Topic: Bitcoin foundation - page 4. (Read 807 times)

No they don't because that's were they all get there salaries from, like I meant source of income, but are you insinuating that Satoshi Nakamoto is not establiahing a negative price in the market? No he does, because sometimes the price goes up and comes down (fluctuate) hope you get my point? Like you said earlier that no one can set the price of an oil, so no one can set the price of Bitcoin too.

"no one can set the price of oil - it's up to Allah"

So, following your logic, did the government establish negative prices for oil?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082

I don't know if I am wrong or right, because I believe that bitcoin can't be compared to oil, by the way what oil? Crude oil or ? Lol, crude is been controlled by the government and Bitcoin is not controlled by government, or do you espect me to agree with you that Bitcoin is far more better than crude? Bitcoin has nothing to do with politics, okay! And we can't redict it future outcome because Satoshi Nakamoto is an appariton. Hope am right? 

OP is failing to understand how this things works, if there is a product and no body is there to buy the products that means the products is a waste product, what makes markets to be lively is product, buying and selling, and the buyers and sellers are the number one capital in the organization, if there's no buyers and no sellers the products and both the market will close down because the market without buyers and sellers  it can not be able to provide more valuable income that will uplift the product in future to come, every bad products have criticism, costomers criticized the product because it's not useful or whatever.

I'm struggling to get past the first hurdle here.  Putting aside all the religion stuff, the basic premise of the thread boils down to "IF collusion and market rigging THEN high fiat prices for BTC.  But we're never going to experience that "IF".  There are non-millionaires who own 2.625 or more BTC.  You don't have to be fantastically wealthy to be in that position if you got in early enough. 

As such, there won't be an elite cabal of market riggers to conspire together and rig the market.  Just some ordinary people who happen to hold some bitcoins and may well decide to sell them one day if they find their financial circumstances change.  Maybe they need money for healthcare, or perhaps they want to buy a house.  There could be any number of factors on their decision.

Real life gets in the way sometimes.  Some may find themselves in a position where they have no alternative but to sell their BTC.  Crazy theories about religion don't enter the equation.

Beyond the religious stuff, there's no difference between this topic and others which have discussed the potential for market rigging.  It's as unlikely now as it was then.

I will give you a simple lesson in economics. There is no such thing as a real estate exchange. But the residential real estate market exists. The second example is even easier: there is no such thing as a plush toy exchange, but the plush toy market exists.

I don't believe that making a religious cult-like Bitcoin army is going to solve anything. The world is full of structural injustice, that's true. But trying to work around the issues, trying to make it better and to change the culture, making things more accessible, is the way forward. Uniting against the smartest and most privileged people isn't a great idea, it's better to have those on the side of positive change. Also, of course the smart and rich can also invest in Bitcoin, as it's open to everyone, so there's no practical way to keep people out.
Furthermore, I totally agree with franky1 that if there's no circulation of coins, there's no market, and thus Bitcoin is worthless.

This is funny as the Bitcoin market depends on supply and demand, what is supply and demand? The buying and selling of Bitcoin on markets like Exchanges. If we all buy and never sell, that is going to make Bitcoin worthless in my opinion because "you can never sell". It's like buying a piece of art that you can never sell and just hang on the wall in your lounge.

Also, the fun is in price fluctuating 100 times a day, I love the pressure market creates with the whale buy and sell.

simple math
2.625 * 8m = 21mill
so your saying ALL bitcoin

funnily enough there is not 21m coins available for 8 million people to accumulate 2.625 at the moment or in the future due to many coins locked up already.

also the first bitcoin market was the first bitcoin exchange. and coinmarketcap is not an market or an exchange. its just a flawed stats site.

i was going to give you a tough lesson in economics about bitcoin(again) and also a lesson in the real estate market(your analogy) but i feel you dont want to understand and are just looking for people that want to agree with you, where you are not looking for facts or corrections to your opinion

That wouldn't be a religion, or any kind of unity that is fighting against anything. That is just 8,000,000 individuals around the world who hold 2.625 BTC because they understand that Bitcoin has economic and technical attributes that are superior to that of fiat money, and that doesn't taken a genius nor a group fighting for something to achieve.

If you simply meant that you need 2.625 BTC and automatically you are a part of this overly exaggerated spiel that you described in the OP, then all I have to say is that you are an extremely dramatic shitposter person.

I believe that you will be able to acquire 2.625 Bitcoin in the market and transfer them to your cold wallet. This is the way.

So we're talking quite literally about a religion-like movement for Bitcoin?

I can totally see where you are coming from and your response was articulated perfectly in terms of conveying the idea...however I do wonder if the same goal could be accomplished except in a way where we aren't creating a cult or a religion out of Bitcoin, rather a modern alternative that is less about faith and ideas, and more about immutable facts.

An organization, or a foundation, which is governed by those with 2.625 Bitcoin and distributes Bitcoin for those who are contributing not only to Bitcoin's adoption and exposure, as well as in its fight against fiat and banks, might be similar but not the same, and less traditional. The organization could incentivize those with less BTC to do good for any of Bitcoin's causes in order to build wealth sooner, communities could unite, bounties could be given...it mightn't be too bad of an idea to pursue in this way.

I might even explore the idea myself if I ever hit the 2.625 club

Sure, you can control supply of any shitcoin like Ethereum foundation, which owns 70% of the "premined" supply (some projects owns up to 99% coins). But all of this smells like a Ponzi scheme. Organizing into a religious Order 2.625 for ~8 million holders, each of whom has honestly acquired Bitcoin in the market, can never be accused of building a Ponzi scheme and market fraud, as Vitalik and his gang do. Order 2.625 is a fair game (and fairly decentralized), unlike Ethereum or any shitcoin "premine".

You want a controlled market maybe be create a token and then practice this your strategy there, Bitcoin has gone to far to be controlled and not to waste time on any debate your strategy would never be possible to implement in Bitcoin and not just Bitcoin it would not also be possible on some altcoins already. Let the market be a natural market.

The first response will be for the case if you are a mathematician.
The second response will be for the case if you have got a humanities education.

1. In game theory, zero-sum games (Bitcoin) are a class of antagonistic games in which the sum of the winnings of all participants is equal to zero. This means that the gain of one player is equal to the loss of another player. In such games, the majority of players lose due to the following factors:

Zero-sum nature: In zero-sum games, the total winnings always add up to zero. This implies that for one player to achieve success, another player must suffer a defeat. As a result, the total number of winners always equals the total number of losers, and the majority of players end up on the losing side.
Limited strategies: In zero-sum games, participants are restricted in their choice of strategies that can lead to victory. Often, players opt for simple and predictable strategies, which make their behavior easily foreseeable for experienced opponents.
Competition and aggressiveness: In zero-sum games, players compete against each other and strive to outperform their opponents. This leads to aggressive behavior and a desire to achieve gains at the expense of defeating other players. As a consequence, the majority of players face fierce competition and end up losing.
Optimal strategies: In zero-sum games, optimal strategies can be studied and computed mathematically. Experienced players can analyze the game, predict their opponents' moves, and choose optimal strategies to achieve victory. Inexperienced players, lacking sufficient knowledge and skills, often encounter losses.

As a result, in zero-sum games, the majority of players lose due to competition, limited strategies, and aggressive behavior. Experienced players, with more precise game analysis and the application of optimal strategies, may have a better chance of succeeding. So hold 2.625 Bitcoin is optimal bet (optimal strategy) for ~8 million players (ideal improbable limit) and losing strategy for ~8 billion (ideal improbable limit) players (short sellers, margin traders, futures traders, options traders, etc) in the zero-sum game.

2. The Order 2.625 is not the only order with a number in its name. For example, the Franciscans and Dominicans also have the Third Order within their Orders, known as "tertius"
These are laypeople who live according to the order's rules, take vows, but do not leave the secular world or their professions and families. The Third Order became a major force in the Renaissance culture. tertius included poets like Dante, Francesco Petrarch, Jacopone da Todi, and the famous Catalan writer and theologian, Ramon Llull. Artists like Michelangelo and Raphael were also "tertius". Even Christopher Columbus was a "tertius", a Franciscan of the Third Order. These were highly influential individuals and key figures of the Renaissance.

When the Order 2.625 gains power and we enter the era of Nanorenaissance, then Michael Saylor will be recognized not only as a key figure of our time but will be elevated by the Order to the same level as apostles Peter or Paul are in the Roman Catholic Church. After all, only those who have shown exceptional dedication can be exalted.

Your mathematical model is intriguing despite its ambiguity. Buy and hold Bitcoin to participate in a new financial order. However, from a corporate and social perspective, lets stand back.

First, lets eliminate the premise that everyone can or wants 2.625 Bitcoins. Wealth distribution varies. Like Bitcoin. Few early users will ever be worth much. Additionally, not everyone can afford, understand, or want to invest in Bitcoin.

Second, your comment about individuals uniting for a cause is intriguing. However, Bitcoin's strength is its decentralisation, which prevents authority from becoming centralised. Bitcoin buyers trust in it and think it can disrupt financial systems, not create another elite class.

I don't see any other way of uniting such a diverse and scattered group of people than through the establishment of, let's say, a religious Order 2.625 and subsequently creating a quasi-state BTCatican. My academic advisor used to say that an idea represents only 5% of the implementation. However, I believe that Bitcoin on 95% consists of idea and just 5% the specific software implementation, mining, cryptocurrency exchanges, liquidity providers, futures, options, ETFs, speculators, investors, etc. It is the idea that generates progressive monetary systems; the idea materializes, lives, and will outlive us all.

Imagine what could possibly be common among the wealthiest person in the world, the President of El Salvador, owner of Telegram, a Ukrainian deputy, Bulgarian scammers, Albanian drug traffickers, a programmer, an American rapper, a PhD scientist, a world boxing champion, an heiress to a major hotel chain, a German entrepreneur, a prostitute, and others? Well, what can they have in common besides the idea(religion)?

Could you provide any reference as to how this trend is emerging today? I can't see it. I can see whales accumulating...I can see individuals buying...though I can not see a band of 8 million coming together to fight the unstoppable forces and powers that be.


Your theory is fine and uniquely articulated, there is definitely a level of truth here if you don't read the "army of plebeians" like some folk tale. It is true that elites will always be superior, that the vast population will become modern-day slaves (as most already are) and that we are fighting an uphill battle against people or families that are born into privilege. Whether or not holding 2.625 BTC is enough to change an individual's part in this future, is another story. How would these 8 million band together? How will they fight together or unite, being distributed around the globe? Why would they survive a potential manhunt from their fellow citizens or more powerful people if the world got to this state?

Let's look at this from a different angle.

You know, for example, the U.S. Congress is not very friendly towards Bitcoin. But let's consider the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, it's all because the legal firms that cryptocurrency projects and exchanges in the U.S. approach are just regular scammers collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from these ignorant idiots without providing any concrete solution to legalize Bitcoin and establish rules for this market for U.S. citizens. Well, the lawyers of Order 2.625 (whom many of you may laugh at or not take seriously enough) have proposed a practical solution for legalizing Bitcoin in the U.S., citing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After all, Order 2.625, as the Decentralized Religious Organization Order 2.625 (DROO 2.625) represented by the North American Diocese (Eparchy) and the plebeians of the order, is nothing but a religious movement. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the U.S. Congress has no right to prohibit the plebeians of the Order from using Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is the ceremonial currency unit of the Order and serves as our religious symbol (similar to the kirpan of the Sikhs)

In this sense, Order 2.625 is grateful to all the previous religious movements in the U.S. (especially Protestants and Catholics) for creating this convenient loophole in the fundamental law of the state.

Do you still consider creating a religion an irrational strategy?

The Bitcoin market existed long before the first Bitcoin exchange and coinmarketcap emerged.

"Well, first of all, I didn't say that the free supply of Bitcoin would be zero. Let's assume the free supply will be one Bitcoin. Alternatively, the price of Bitcoin will be determined in the derivatives market. For instance, just like oil; it's not physically traded in barrels in the order book."