Topic: Lightning Network Observer - page 24. (Read 13674 times)

I'm also waiting and seeing how the Lightning Network grows in the next few months for the lightning network to be ubiquitous as still many wallets won't implement it by default, may have to turn it on manually first.

Why would we have a bet over some issue that you made up, brought up and only have tangential relevance to this thread, at best?  I hardly even care about your claims to know a satoshi-like figure - even though you failed/refused to state whether you were going to invite anyone beside nOnce to participate in your next BIG foot viewing.

How does anything that you were talking about relate to this thread?  Yes, we were making some discussions about fairness, but not so much down the path that you seemed pre-disposed to want to take us.

And you seem to get so caught up upon ideas of personalities, while still having had not tried to relate such discussion to lightning network or answering whether you have heard of lightning network.. even though I will grant you that bitcoin is related to this thread.. but not as much as trying to specifically talk about how things that you might be talking about relates to lightning network.

I never said he's Satoshi. That's a blatant lie on your part.

Just that he had similar ideas/beliefs and a fond admiration to BTC's principles, long before others did. And that got you riled up? Why? Had a bad day at work or what?

I don't consider myself important. Why are you projecting on me? I said I was stupid, because he warned us plenty of times (2003, 2008-2009, 2013, 2017, 2021). Yeah, eventually you get the idea BTC is something important...

I suggest to get a life, instead of harassing others on this forum with walls of text. Don't you put your foot in your mouth way too often (according to your confession)? Such a problematic personality you are, all while projecting on forum participants.

We can have a bet if you want: 1 BTC. I'll post the link on this forum.

But don't blame anyone if you don't understand it, since it's not written in English... hence why Google Translate is the best option you can have.

TLDR:  "I am not claiming that I met Satoshi, but I would like to share some vague bullshit in order to make myself appear important."

 


I thought satoshi died in 2010.. Go figure.  You (and others in your ostensibly important circle) had more recent interactions with him.  WOW!!!!!!!

I wished that I had been nicer to you, since you obviously know important people.


Yeah.. but I thought that you interacted with him in 2013, 2017, and 2021?  Are you already "forgetting" your own self-important story?


Oh? He likes to appear in the bull markets just to rub it in, and say I told you so.  That does sound a lot like how satoshi would be in real life.

You must have the right guy, for sure.

Can you let me back in your group now.. or what can I do to make sure that we are buddies in or before 2025?

Anything?

Anything?




Me too? or just n0nce?


Not in bitcoin.  Bitcoin was Beta in January 2009 - but I think that the code had been submitted sometime after the white paper on October 31, 2008.


that's a pretty amorphous idea.


How do you know that he was ahead?  because upon reflection you come to realize it?


Bitcoin doesn't work like that.  We have proof of work.  Of course, we also have early bird gets the worm, but you gotta buy some bitcoin or otherwise invest in bitcoin.. not just have a vision.

Vitalik has a vision of unicorn farts, and I doubt that should amount to a hill of beans, even though he formed a whole shitcoin community out of his lame ass vision.


That's irrelevant.  We are not in 1996 or 2003.. we are right now.. October 24/25 2022.


Other systems have not disappeared.  We have Gresham's law going on in bitcoin, and it will likely take a while to play out. Maybe even another 100 to 200 more years... I don't claim to have any specifics.


We should probably follow you, since you seem to know what is important, right?


Your back to making shit up.. this time you are making a strawman argument, and also imbuing characteristics on the whole thread as if we were united.. even though we may well  be united to determine that you are a dweeb... even though some folks might use another word to describe your demonstrations of wannabe self-importance.


Hopefully, you have figured it out more recently.  Maybe you figured it out in December 2017? Right around the time that you registered on the forum?


Yes.,. you are annoying... and diptwat trolls frequently like to raise the "religious fanatics" claim when they are getting backlash for their being a dick... .. a non-woke dick, right?


Of course, you are a more advanced human, and mature too.  No insecurities nor desires for self-importance, right?


Well good.  At least you're not retarded.


Google translate does not work with Martian, yet.  Nanu nanu.


No one raised that topic, except you...so you could ramble on your own talking points.  Have you heard of lightning network?  It's what we were talking about... or at least trying to.. stay somewhat attached to the topic of this thread..


Elon is that you?  It sounds kind of like you.


Wow!!!!  You have thought of everything.      but have you heard about lighting network?  #asking for a friend (a girl who knows her place... sorry fillippone, I could not resist).

Yawn, another wall of text from a guy who started derailing a LN thread. With superior derailing/offtopic communication skills, too.

You're a huge hypocrite for calling out others for offtopic posts, while you started it yourself. Have some self-reflection.

ps: I've been told (by PM) that I should ignore your posts, because they literally make zero sense. You've been doing this thing for years.

Starting the insults now?

Fuck you bitch! Happy now?

See? It's not that hard to post insults!

There are no lies here, I have the forum links in my bookmarks. What do you have to offer to post them?

Mind you, they're are not in English, so you'll have to trust Google Translate.

If that's not enough for you, then stop responding with train(wreck) posts of "thought".

Thanks for admitting it, fucking dumbass.

Maybe you should refrain from doing that... just sayin'.

I didn't mention eCash, but someone else could consider it an early ancestor of BTC.

Just like Intel 8088 is an early ancestor of Intel i7, even though deep inside they share nothing architecturally.

It seems to me that you're here to argue semantics.

Am I qualified to say that ARPANET was an early ancestor of the modern internet, or are you going to argue that TCP/IP didn't exist back then?

We're not computers, we're human beings. We don't exchange ones and zeroes.

If you understood my point, that's fine. If you didn't, oh well:



Either way, what I said was true.

You thought I meant 2013 instead of 2003, but no, I mentioned the correct order of dates:

First:
Second:
Maybe you didn't read the whole post?

Because there's no way 2013 happened before 2008-2009!!!

I also forgot to mention a few more things about that mysterious guy:

He was obsessed with the cryptography/anonymity/cypherpunk culture (just like Satoshi). Not saying he's Satoshi, just saying he shared the same beliefs.

Plenty of people wanted to meet him in real life, but he refused to do so. Didn't even reveal his real name (mind you, it was a close-knit community with real-life meetings). 2000s forums were very different compared to today.

He used new forum/alt accounts all the time (just like some people use new BTC addresses to increase anonymity).

He came back in 2013, 2017, 2021 to remind everyone (and rub it in our faces of course!) that he was right all along. Obviously he is a huge BTC supporter and most likely an early adopter too (from day 1).

Can I blame him? Someone who was so ahead of his time (back in 2003)?

I didn't say that he solved the Byzantine Generals problem, that's your conjecture.

TBH, back in 2003 I couldn't wrap my head around this whole electronic cash concept.

You'll have to ask him, but good luck finding him after 20 years have passed.

I reckon he will resurface again in late 2025.

If you're interested, put a reminder and I'll give you the link to talk to him.

But let's not argue semantics.

Even if his idea wasn't as fully-fledged as Satoshi's was, you have to remember that in software development we have beta versions (1996, 2003) and the Release Candidate version (2009).

Some people have premature ideas, but not the finalized form of it.

What matters to me is that some people are way ahead of their time. That guy was ahead of you and me back in 2003, that's for sure and that's the point that you missed.

I mentioned this story, because I don't believe that true equality can be achieved.

How can I be equal to that guy? Visionaries deserve to get a bigger portion of the BTC pie.

Can you be equal to him? Or Satoshi? Or the guy who wrote the NSA paper back in 1996? I bet you can't.

Laggards deserve to get a smaller portion of the BTC pie. Hence why "everyone will buy BTC, at the price they deserve".

There's no equality, there is only meritocracy. Keep that point in mind, all of you.

Sorry if that doesn't sound socialist enough in this woke day and era.

You guys remind me of religious Christian zealots who are "offended" when someone says something that could be considered "offensive" to their "Saint".

I've known about BTC/Satoshi long before you did (since day 1) and I admit it was my fault for not taking it seriously at first. Calm your titties!

I believe this gives a bad name to the BTC community. I had been saying the same thing about Linux desktop adoption to CLI diehards 20+ years ago.

Stop being so fanatic. I didn't attack anyone. Human conversation needs to be more relaxed and less uptight. Or maybe find a girlfriend. Computer nerds can be really annoying sometimes.

It depends on what you consider new.

Satoshi stood on the shoulders of giants. He took various existing technologies (p2p/BitTorrent, PKI/PGP, hashing) and combined them.

I'm not saying this to devalue anyone's work. We don't even know who Satoshi really was. It could have been a team of scientists (mathematicians, cryptographers) behind BTC.

Of course it would be even more impressive if Satoshi was a single person, but we cannot know for sure. And we'll never find out.

This debate reminds me of who invented the "first" "smartphone".

Was it Apple/Steve Jobs? Who took already existing ideas and combined them into a nice, shiny package.

Or was it Microsoft with WinCE PDAs?

Depending on who you ask (Apple vs MS zealots), the answer will vary.

I prefer to not be a fanboy/zealot of anyone. I'm too old for that tribalist shit. Tribalism is a natural human tendency in our DNA, it just gets annoying when you're trying to have a relaxed conversation.

If Satoshi is not fussed, you should not be fussed either. BTC is working and that's all that matters.

Well, it seems the NSA 1996 link fell completely under your radar for some reason. It seems awfully similar to BTC, a beta form of it if you will.

But yeah, I know some people are "offended" when someone says that BTC could have originated from NSA, perhaps as a psy-op experiment to test the waters of a cashless society.

The truth is: we don't know who Satoshi was, so it could be anyone with decent IT/mathematics/cryptography knowledge.

I hodl BTC and I'm not offended at all. Maybe because I don't behave like a religious zealot. Maybe...

I also want to make clear that you haven't read the forum link I'm talking about and you don't speak the same language as those guys did, so even if I posted it, it would be worthless to you.

Google Translate just doesn't cut it as native language speakers.

Again: you're missing the point.

Did I say anything about laws? No.

Everyone is liable for their actions, I agree, but it's very common these days to complain about "injustice/inequality". Rings any bells?

That's a very female behavior and yes, plenty of men do it too unfortunately.

My point was that you don't need any law to tell you that you need to take personal responsibility for your own mistakes. Therefore all this "injustice/inequality" discussion (which reeks of wokeness) is a waste of energy.

Satoshi tried to make the distribution as fair as possible.

It's not his fault that IT guys learned about BTC first.

Who do you think used the internet back in the early 90s? Cute chicks posting Instagram photos? Oh wait, Instagram didn't exist back then!

Of course it was IT guys.

My point is that it's natural for IT guys to learn first about tech things.

It would be highly unnatural for cute chicks to be early adopters.

So if you ever see anyone crying/complaining that he/she missed the BTC train, just ignore them.

What's even more funny is that even poor guys with a regular PC had a huge upper hand in accumulating thousands of BTC at a pretty low cost (just electricity).

Rich non-IT guys (like from Goldman Sachs for example) may have huge amounts of money in the fiat world, but they lack tech knowledge.

So if they want to accumulate BTC, they'll have to pay 19k USD a pop.

You still think BTC distribution is unfair? Only woke idiots would believe that.

We all agree that BTC is a game changer that cannot be replicated.

There are 8 billion people on this planet and not everyone has the same IQ/intelligence/interests. That's fine.

There are also not enough material resources (metals & oil) to manufacture & drive 8 billion Lambos.

So even with "fair" distribution, it would be impossible for everyone to become rich. Mathematics 101

Money (including BTC) is an abstraction for material resources (which are scarce on this planet).

If you want less material scarcity, just wait for Elon Musk's plans to colonize other planets. But in that case, BTC wouldn't work due to TCP/IP latency limitations (Mars would need a new coin, 20 minutes of latency with Earth is just too much for the blockchain to synchronize).

BTC will be the defacto currency of Planet Earth for the next 100+ years, that's for sure.

Aren't you the smartest person who ever did live.  With superior communications skills, too.  


I did start out with just a couple of exchanges and one wallet - and then continued to expand in various kinds of ways, but I feel far from capable of understanding quite a few aspects of various kinds of wallets - frequently, I don't even understand how to perform various functions that might be available through a wallet - or to realize the significance of various kinds of changes that come about from time to time.  

Sometimes I will say some of the exchanges that I use, but other times I won't because there can be security implications, and the same is true for some of the wallets that I use or that I have tried.

I have said that I have tried the Ledger and the Trezor, and I have said that I had frequently gotten confused by the Ledger, and then there is one wallet that I had been using since several years ago, and then over time, they added several functions including but not limited to:
1) the ability to see (and therefore to be able to send/receive) BTC forked coins (such as BCH and BGold),
2) differentiation between segwit and legacy addresses,
3) the ability to add a passphrase,
4) the ability to do multi-device signatures and
5) then recently when I was signing in, I went into the menu to create a new wallet, and then I saw that they have 4 different wallet types to choose from which includes:
        a)  Legacy: BIP44, P2PKH, Base 58
        b)  Legacy SegWit: BIP49, P2SH-P2WPKH, Base 58
        c)  Taproot: BIP86, P2TR, Bech 32m
        d)  SegWit: BIP84, P2WPKH, Bech 32

My point is that I don't necessarily know the various trade-offs that might exist with the various kinds of wallet (account) types, and if you recall there had been a pretty BIG campaign by some anti-segwit people to suggest that the whole segwit was going to crash, and so there was a need NOT to move to segwit - and some of those folks are in the anti-lightning groups.  Sometimes I will try to follow some of those conversations, including starting in late 2015, when there were already folks starting to talk about the need for block sizes to increase, and I am saying that sometimes I don't really feel that I know what the fuck they were talking about, but somewhere along the line, I realize that so many folks were framing supposed "technical" reasons when they were really engaging in politics in which they were merely just trying to make it easier to change bitcoin... so sometimes, any of us might not understand all of the arguments, but after the passage of time, I became way less receptive to hearing those arguments - and even arguing that there was no real basis to their technical arguments - even though I don't know much about technical matters.


It seems that each of us try to share our perspective and experiences, and I put my foot in my mouth on a fairly regular basis.  Sometimes members "call me out" publicly, and other times they do it by PM.  Surely there is discretion regarding when to back down, and sometimes members will really get into public battles too (and I have as well), and sometimes one of the members will end up having a public melt down of sorts.. and sometimes other members will purposefully come at you because it seems that they might be trying to trap you or to get you to devolve into some kind of a public meltdown... so it can become difficult to battle in regards to some of the topics, and surely other members will sometimes know way more about a topic from a certain angle - so it is not always clear when to give up, or whether the back and forth is even useful.. and like in this thread.. whether we are on topic..

Pretty soon fillippone may lose his tolerance for our going off topic.. and maybe regret that he did not create this as a self-moderated thread... so in that regard, even though lightning network has been live for nearly 6 years, and sometimes I have been following some aspects of the lightning network threads, I am ONLY recently actually using some lightning network wallets (so far mostly BlueWallet.. and then knowing that cash app can be used for sending lightning but not receiving), so maybe there can be feelings about "being behind," but if we look at normies in the real world.. they sometimes don't even know superficially how lighting network relates to bitcoin.. well normies have a lot of misconceptions about a lot of things related to bitcoin, but if we are trying to get them to start to store some value in bitcoin and then also to maybe transact in bitcoin, we might want them to have some ideas about both bitcoin and lighting network, even if they are likely to tend towards custody solutions in the beginning of their exposure to bitcoin.. unless they happen to be in El Salvador or they happen to be a bit on the geeky side.


Even if this thread strives to promote a Lighting network theme from a less technical perspective, it is difficult to avoid deviations into technical aspects or even to talk about bitcoin and the reasons why people get into bitcoin in the first place - which surely there is going to be a variety of use cases in which investing for long term storage is going to overlap with various ways to transact with bitcoin.


I might be losing the point that you are striving to make - because from my perspective, I see that some bitcoiners have more conviction than others, and even if there might be a tendency to become more convicted with bitcoin the longer that we are in bitcoin, people do lose faith in bitcoin, and frequently they have difficulties getting back into bitcoin if they sold too many bitcoin too soon, or maybe they were waiting for a down that did not happen, and then they sometimes will become bitter... and getting hacked is not a good experience too.. even if bitcoin did not cause the hack.. and bitcoin did not get hack, but they end up losing their bitcoin because of the hack.. or think about some of these more recent experiences of striving to get yield.. and some people thought that they were playing safe because they were "only getting 4% or 8% yield," and they did not realize that the service that they were using (whether Celsius, BlockFi, Voyager or one of the other lending services) were getting even more interest (maybe up to 20%) when they lent out the bitcoin of their customers to 3AC.. so people can become bitter about these kinds of losses.. and even withdrawal from bitcoin based on their bad experiences and may not even know why they had lost all or most of their money - because in part they might not have understood the risk that they were taking and they also might not have learned any lessen, except "stay away from bitcoin."


I agree with the idea that building up your bitcoin holdings is quite likely to give more options to anyone who does that in prudent, reasonable and perhaps even somewhat aggressive ways.

I also agree that in the long term the odds for BTC to continue to go up are quite great, so if you continue to error on the side of accumulating bitcoin, you are likely going to do well with that kind of a strategy (even though there are no guarantees).

On the other hand, I don't necessarily believe that it is easy to outsmart the BTC price and it is possible that people can buy too much BTC as it is going down in price and continue to buy while believing that the bottom is in and the price continues to go lower and lower and run out of money and cause their own panic, even though they likely were doing the right thing by continuing to buy BTC on an ongoing basis.  

In other words, it is still possible to be too aggressive... and then not be able to handle some kind of a cash emergency that ends up "unexpectedly" coming.


One thing revolves around how much obligation any of us might have to disclose in terms of engaging in a bitcoin transaction, and I would attempt to protect myself no matter which way the BTC price went, so sometimes I would set limits regarding how much I would transact in terms of just protecting myself in that transaction.. but also NOT wanting to get into some kind of situation that did not seem manageable to me.... so if someone was acting crazy, there might be some needs to limit them more in terms of how much of a transaction that you would do with them... or just telling them that you don't want to transact with them anymore.. even though sometimes it can be difficult to say those kinds of things to people without causing them to become even more crazy.

We cannot necessarily assume that everyone is making money in bitcoin even if they have been into bitcoin for a long time and the BTC price has gone up.  There are people who figure out ways to lose money, even when the BTC price has been going up since its beginning to have a price in 2010... and at the same time, the last 11 months of the BTC price going down can seem like an eternity.. especially for people who injected a lot of money at prices quite a bit above $40k.. and maybe they were already running out of money when the prices got down to $40k.. because they were betting on (or hoping for?) up.


Well it is not guaranteed that patience and persistence will pay off... and that's part of the reason to be able to ride out the worst of periods, but also realizing that some preparation needs to be in place for the even worse case scenarios.. and try to apportion preparations, and even to change some appropriations from time to time, as needed, so for example, if the BTC price keeps moving against you and you run out of money, at some point, you may well have to just HODL.. or DCA.. but if you don't have a cashflow or your cashflow dries up then you are in an even worse situation.. and you must realize that all of the bad things could happen, and you should have a plan for those many bad things even if they are not highly likely to happen (from your perception and assessment)... I am not sure that I have an answer, except that each person needs to attempt to tailor his/her approach to these kinds of preparations as best as s/he can in accordance with his/her own psychological and financial circumstances.


Well sometimes there are needs to back up what you say with examples or facts or logic, and also sometimes there are needs to recognize when some matters are beyond your abilities to understand, but even if you are asking a question in an area that you do not understand, you can still attempt to frame what you think you know and what you think that you do not know, so at least someone might be willing to chime in.. and sometimes no one will chime in, even if you believe that you asked a good question.


Some people have more difficult times than others to either shake their ideas about "investing in shitcoins,"  and/or to figure out bitcoin's investment thesis sufficiently enough in order to at least considerably lessen their involvement in shitcoins (whether time-wise, psychologically and/or financially).


I try not to blame anyone who takes a while to figure it out, and we do not even need to agree.


Having a mentor or various mentors can be a good thing, even though in the end each of us has to make our own decisions regarding whether to invest in bitcoin, how much to invest and how to treat our other investments and cashflow.  And, since this is a thread about lightning network, we also have to consider how much of out time and energies we want to spend in terms of learning about various lightning network related matters, and once we learn about all these things, are we going to try to mentor others or not.. and likely the mentoring process does not end, because even when you spend time trying to teach others, you are likely to find out more areas that you either do not know or that you do not know as well as you had thought that you knew them.

So maybe it is difficult to find like-minded people in the real world, so you might spend some time teaching and learning through this forum, and then trying to figure out how much you might have willing students in the real world or if they do not want to learn from you, then either they are not ready or for some reason they might need someone else to explain or to show matters to them, and sometimes I will spend time teaching some ideas to someone or to some people in the real world, and I might say that they need to study and look into these matters on their own, and sometimes I will get the sense that they are not trying hard enough and they are not spending hardly any time learning on their own like they want to be spoon fed.. and in some sense there is a need to attempt to meet people where they are at, and sometimes I am not going to be the right person to do that, even if I might spend some time "planting the seed" or going through some refresher ideas, and sometimes, I just feel that I am losing my patience.. so from time to time, I have to take a break from talking about bitcoin with certain people.


Being interested in the topic helps a lot.. and like you said, interacting with the subject matter helps a lot too.


Sometimes we don't know what we did not know, until we learn it from another angle.  So there can be a lot of ways that we have misconceptions about bitcoin that later will get cleared up... Hopefully.
 


Just try to find areas that you are interested in, and maybe in the beginning chime in once in a while, but not too much, and then the more that you follow the discussions, then the easier it should become to expand your participation into more various subject matters.  Sometimes there could be a debate about a certain topic, and if you just go out and find a link to an article on the topic, or a meme or some other way of adding to the conversation, then the topic might expand in your direction.

Let's say that Member 1 says A, and Member 2 says a little bit A, but more B.

And, then you find an article that says sometimes A is true but sometimes A and B are true, and then the article explains why that is the case, and then you explain what the article says, and then you say whether you believe the article or if you might believe member 1 or member 2, or you might say that you believe that they all are full of shit, because there is another important angle that all of them are failing to account for..... so sometimes it takes a bit of time and a bit of reading before you might be able to challenge certain subject matters, but then you can also ask questions regarding some parts of the discussion that you believe are also important, and maybe Member 1 and member 2 will call you a newbie idiot, and so it is not always easy to know how conversations will advance, yet you should not be dissuaded if members disagree with you, if you believe that you are submitting valid information or a legitimate perspective... while at the same time trying to learn or admitting you were wrong if it ends up that you were wrong.
 

I think that the building and growth in terms of the seven network effects better outlines what you seem to be suggesting in terms of the growth of bitcoin continuing to grow.. and also the Lindy Effect idea, too..  (like described in this Bitcoin Magazine article) which largely suggest that the longer a thing is around and thriving, the more likely it is going to continue to survive, at least as long as the time period that it has already been around.


Fuck off with your fantasy spin attempt and pure making up of facts that are not in existence.

There is no such "maybe" because what happened is that Satoshi took a lot of ideas that already previously existed and put them into a package  in which no one else had previously put, nor contemporaneously, either.

Bitcoin had a about a year and a half of running before it got any possible monetary traction in terms of people trying to give a price to it.. and prior to mid-2010, the bitcoins that had been mined had largely been treated like testnet coins... even though later they started to get monetary value.. as we all have come to realize.. and it took a bit of time for such traction to build.


It was premature because it had not yet been invented.  Various aspects of bitcoin were invented, but not the putting together of all of the concepts into the package that bitcoin ended up resolving matters that had not previously been resolved, including the incentives that were created in the whole package and the difficulties to screw with it because of the difficulty adjustments.. and surely the whole package put together a package that was an invention and a new thing, even though it consisted of a variety of existing parts and concepts.


 Fair enough about the communication and internet connectivity technology being better in 2008 as compared with 2003... but still does not mean that bitcoin was invented prior to 2008.  You have no evidence of that beyond nearly pure pie in the sky speculation that is nearly completely detached from reality like Santa Claus (I am trying to be seasonal here).

Of course multiple people had these ideas, but nobody could fix the trust vs. double-spending issue.
The very essence of what I'd call the 'BTC Concept' is the application of a blockchain as a decentralized timestamping server; that's the one thing that makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin; it is the thing that made it such a breakthrough and so popular.

If this had been invented before 2008, then Satoshi wouldn't really have presented anything new with his paper.
I do not know or have read all cryptocurrency papers from pre-2008 (probably not one of them), but I can't imagine that someone had it all figured out earlier but somehow fell completely under the radar.

There is no need to speculate. Are there pre-2008 papers that describe what the Bitcoin whitepaper describes? Yes or no? If no, Bitcoin / 'BTC Concept' had not been invented in 2003, absolutely not.

Again; of course, using signatures for payments is nothing new, and these 'concepts' have 100% been discussed prior to 2008, but those don't qualify as 'BTC concept'. Just want to make this clear.

This is super off-topic now; but even if you know more women who complain about misfortunes than men, it doesn't make them less responsible for their actions. If they fuck something up, they're liable for it. Like every other adult person.
Children aren't, because they're underage. Big difference; and it's nothing 'new' or 'woke', the laws have been like that for generations.

2003, you read it right. That's why I said the "BTC concept" (blockchain, PKI, hashing) and not BTC itself, because it was announced/launched 5-6 years later.

It's a forum, I could give you the link to read it yourself, but it's not in English, so...

The exact same guy informed us again in 2008-2009. Nobody believed him.

If you think 2003 seems far-fetched, there are even earlier signs of a potential BTC concept back in 1996.

Maybe multiple people around the world had roughly the same ideas about a decentralized electronic currency, but Satoshi launched it first? Who knows...

Or maybe it was too premature to launch it back in 1996-2003, since always-online broadband (ADSL) wasn't as widespread.

Sketchy dial-up connections (56K modems) just wouldn't cut it.

I hope you don't buy into the woke propaganda, otherwise I'm afraid I might be losing my time.

Women and children have a tendency to cry/complain about their misfortunes. Not a very mature thing to do, but we tend to forgive them.

Women don't like men who constantly complain/nag... don't believe me? Ask them if they'd like a man who behaves like them.

Yeah, there are women's prisons, but most crimes are committed by men.

I suppose you don't want a thorough study about testosterone's effect on aggressiveness, right?

Biological differences exist. Accept them.

Waaait a minute. Do you mean 2013? You do realize Satoshi never spoke about the Bitcoin concept before he published the whitepaper in 2008?
Sure there were cryptocurrency concepts like eCash before, but the 'BTC concept', which solved the main issue that all those schemes had, was unknown / undiscovered prior to 2008.

What does this have to do with gender? Women are responsible for their actions, too. For instance, there are women's prisons, right?

Probably overall, I am not even really disagreeing with your various factual representations or even the appreciation of various life futilities that exist with much of the population that might not be realized the futility of a lot of matters until working a whole life and still being poor after doing everything correctly...

But it still seems to me that you are ongoingly complaining about the unfairnesses in life and sure it may even be true that any of us can work our asses off and still we don't get anywhere and we cannot break through the glass ceiling and we might not even end up better off than our parents, even if we might have tried harder or even had more successes along the way.. in the end we still end up in a bad or maybe even worse position.

Another thing is trying to figure out what is being measured, because we already know that dollar wealth does not necessarily equate with happiness, and wealth can be measured in a variety of ways, yet even if we attempt to stick with financially measuring wealth, we still might be able to figure out ways in which people who are able to live within their means might end up being able to become more wealthy than people who live beyond their means and then keep getting into trouble because they are not very good at managing whatever financial resources are available to them - and I am not even against debt, because there are ways to use debt in order to leverage wealth, but there are also ways to use debt that gets someone into trouble because of the consumption of products and services that do not hold their value, and so the person may get into debt beyond their means or be held back from accumulating wealth because of consumption rather than investment decisions earlier in life or before they are sufficiently financially ready to consume at the level that they choose to consume.


Of course, winning the jackpot could result in a person being rich and wealthy if s/he knows (or learns) how to manage the money in order to figure out how to live on interest rather than depleting principle or otherwise figuring out ways to manage the money.

Let me give an example of a person (in mid-to-late 20s) who might ONLY have $50k in networth and who might have ONLY had an income of around $3k per month wins a jackpot that receives a net amount of $2 million may well either completely squander the money or such person could be set for life with a $6,666 per month income from the $2 million for the rest of his/her life, if they invest it somewhat wisely and they live off the interest and they ONLY dip into principle when they might feel that they are getting close to the end of their life (in the event that they might not want to pass it on after death). 

So for the above hypothetical person, winning of such jackpot may have allowed this person to completely stop working because his/her income has doubled, and therefore it comes down to just managing the new income and the new situation, there may be ways to create buffers to ensure an ability to continue to live with a $3k per month income and maybe ONLY slowly move up to the $6,666k per month income that the $2 million would allow.. and the transition would be learning how to live with the income and then also making sure to learn how to make sure that the principle is growing in value at least 4% per year in order to justify drawing up to $6,666k per month, but if managing finances is new to a person, then such person would have to learn to make sure that they are able to sustain their chosen withdrawal rate on their newly acquired wealth.   

Just because we can witness a lot of examples of irresponsible behavior should not necessarily cause us to conclude that everyone is irresponsible with their finances and not capable of learning, even if maybe most people might end up NOT being able to sufficiently manage their newly acquired $2 million extra to their networth because they choose to fail/refuse to learn how to manage that money to make it last, but instead choose to spend it without giving sufficient attention to making sure that it is able to last as long as they would like it to last..
 

I don't really disagree with your various categories of assessment, yet no matter what there are going to be complications involving existing systems and even the passing down of wealth, so matters can become overly complicated when trying to compare what someone would have had available in 2009 versus 2080, and it seems like a big so what to me because it is something that none of us can change in terms of when we were born... but even in 2080, there still might be no coiners or family of no coiners or there might be bitcoiners who had hoarded their bitcoin and passed down their bitcoin, or locked up their bitcoin from earlier years, and some folks may benefit or be disadvantaged by the actions of the earlier bitcoiner,.,.


There are a lot of ways to consider insider-information in terms of being able to advantage yourself and people around you or even trying to create systems in which fewer people will have insider information or advantages.  I think that bitcoin / Satoshi had been attempting to create the latter.. perhaps merely to attempt to cause bitcoin to seem to be more credible rather than his own pureness - Open source software has some of those same kinds of sharing of information ideas contained within that may well be attempts to share information in order that no one else has any superior advantage - but also perhaps even a kind of security approach - even though even with bitcoin, there are presumptions that individuals will act in their own self-interests - so there is an interesting balance that seems to be going on with the underlying incentives that were built into bitcoin and continue to be built upon in some ways.. but maybe not in all ways.. 


I think that it is a bad idea to bring up shitcoins in this thread - even though we are already deviating a lot from the topic by getting into discussion of financial matters.. and you are just likely to make matters worse when talking about so many ideas that might relate to shitcoins .. so maybe you should come up with better example that relates to bitcoin.. and even better if it relates to lightning network.


Fuck shitcoins.  No need to discuss them here.


Well, of course there are going to be various ways in which people might have been able to participate in bitcoin related matters and even might have been in a better position to understand the topic and/or able to allocate time towards learning about it or investing into it.

Bitcoin is a different thing when it is "prior to its birth" and then even once bitcoin is announced on October 31, 2008, not too many people knew about it or was able to understand it.. and even when it went live on January 3, 2009, it took a bit of time before others started to mine it and it took even about a year and a half longer in mid 2010 before there were starting to be examples of trades for value and even people willing to assign a price to it that others were willing to pay.

And, even hearing about bitcoin would depend on what circles you are in or what part of the world, so surely we can say that some people are advantaged versus others depending on where they were at in life... or even if they had been able to learn about bitcoin, did they take such opportunities or dismiss it.. when they might be too busy to take on a new project, such as learning about what is bitcoin.


You seem to be bringing quite a bit of baggage into this discussion. 


I wasn't proposing anything.  I was just mentioning various ways that people might perceive that bitcoin distribution might not be fair, and the criticisms might not be completely without merit in terms of some people being in a better position to have had heard about bitcoin or to have had invested earlier, yet it would seem that the prudent and reasonable thing for anyone to do after they start to learn about bitcoin is to figure out if they are able to learn more and/or if they might need to start to invest into bitcoin at whatever point that they start to hear about it... whether they are investing to learn (or otherwise spending time and energies on bitcoin) or they are financially investing.


I did not see anyone here suggesting any other way to distribute bitcoin, even though BlackHatCoiner described various ways that he thought that the rich were advantaged over the poor and even seeming to suggest that bitcoin would not necessarily change those kinds of unfairnesses.. and I was largely attempting to suggest that bitcoin seems to be a tool for the poor to be able to use.  So the ideas of fairness did come up several times, but not necessarily in terms of proposals to change the way that bitcoin "should have been" distributed.. like where you (cryptosize) seem to want to go with your seemingly strawman attack.


You're all over the place, cryptosize.  Bring us back to bitcoin.. or maybe even better yet, lightning network?


A lot of that seems far afield - like either you need to create your own thread, or find a thread on those kinds of topics.  Bitcoin/Lightning.. remember? 
 

You're getting closer to the topic.. but still?   


Ideas of inheritance and abilities to pass down wealth vary quite a lot throughout the world, and surely there are aspects of bitcoin that might allow for timelocking of wealth or even being able to pass (or transfer) wealth without requesting or getting permission.. some of these characteristics might also exist somewhat in lightning network too.


It seems that a lot of people aspire to get to financial and psychological circumstances in which they are able to choose their own work, so on an individual level we can see how people might try to create systems in which they can either choose their own work and even to lessen the amount that they have to work.  Even if someone in bitcoin might be able to acquire a lot of bitcoins, they still might need to figure out systems in which they can preserve their wealth and even to be able to spend their wealth without anyone taking their wealth from them, and I suppose that bitcoin and lightning network can be fit into those kinds of systems - yet there still might be questions regarding how much work that any of us ends up having to do to either learn or to establish systems or even to trust others to set up the systems or to manage some of these kinds of interactions with our bitcoins whether they are on chain or if they are being used in the lightning network.

Indirectly your experience has reached a perfect stage, where you say almost 9 years of conducting transactions in various ways, both exchanges and wallets that have ever existed.
I didn't really find anyone like you, neither on forums nor outside, I mean you have a pretty broad insight into bitcoin knowledge, at least this gives me an idea, after seeing some of the replies you have on the forums.

We will get experience according to what we learn, I believe it takes direct involvement in bitcoin investment, so that we know more basic and deeper technical things, rather than listening to advice and input from experienced people.
That's why bitcoin never limits people to discuss, investment choices and how people take part in it, this uniqueness we will only find, after we are really in the system, the rest of the technical things we can learn from various ways and sources available power.

To be honest, people never refuse to invest in bitcoin, even though they have suffered losses, because almost everyone is consistently in bitcoin and gets the maximum benefit from the investment, coupled with a complete knowledge of the things to consider.
There are many ways to outsmart the buy price when it drops to the sell price, all it takes is patience in recovering the accumulated correction, because bitcoin is clearly able to maintain value, so there is no need to worry and panic in this condition. That's why it is necessary to get involved in bitcoin investment, so that we can clearly know the options and terms of the negotiation, because the role of bidding and negotiation must really be able to bind people's desires.


But the difference is that people can ignore things that are considered to interfere with our involvement anywhere, it doesn't matter when interaction is reduced and lost with other people, if the annoying nature of them is not changed from a narrow view to be more open, so we don't waste energy. in dealing with or serving them.

Because as you stated, that dynamics like that will continue to happen all over the world and for some people this will not be okay, because we can use negotiating skills for people who are serious about bitcoin.
The question is whether everyone involved in the dynamic discussion knows bitcoin, has ever been involved in investing and or just wants to have a wild discussion for a truth that has no effect on them.

Because for people who are aware, bitcoin is the best decision in increasing economic resources, in different ways but has the same function "Maximum Profit". Moreover, bitcoin can maintain the value of the money we spend, so waiting for the accumulation of Bull Run is not to be in a hurry, the reaction will appear after the bitcoin market finds a correction.


And I'm sure you already have the answer to this, one's patience and persistence in any case will affect the impact on the final result to be achieved, that's why I say you already know the easy answer.
As long as the bitcoin debate is not in technical terms, I agree not to be limited, as long as it doesn't attack and give misguided understanding to others, because it's based on the fact that bitcoin's uniqueness is due to the life of discussion , although it's not too basic for the reasons I gave.

Incorrect interactions/posts become a reference to how far they know bitcoin, dynamics sometimes don't need a reference, as long as the discussion regarding bitcoin doesn't come out of technical matters. And I'm sure, of the many people who discuss and are still unfamiliar with bitcoin, I am one of them. It may be.


I am part of the people you say, because I started cryptocurrency from shitcoin, but after so long in this space, it seems something is wrong with my thinking about shitcoin and for that I started to develop myself to get to know bitcoin specifically.

Bowing to wrong conclusions or weighing inaccurate evidence.
Since I started this space without being taught by anyone, I am self-taught about the Crypto space, so getting to the bitcoin level will be difficult for some people I have in common with.

However, as long as we are willing to learn, then nothing is impossible for us to achieve. I became one example of thinking Shitcoin turned into bitcoin. As I want to know, the way you serve the discussion of many people in the forum, that's the hardest part for people like me, because what I see you are people who always consistently serve long discussions in forums about bitcoin.
There are many ways available in bitcoin, this uniqueness will appear when someone seriously explores the best side of bitcoin, while how to use, transact and invest is a technical part that must be studied well, so that some beginners do not get caught in fear when bitcoin undergoes a correction.While the bitcoin cycle can be seen as the basis from which we should start, if bitcoin thinking has become the basis for investment decisions, then the technicalities will emerge in understanding and following developments.

Even if you have inside info, most people will ignore you.

One example:

I had inside info (thanks to some Discord friends) about Chia/XCH, around 1 month (Feb 2021) before the mainnet was launched (day 1 difficulty was around 100 PiB).

I managed to get quite a few XCH for myself with solo farming (took around 1 month of continuous effort/plotting, until farming difficulty became too high and pooling wasn't available from the get-go).

There are some rumors that the XCH blockchain will serve to store WEF's notorious carbon credits, so I think it's a good idea to hodl them (didn't pay anything, apart from miniscule electricity amounts).

Was did I do as an insider? I tried to return the favor by informing others. Did they listen to me? No. Should I pity them?

I wish someone had told me about ETH back in 2014-2015, when you could mine 1 ETH ($1 back then) per day with a single GPU.

Fun fact: someone had informed me about the BTC concept back in 2003 (!!!). What did I do? I mocked him (along with several other forum participants).

The same person informed us again in late 2008/early 2009 about BTC's launch. Same response. We mocked him to death.

The moral of the story: if you are a man, you should accept the responsibility of your own actions.

There is no politician here to save anyone from his idiocy. Mistakes are (expensive) lessons.

What your proposal regarding "fair" BTC distribution?

Should Satoshi have divided 21 million BTC to 8 billion people from the get-go? That's around 0.002625 BTC (262500 sats) per person. That's assuming new people aren't born every single day...

Guess what? Even if that was the case, 1 year later some people would have ZERO sats, while some others would be wholecoiners.

Why? Here's why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4WF3cSd9Q

Some people are spenders (instant gratification), while some others are investors (delayed gratification).

Some people will decide to spend their money on drugs (cigarettes, weed, heroine), while others will decide to cut their bad habits and stack more sats:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/lolbr0/im_quitting_smoking_and_buying_bitcoin_every_week/

How many people smoke on this planet? Billions! And most of them are poor. Should we pity them?

Everyone can buy some sats, instead of literally burn money by buying/smoking cigarettes. Why don't they do it? Because their mindset is poor. Richness begins from your mindset, not your wallet!

Of course being rich isn't for everyone and I'd argue it can be detrimental to their health (if they're highly addictive personalities/prone to instant gratification):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Best#Alcoholism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Maradona#Drug_abuse_and_health_problems

Socialism doesn't exist according to universe's laws... unless we become gods one day. We're nowhere near that.

If you want a more scientific (mathematical) explanation of why income inequality exists, I suggest to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle#In_economics
https://qz.com/957711/everything-including-the-growing-income-disparity-can-be-explained-by-physics

Of course that doesn't mean that everyone who is already rich deserves their wealth... inheritors are the worst kind IMHO. They didn't work for their wealth.

I don't like Proof of Stake either for the exact same reason: the rich get richer with zero effort. PoW allows this to happen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/xanz0h/bitcoin_mining_powered_by_used_cooking_oil/

That's why I don't plan to inherit wealth to my children, unless they really deserve it (I'll judge that).

You need to be able to prove you worth something and that you won't squander it on stupid things (like drugs). That's non-negotiable for me.-

Either way, true diversity means that not all people are the same. Some are good at building wealth, while others may be good at dancing or singing or cooking (there are lots of potential talents).

Why should everyone be rich? If everyone was rich, who would do all these 9-5 jobs? That's something to consider.

Maybe in a society where A(G)I and robots will do all jobs, everyone will be rich. We're far from that.

I'm not saying it's impossible to catch up the rich person. Just very difficult. I've never met a person who became rich by doing a 9-5 job, for the simple reason that a 9-5 job eats most of the creativity and time, both of which are important parameters for wealth building.

Also, rich isn't wealthy. You can be rich by winning the jackpot, but you can go poor a few years later.

There's unfairness in distribution given that a person in 2080 won't have the same block reward with one in 2009, biological unfairness in intelligence, unfairness in education, but there's no political unfairness, and that's the game changer. There are no people who were never elected to decide for our monetary policy. Everyone has the same rights upon that.

I claim that I don't really know very much about technical matters; however, over my nearly 9 years in bitcoin, I have done bitcoin transactions in a variety of ways - including some services that were like exchanges, and other variations of wallets, and sometimes interacting between these - if there is some desire to interact with someone or some service or even claiming forked coins in 2017 (which was a challenge for me to learn some things/angles about derivation paths).

The longer that we are in bitcoin, hopefully we learn things, yet in my above comment I was also trying to suggest both that things change and that there may well be quite a bit of geographical variation or even variation in terms of whether people who want to transact in bitcoin might know people in the real world who would like to transact directly with them - and maybe not even using any third party services, beyond wallet to wallet (and wallets might differ, but if they are transacting directly they can frequently negotiate terms and/or fees in respect to any transaction that they might decide to do).

The more options that anyone has would likely increase their abilities to negotiate terms or even refuse to transact if they believe the financial or even the safety circumstances are not good for them.  Or maybe some people might get worried about accounting, so they might not want to engage in some transactions because they might believe it creates too much accounting work for them.  So for example, let's say that someone wants to buy $300 in bitcoin from me, and if the BTC price had moved dropped a lot, I might feel that I would ONLY want to do such transaction if the fee is high because I feel that the BTC price might not drop anymore in order that I would be able to rebalance my books at a lower price (which might have been my attempted practice of sell and replace by rebuying at a lower price, if possible).

If someone has BTC, then probably they have more options to set the terms of a negotiation if someone else does not have any BTC, they want BTC, but they cannot find any other way to get BTC that they feel comfortable with... so in that sense if I am amongst one of their ONLY options for getting BTC (and I know it), then I could be more strict in my negotiations.. maybe?  Personalities can come into play too because some people are more ruthless in their negotiations than other people, and there are likely circumstances in which people like to "build good will," and other people want to be perceived as a "ruthless bargainer."


These kinds of dynamics happen all over in the world when we are dealing with people.  There are always a percentage of people that we might find annoying or crazy, and some kinds of activities/jobs involve more interactions with people in the real world but also some jobs/activities can be structured in ways that might lessen or even eliminate interactions with other people or even the ability to negotiate if some people might set up their transacting arrangements as "take it or leave it" and other people love to haggle in their interactions.

So, maybe if you interact with someone and they might not have any other offers, or they believe you give them the best deal, or they can trust you not to screw with them, then they might keep coming back and referring their friends - and yeah, you may or may not want to be perceived as the "bitcoin guy" or "master of bitcoin" as you put it.


Well, sometimes we do have repetition of themes, and some members have more patience than others in terms of dealing with repetition of themes.  I feel that I have way more patience with repetition when I believe that the poster is being genuine - rather than merely trolling... and sometimes it is not easy to know these answers.

I know that even I will sometimes post in ways that seem less than genuine, and maybe I either go on the attack of another member or fail to have enough patience with another member because I might make some premature presumptions about their intentions or even sometimes read the interaction/post wrongly.


People are in different stages of their learning, and some people go through shitcoin phases, or they might get reckt or they might be resentful about some earlier bitcoin (or crypto) transactions that they made, or they may be influence by either wrong information or assigning the wrong kinds of weight to the information that they know to reach bad/wrong conclusions.

We are all subject to wrong conclusions and/or weighing our evidence wrongly.

If I am interacting with a member and calling them a "dummy," I might later realize that I was the one who was the dummy - so we are all subject to getting some aspects of bitcoin wrong, and it seems that a lot of us are hear to share information - should involve both teaching and learning - even if there might be periods in which we are more on one side of the relationship depending on with whom we are interacting, and we likely can also treat other members as peers even if we might feel that we know more than they do in some areas.. but there could be areas that other members know more, including their experiences.. I cannot know your experiences unless you tell me, and I can attempt to make inferences from what you tell me, and sometimes if information is communicated badly, then I might get it wrong. and it still might NOT mean that you are a dummy just because I am having troubles understanding the message that is being attempted to communicate.


Of course, getting started is going to be different for people who entered into bitcoin now as compared with 9 years ago or even 2 years ago, so there are going to be stages that we may well have to go through, even if we already determined that we want to enter into bitcoin, we still have to figure out the size of our position relative to other investments that we might have, and then we also have to consider various ways that we might want to store or use bitcoin - whether we use exchanges, on chain bitcoin wallets or even lightning wallets that may be more custodial and/or trusted than others.  There are likely some people who currently come into bitcoin by learning about lightning network, but there still might be some needs to learn about both bitcoin and the lightning network in order to attempt to understand aspects of the tools that they are using - even though many of us would like some of the tools to become more user-friendly and even less likely that someone might end up losing their BTC due to mistakes that they might make or that they might presume that if they lose their password, they can still get someone to help them to recover their funds - which in many circumstances in bitcoin, there might not be a way to recover the funds if the person had not taken adequate precautions to make sure that they have a back up... and I think that many of us here are trying to balance those kinds of factors, even if some of the members in this forum are way more technically literate than others which surely affects which bitcoin or lightning tools that they are going to use versus what a less technically literate member might be willing to try out .. and that also goes to some of the ideas of newbies who might be more or less technically literate, but sometimes they might need to figure out why they are investing into bitcoin or wanting to use it before really digging into the technical aspects - but those are personal choices too.. because many of us will gravitate towards areas of our knowledge in which we are more comfortable.

Very appropriate, personally at first we also experienced problems in terms of starting bitcoin investments, because the available capital could not make large purchases of bitcoins, so on another occasion I had to find a way to be able to start investing bitcoins and finally decided to buy bitcoins a little little by little, today my financial strength is increasing, following the bitcoin price increase in the previous year.
Many people don't understand the concept of investing in bitcoin, so they don't look for ways to get around it. In fact, if we look further, bitcoin has grown so rapidly to date.

Many options can be added regarding the second layer. Think of it similar to having friends with someone on twitter or other social media. This way, if the user does not have an open channel with someone on the lightning network, there is still a path through the shared user.
More precisely, there are many ways that can be solved using the network, so convenience for convenience will continue to be created and bitcoin is the basic idea of ​​the emergence of the innovation that we are discussing.

It still looks offline, even though this development has gone through a much more developed level than before. I mean, if doing transactions in the year using numbers like you mentioned, then under $300 is very unbalanced, even when someone does and wants to make a transaction, the main thing to think about is distance and meeting arrangements.
But now we no longer need to do distance and time management, because people abroad can make transactions so quickly and cheaply with bitcoin, the adoption and development of bitcoin is very sophisticated through the available technology.

It may be due to unbalanced transaction fees, that some exchanges decide to take minimum and maximum steps for trading.
Of the many exchanges that I have searched, it is true that they make a minimum figure of $5 for transactions, but I also don't know whether this minimum restriction is to compensate for the number of transactions made by someone.

This is the most interesting issue to discuss, because people usually forget about technical things, even though there are many ways to make it easier to run, in order to broaden my horizons, the most interesting focus is probably on this technical issue.
Given that there are still many drawbacks that I do not fully understand, so that I can understand technical things like that and can apply them in my bitcoin trading, and I am sure you better understand the cycle of understanding and solutions to this problem

Annoying story, people who are a little bit crazy getting to know you as a master of bitcoin, my question?
what if people in this forum one by one start coming and asking the same thing, this will waste your time in providing special material outside the usual curriculum.
The fault lies in people usually not trying to learn bitcoin as a whole, they are only interested in the stories that people tell, although there are many other reasons that must be considered, fluctuating and the wrong way to invest in "OneCoin", when it should simply buy and provide a Bitcoin address.

So in conclusion from my narrow thinking, someone knows bitcoin closely, but unfortunately they don't know where to start, even though the available resources and technology can be learned quite easily for now.
The progress of bitcoin is so rapid, many technical developments were launched based on the idea of bitcoin, and for that bitcoin is something that is difficult to describe or manifests that are not visible, but can be felt like a blowing wind.
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong in interpreting the meaning of your discussion

We seem to be deviating more and more away from talking about lighting network - yet for me, sometimes it is not easy to leave new ideas or responses outstanding.. ..

Accordingly, I will agree with you that it is likely that a lot of poor people are not very well financially educated - and part of the evidence would be their actual status of being poor and perhaps not being able to get out of such trap, but the basics of building wealth are neither complicated nor difficult to understand in practice - which is living within your means, setting some portion of your income aside and then try to put that "investment" money into something that will either appreciate in value or hold its value as much as you can.... and sure the other part about NOT dipping into the wealth stash while it is building and compounding can be quit difficult for anyone to accomplish - whether poor or not.,.. and of course, if you are poor, you may well only have one or two places in which you have stored value... when you are richer then you would likely have more areas in which you have stored your value, so if you have an emergency (or some desire to purchase) while you are rich, you can choose to spend from the asset class / currency that has the least likelihood to appreciate in value.


I am pretty sure that I have similar back and forths with you on this topic in the past, and it does not seem to be that we really disagree about some of the underlying characteristics that might exist at certain points of time regarding how an investment portfolio might look, but we should be talking about how the poor person can potentially be in a position to improve his/her lot, even when his/her starting position is relatively worse, way worse or even dire as compared to the person with way more assets and resources.

So maybe I am starting to get frustrated with some of your themes because you seem to imply that obstacles are so great for poor people that they would not be able to overcome them or to catch up to the rich person, or that the rich person is always going to be ahead, not have to try very hard to stay ahead, and a lot of those kinds of assumptions have some truth within them because the world has a lot of unfairnesses, and social (financial) mobility can be quite difficult to achieve - including that maybe the moving up from being in poverty would not be possible to get to millionaire status, but still it seems to me that there still could be decent chances that diligent poor person is going have decent odds to catch up to the sloppy millionaire.. even though s/he would not be able to catch up to the equally diligent millionaire.  

Regarding diversification, it is not necessarily true that a rich person is going to automatically be diversified, even though it may well be true that it may well not be prudent for a poor person to attempt too much diversification prior to growing his/her investment portfolio to a certain size in which diversification starts to become more justifiable in order to bring more protections towards the kinds of assets being held and abilities to being able to choose from which assets to spend during times in which various asset classes might have differences in their valuations and projections of valuation changes.


There are a lot of ways to frame ideas of fairness whether we are talking about access to being able to buy bitcoin or ability to know about it or to understand the information that is out there about bitcoin.  Of course, one of the easier ways to attack fairness would be if there would have been some insider folks who would have gotten more bitcoin than others due to their insider distribution (and or superior knowledge or location), and sure those kinds of accusations can be made after the fact because there are people who were in a better position to know about bitcoin and to find out about bitcoin (and to understand it), so it should not be unexpected that people are going to make claims about bitcoin being unfairly distributed and the earlier adopters knowing more and having more access - so in some sense the great price swings do allow for newer people to get into bitcoin at a relatively lower price - even though they won't likely be able to get bitcoin below $5k or even less likely below $1k or $100, as some of the earlier adopters had been able to do.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Sure, if a poor person had bought some bitcoin since the very beginning, he'd have had them appreciated in value. But since he's poor, chances are, he isn't financially educated, and might had spent them in the time between, or perhaps even kept them, but couldn't step forward.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a $800/month, 9-5 job, with zero capital other than your house and your bitcoin, you don't have that much wealth. Wealth comes from time, which is the real asset that we can't afford to lose in the end. A millionaire can just live off his capital, because he's living off passively, not actively.

You know what? I don't even know what the fuck does that mean. What's fair ultimately? Bitcoin exists 13 years now, and is accessible by literally every person that has some meager Internet connection. And every such person can have the exact same rights, oppositely to our current monetary system wherein only politicians and bankers do. People must take the personal responsibility to educate themselves at some point. Fair or not, it's unquestionably fairer.

I like this quote:

You started off so great franky1, and you described one of the issues, and how bitcoin addresses the ability for very poor people to get into bitcoin, and you lasted almost 3 paragraphs before you started to devolve into nonsense.

Very poor people can still invest into bitcoin, and they do not have to NOT operate a node and they do not have to use any inferior aspects of bitcoin or even any side chains if they do not want.  They can buy bitcoin little by little, and they can study bitcoin at the same time to figure out how they want to store their bitcoin and even the extent to which they might run a node  or to engage in any of the securing the network aspects that come with running a bitcoin node.

Regarding lightning network or any other second layer those are additional use case options that they can choose or not choose to add to their BTC participation that might go beyond merely just buying bitcoin, whether it is $3 per week or some other amount that might work for them.

By the way, between about 2015 and 2019, I used to buy and sell bitcoin to random folks, and I would charge anywhere between 5% and 12% premium over what I considered to be my replacement costs for the mere hassle of meeting some stranger or some random person, and I would also tell them that I did not want to arrange a meeting unless they were going to transact a minimum of $300.. and many times I had maximum amounts too.. such as maybe just a few thousand, and if I got to know them, then maybe I would agree to go outside of the ranges or to change the premium.

People will sometimes meet others at bitcoin meet ups or other events and then agree to buy or sell bitcoin, and I suppose if they know each other they might decide not to even charge any premium or to have minimum amounts, and maybe if someone is in a really poor location they might choose to trade very low amounts - and it used to be that some of the exchanges would allow trading of any amount, even a dollar... but these days some of the exchanges will have $5 minimum.. or some other similar amount as their minimum trade amount.

There are ways to attempt to work around minimums, and I would imagine that some of the ideas around minimums would depend on the environment.. Sometimes when BTC prices start to move a lot in a short period of time, some individual buyer/sellers don't want to transact, and some exchanges will shut down or "pause" their services, and maybe volumes get high, or maybe the price gets so volatile that they don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a trade (or a bunch of trades that are flooding in and meeting in person , there might be ideas that people are starting to act crazy during such high volatile times, so it might feel unsafe to even meet).

You likely realize that some kinds of products are more pegged to BTC than other types of products, and I recall a guy who used to come to me on a fairly regular basis, and I frequently would try to talk him out of doing any bitcoin transactions because he seemed a bit nutso.., and several times he told me that he had heard about bitcoin from a friend who told him to get involved in "OneCoin."  So he would text me or something and say that he wanted to meet so that he could buy some bitcoin, and then he would give me an apparent bitcoin address to send bitcoin to him, and so many times, I tried to explain to him that he should be buying bitcoin, not investing into "OneCoin" because that was a scam and he was quite likely to lose all of his money... but I said that I would sell him the BTC and he just needed to give me a BTC address, and I was not responsible for if he received the BTC or if the BTC was credited to his "OneCoin" account.. and so sometimes people get ideas in their head, and I was in a bit of an uncomfortable position regarding how much to interact with the guy and the extent to which I should even agree to sell him BTC that he was having me send to his "OneCoin" account.

in fiat land. people used to only be able to buy whole shares and when 1 share was many hundreds of dollars. third world country citizens could not afford to buy single shares because their $3 a week wage (ignorant people call "coffee amount") meant they couldnt buy a single tesla share unless they saved up for years

yet bitcoin came around to solve that. allow people to buy decimal amounts every week to skip the 'save to buy' and just go straigh tto the buy stage

but then the ignorant "coffee amount" preachers then tried to say bitcoin was not fit for the 3rd world countries where bitcoin should not be used for the unbanked, in their narrow minded view. and so tried to push for 3rd world countries to adopt a sub network. offramping people away from bitcoin to this weak, insecure subnetwork

now they are saying the 3rd world countries are not "techies" and shouldnt run independent nodes but instead put their value into the trust of a custodian wallet
silly thing is that this weak subnetwork, has no big rules. thus it is not difficult to build user friendly GUI's. but as its well known when devs cant be bothered to make rules, secure a network and then make the network userfriendly.. that network is not going to succeed. but hey they dont care. they just want control and limit users abilities in the elites favour


(i mentioned this phase years ago about moving from hop model to hub/soke model of "factories"/custodians)


these ignorant people have been seen in the last couple days to start to word this subnetwork as a more risk aware less utopian promise. and even try to be more realistic by saying the unit of measure is not "bitcoin" but a different unit which they start calling LN-btc.. much like other subnetworks dont define their units as bitcoin but (binance: WBTC, liquid LBTC)

so although they have now started to sound more realistic to the risk awareness and difference of the networks and security models and utility(a positive) they are still trying to limit what 3rd world countries have access to, where only the elites can get the parts that 'make' profit at the jeopardy of the poor who have to trust the elites wont abuse such system

such a shame they wasted 5 years going down that avenue..