Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 11. (Read 9532 times)

I don't know exactly what happens, but it seems pretty likely that there could be close to 1 million bitcoins that were associated with Satoshi.. but it is not 100% clear if they were all associated with Satoshi, but it does seems that anyone who either purposefully or accidentally loses access to their private keys, then those coins are pretty unlikely to ever get spent, unless they are able to be hacked based on poorer storage methods, as compared to what is learning along the way and perhaps any protocol changes that might help for newer wallets to have more security attributes..

I agree with that,  Satashi actually buried those coins my curiosity leads me to ask,  what then happens to those tins of Bitcoins in Satoshi possession and who gonna spend it I wish Bitcoin is already adopted in the other side of life,  if so then Satoshi would be among the richest dude I that hood.

And we still small bitcoin lords here in the world,  since Bitcoin give us the free,  to own and use bitcoin for whatever best suit our need per time,  it may be right for some to say that Bitcoin holdlers does not make history since their activities may not contribute to the network directly,  but still Bitcoin holder most especially long term Bitcoin holders also contribute to the scarcity of Bitcoin in the market that also help increase the value and price of bitcoin at that point.

Satoshi himself is the greatest Bitcoin hodler because he exited that characteristic of long term view when he lock the about 1 million bitcoin from the world and no a bit have been moved from that wallet yet even with all the price ATH that have forced many dominant wallets to make transactions and carrying out coin moving after a long period.


But nothing like that have been noticed with Satoshi wallet it has remain inactive,  to an ordinary jack,  this is a steel hand hodler,  because not many can do what Satoshi have done in the space of Bitcoin development and existence.

But we're here in the current situation.

The easy way out of the debate is "because Satoshi", or "because the white paper".


I truly respect your opinion, but not finding out the actual reason why saving Bitcoin makes more sense than spending it like it was a network merely for coffee transactions, makes me believe that we might have only started to scratch the surface.

I'm also still in my Bitcoin journey, and I'm not saying that I'm 100% on the right path. Perhaps I will get a new understanding and agree with you one day.

OK, so we're in agreement... I don't understand why you bothered replying to me in the first place.


This further hammers home the point that I was trying to make. He also referenced bitcoin as being a commodity, but commodities only have value because they are useful in some way or another. They don't have value simply because people expect the price to keep going up.

And there will always be, because electronic cash has a tangible value on its own. But not for all people, again. Some people don't care about that, and are quite fine with electronic fiat, alone. For them, electronic cash represents nothing more than an investment – an asset appreciated in practice solely by the faction that truly esteems the concept of electronic cash.

Even though I don't care much about Satoshi's intentions, I'm just going to quote two parts where he's pretty much arguing it's more than currency;

---

Honestly, I don't give a damn about being in history. I wouldn't want to be the known one who traded 10,000 BTC for two pizzas.

Part of the "freedom," power and greatness of bitcoin is that you can do whatever the fuck you want with it, including but not limited to HODLing it...

and by the way, appealing to authority seems pretty lame here.. in regards to what supposedly were "satoshi's intentions" in regards to the various ways that bitcoin could be "used" (including whether HODLing fits into the category of uses contemplated by satoshi).  

Another use case, recently discussed as plausible/feasible/reasonable, is the use case of going to your grave with your satoshis... which (if you want to talk about satoshi) seems to be what satoshi did.

I don't "sell" bitcoin, I (primarily) use it for what it was originally meant to do, which is act as electronic cash. For someone who is purely using it for speculative reasons, that's fine, nobody said you can't do that. Indeed most people are only interested in the speculative gains aspect. However, if people weren't out there using it for real-world transactions then it would have no value at all.

History won't remember long-term bitcoin holders. It will remember Laszlo Hanyecz, Silk Road & others who established its first use cases.


I'm just referencing Satoshi's original intentions. He didn't create bitcoin to be an investment, even though somewhat ironically that's possibly one of the reasons why its had such success as one. Ordinals is indeed a novel use case that doesn't have to do with spending, so is the stuff I've been doing on Counterparty since 2014. I think what "cheapens the protocol" to a larger degree is insisting bitcoin shouldn't be spent.

Sorry, the point I was making was made through an incomplete post. I was talking more about from an investment perspective and how Bitcoin isn't designed to use for mere "coffee transactions".

Bitcoin's purchasing power grows after the end of a 4-year cycle, so unless you have no choice and truly need to spend your Bitcoin, it's better to use fiat to purchase your personal needs.

Plus "money", could be spent AND held.


That's partly true. In my opinion, Bitcoin's main value proposition derives from the fact that it's censorship-resistant. The way it's spent and the way the network is utilized also matters. If people truly believe that Bitcoin was built to be a network for personal/consumer finance, then they're only scratching the surface.

Ordinals is a good example. I may not like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but it's impressive, for Bitcoin as a protocol, that Casey Rodarmor built his project on top of the network without asking permission. This is the ethos Bitcoin lives by, and saying that it's merely for "spending" cheapens the protocol.

If you don't have liquidity problems, then holding it indefinitely is proved to be a good financial decision until now.

For you. For someone who doesn't care about electronic cash, but only for the potential capital gains, it's purely an investment.

But, in practice, you're not encouraged to do that, unless you need to use cash via the Internet. The reason is pretty simple: bad money, fiat, drives out bitcoin. Fiat is better for consumption purposes, as it's getting less valuable comparably to bitcoin overtime.

I realize that. What I was trying to get across was the "another story" aspect, which is the logical result of everybody holding their bitcoin, which is the mentality that some bitcoiners like to insist upon... that it should just be held indefinitely.


This is if you treat it purely as an investment, which its not. It was meant to be a digital currency or "electronic cash" first and foremost.

No mobile app with lightning functionality does that, unless you're running node / hub from home.

Money, in general, is made to be spent. Spending your savings fulfills their purpose, but you should obviously be cautious on when and where to spend them. Same as with bitcoin.

Everybody don't hold bitcoin. That's what matters. What would happen if everyone did, is another story. The fact is, if you're living off the basic income, need cash and you're out of liquidity, you're going to sell your bitcoin. People who don't run out of liquidity (i.e., rich), with the same mindset and reasoning, will probably hold it for longer.

While I'm not exactly sure when you think its good to spend bitcoin, I disagree with this. Bitcoins were made to be spent, not held. The ability to spend them is what gives them their value. When you spend your bitcoin, you are fulfilling its purpose, its destiny. If everybody held their BTC, well first of all there'd be no market, and second of all it would be no different than a Ponzi scheme centered around an illiquid asset.

The tough thing about using bitcoin as a currency is when you buy it at a higher price and then it goes down significantly... This has always been a risk, however. Thankfully BTC has spent more of its life going up than down.

It's not just you. In fact, I believe there are many people here in BitcoinTalk who also has the same opinion, although they don't express it as much they should. But they should to educate the newbies and make them think hard before spending their precious Bitcoins. A Bitcoin now is better HODLed than spent.


But have a shower thought about a simple concept - Unlimited fiat, only 21,000,000 Bitcoin in existence and demand for sats is increasing.

Aren't Phoenix, Breez and Blixt trying to accomplish some kind of a semblance of self-custody?  These three all work on IOS, and surely there are likely some other wallets that try to be somewhat user-friendly and perhaps are trying to be self-custodial too.. and I don't claim to really know all of the trade-offs.. .

Of course, Bluewallet requires running your own node, though they did previously let you connect to one of their nodes (and hold coins there) - which caused Bluewallet really not to be self-custody, and Muun wallet has some weird swaps that end up not being as lightning network dependent/reliant as some folks had been presuming.

Rather than my somewhat lame attempts at categorizing lightning network wallets, maybe it is better to show how darthcoin categorizes the various level of custodial versus non custodial lightning wallets and their various features?

https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/lightning-wallets-comparison

Self-custody in LN requires way more effort than a cold wallet, not to mention constant micromanagement (backing up & rebalancing channels etc.)

yeah apparently, i didn't really notice at first but it says it here:

Wallet of Satoshi is a mobile app for iOS and Android that lets you send and receive Lightning payments.

It is a zero-configuration custodial wallet with a focus on simplicity and the best possible user experience. It can be downloaded using the links at walletofsatoshi.com

Simply download and install the app and you are on the Lightning Network!

But is there a non-custodial wallet where you can buy bitcoin inside of it and "Simply download and install the app and you are on the Lightning Network" ?

That's a custodial solution, isn't it?

well yeah i forgot about lightning but if something like Wallet of Satoshi could work for you then I think that's a good solution to the high fee problem.

https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/

looks like they have it really dumbed down so that an average joe bitcoin user could be using lightning. you can even buy bitcoin from within the wallet (hopefully their rates are not a ripoff) so you don't have to transfer any bitcoin in (and pay a transaction fee). I guess the big question then becomes does the coffee shop take lightning payments?  

that doesn't solve the having to tell the irs i sold crypto when i bought coffee but i guess i could live with that...

TIL about Gresham's law (thanks for the reference). Also, I agree with you. if nothing is done to improve the technology of Bitcoin - that is, increasing the tx finality speed and significantly bringing down the costs per transaction, then we won't see Bitcoin gaining traction for that kind of activity. One of the most popular ideologies in computer science is that:

Given two services
- service_A with completion of < secs, and $0.00002
- service_B with a completion of >= 3mins and $4 tx cost.

People would only flock to service_A. That's why we have had an influx of other 'layer one' blockchains in the past - all trying to be better than bitcoin forgetting that the blockchain trilemma is still unsolved.


Most people don't care as long as long as all transactions they conduct are completed in near-instant times.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see bitcoin being destined for coffees and pizzas. Transactions like that are, in a manner, as plain as a pikestaff. You don't care about censorship-resistance when buying a pizza. You don't care if third parties know which toppings in that pizza you prefer. You're never going to buy a pizza overseas.  You just want the transaction to complete the soonest, and pay the least in commissions.

Bitcoin is the good money from Gresham's law. As long as there's "bad money", it will not circulate much in the economy. Unless fiat currencies collapse completely, and both EU and US become poor, merchants will pretty much go in the fiat-way when stuff like censorship-resistance, privacy and being permissionless are not prioritized. And even in that chaotic scenario, there will be banks afterwards, in just another form. People without technical expertise will be required to forfeit their custody, unless some second layer can reach them with near zero disadvantages (I highly doubt about that).