially dematerialises gold - stripping away it's physical attributes that hinder it (portability, scarcity, verifiability, divisibility etc).

How are you measuring the value of gold? How are you sure it's not the value of the quote asset that fluctuating wildly. If everything was priced in gold do you really think that the prices of everything would fluctuate wildly? For what reason? The only reason for any sudden changes in value of gold are due to demand, which is caused as people move their wealth out of fiat currencies which are collapsing in value.

"Cointelegraph was unable to independently verify the owner of the new wallet"

Evidence that just because you learnt about bitcoin early, it doesn't mean you understand how it fits into the world. It seems some people simply aren't cut out to understand it. Bitcoin appears to them as some weird Ponzi scheme that just strangely never stops.

You are not considering the fundamental monetary qualities of bitcoin, only the current market.

Not at all. It naturally stabilises the closer it gets to its ultimate market cap. The more it stabilises the more it will be used as a medium of exchange.

I guess bitcoin is not for you.

Fiat currency: Why would I hold a currency that another nation sucks the value out of by printing it? Even the dollar has half its value stolen every decade.

Gold stock above ground doubles every 40ish years, halving it's value each time. Think how difficult it is to safely move and assay billions of dollars worth.

The reason nations aren't publicly using bitcoin as a reserve is that it's still only the year 2025

Is monopoly money a threat to the dollar? Does Hasbro need to report to the Fed how much it has issued each year?

People will only hoard hard money until they need to buy things after they've run out of the state's fiat tokens to try and sell.

Look up Gresham's and Thier's Laws

It depends how you measure value. By stabilise I mean stops growing in value by 50%/yr with big short term swings of 80%.

As it matures and gets close to it's ultimate value, volatility will naturally reduce.

Once it is used as the unit of account, everything else will fluctuate in value relative to bitcoin, which has more stable fundamentals than anything else on earth (fixed/zero issuance, liquidity etc), but this will be decades in the future when it's dollar value will be 8 or 9 figures in today's money

Okay, so it's an attack vector but one that can be mitigated against by implementing redundancy.

I would argue that Lightning's biggest security issue is having to store your private keys on an Internet connected device. I don't know if further improvements can be made in this area, for example allowing for some kind of 2FA, like multi-sig on the base layer.

To become a medium of exchange, it needs to become a unit of account. That will happen as it's value stabilises, and that will only happen once it's proved itself as a store of value.

What if Henry Ford evisaged his Model T being used as a temporary alternative for when your horse is unwell? Or a fairground ride? Bitcoin is what it is.

> And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

Interest - the age-old solution. Offer me interest that both compensates me for not having use of my money and for the risk of getting it back, and we have a deal.

"Monetary policy" in reality simply means printing more money than is ever destroyed. It's human nature and always will be.

This means bitcoin's average price will go up forever when priced in fiat tokens. Or anything else for that matter - even gold's above-ground stock doubles every 35 years. How's that for an incentive?

The largest amounts of value will always settle in the best store of value for large amounts of value. Show me one with better fundamentals than bitcoin.

You say bitcoin is "so silly". Please give me an example of anything better for nation states to hold as reserves and to transact with other nations with.

I'll even allow you an imaginary thing as long as it's constrained by the real world.

You could also say that the bad guys are "piggy-backing" off the good people who hold it.

What should you do? Censor their transactions? Who gets to say who gets censored?

Like democracy, bitcoin is for everyone, including your enemies.