Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 4393. (Read 26711072 times)

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/12/01/jury-in-kleiman-v-wright-civil-suit-says-it-cannot-come-to-a-decision/


What, exactly, they are dividing?
Do any of them have the keys to any of this "property"?

Explanation

FFS... Ignored... Goddamn stupid space rock...

Source: Bitcoin Magazine, Nov 30-2021

Explanation

With inflation through the roof, why not now?

Exactly, so we need to study it and possibly improve bitcoin (if it is possible) to counteract centralization.
Also, you are right; it NOT the eth per se that is important as the opponent, it is the ideas of arbitrary tweaking that are completely not-bitcoin.
For crying out loud, they made a brand new chain that is FASTER (no other worthy features and super-centralized) and, already, it has the monetary size of 10% of bitcoin with VCs pushing it.
As far as how to do this "fight", I am not sure. Probably, mostly via increased usage and improvements in the ease of use.
BTW, I respect the cashing-out, but the talk about it does not really help bitcoin's case, since then the ultimate goal is fiat accumulation.

Bitcoin has one feature that is very similar to gold and is REALLY detested by financiers: it has NO yield.
Of course, it has been so far an appreciating asset, so the yield might be unnecessary.

Wow just wow... that was the first time that I saw Saylor dancing around the topic of Bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities,  and surely it is amazing that either Saylor believes that Bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities can meaningfully be regulated away or challenged in such a way that is NOT going to cause a lot of backlash from individuals who are either wanting to use bitcoin in peer to peer ways or those people who are developing systems around bitcoin's peer to peer powers.

Look at the video starting at about minute 56 that leads up to Saylor's squirminess in terms of talking about bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities (which kind of peeks around the 1 hour mark) and also presuming that bitcoin's peer to peer can meaningfully/substantially get regulated away.... It is kind of funny that TuckerC is trying to get into some of the nitty gritty of talking about peer to peer capabilities of bitcoin and even asserts that he is not so excited about every single human activity (referring to financial transactions, too) should be monitored or captured by some government.  Saylor responds by outlining bitcoin's peer to peer capabilities as if it were some after-thought use case when in fact bitcoin is intrinsically (hesitant to use that word) capable to be used peer to peer by directly saying to another person.,. Hey, I got some bitcoin in this phone, usb stick, other device, piece of paper, memorized by these words, blah blah blah.. would you give me that chicken if I send you those bitcoins (same as saying satoshis or whatever)... so yeah, any of us can do it once we have the capability which various forms of accomplishing such direct transferrnces are increasing with the passage of time and within various creative imaginations in which such varying user interfaces might not have yet been completely imagined, yet.. such as, the 6,913 sats are contained in that picture that I am carrying and you can check it when you get home... since we are neighbors, we are o.k. with making such transfer on the spot...and I get the chicken..and you get the picture.

https://youtu.be/ax7LRJz7VnA?t=3347

Same thing is true when TuckerC makes the humorous comment about putting money laundering and terrorism in air quotes, and they both get a chuckle out of it while Saylor diverts into some way of talking that is likely less risky... (he's been decently well briefed by his lawyers top be careful with those kinds of topics - outside of talking over a beer in which no one is recording the conversation)...

Back to peer to peer power of our lilie fiend (aka honey badger, aka king daddy, aka you know what I am talking about Willis) course, each of us are entitled to develop and maintain our differing preferences regarding bitcoin's varying use cases and also regarding what we believe makes bitcoin valuable.. and for sure, Saylor remains amongst the better of the articulate public advocates regarding varying bitcoin value propositions.... yet it still remains interesting regarding how he actually squirms regarding the peer to peer nature of bitcoin, and maybe his lack of anonymity and his heading of a public company and even his ongoing aggressiveness in his company's use of debt to invest in bitcoin (a kind of attack on the dollar) contributes to his having to be careful regarding how far he is ready, willing and able to go in terms of talking about (or emphasizing) various aspects of bitcoin's ongoing peer to peer powers.. that are not going to go away even if guys like Saylor avoid it, squirm about it or divert into other areas (like spinning the subject matter differently).

By the way, if you really listen to Saylor he is still proclaiming bitcoin to be powerful in the peer to peer transferring capabilities, he is just refusing to frame it in the kind of peer to peer language that we all know bitcoin is capable of doing, so in the end, we should give few shits that Saylor is avoiding talking about direct transfer of bitcoin between individuals because such presumption that we are able to do that cannot be removed from bitcoin merely because someone like Saylor does not want to talk about bitcoin that way.. and likely he stays out of jail by NOT talking about bitcoin in that kind of way.

@jjg..whatever..."sticks and stones may break my bones, but..."

Explanation

ah cmon... we all know Boobs make BTC rise




WATCH

60k By 2mrw

Well I mean, I've seen your prior posts, so I figured you were. But then why did you say that about eth?

We've had sooooo many accounts come into the WO thread over the years, that make a blanket statement about how ETH is better, how it could "flippen" BTC, or how it is a valid competitor to BTC. But whenever I've challenged them on those statements and asked for a point-by-point debate, they've all tucked tail and vanished. Because they can't even believe their own bullshit.

So you'll have to forgive my bluntness about it. But bluntness and debate is the only way to confront and dispel the delusions about ETH having any value to it at all. The emperor has no clothes. All the ETH adherents care about is its price and number go up. That's it. Which is evidenced by their disappearing act when confronted with reality.

The biggest statement I can make about ETH is that, if it were to disappear tomorrow, mankind would lose absolutely nothing. There would be no regression. That's why it has no value.

You could not say the same for Bitcoin.

I agree with your premise that ETH has interesting properties that make it worth studying in spite of it's flaws which are many and quite great.

The biggest one, in my opinion, is the SAME one that all the big block chains will try to do.  And that is to cram the entire operative data-set onto the blockchain.

If ETH continues to be relevant, or even successful then it is destined to centralize.  By the looks of it we will see it centralize both by miner centralization (eventually blockchain centralization ) as well as stake centralization.

This is dangerous because it will attract the folks who recognize that this can be exploited, and therefore make certain people rich at the expense of those who will not be.  This could include governments, and the super wealthy business folks.

In fact it's very genesis is anchored in that reality.  And ALL the changes since inception have enforces that. Pre-mines Chain splits.  Edicts. Changes to issuance.  All of these things "justified" by the leaders.  This will CONTINUE to go on, and fool the fools until ... well forever.

So the biggest most "feature rich" centralized chain will be the ultimate enemy of bitcoin.  Whether that is ETH, a CDBC, or God forbit some sort of combination.

Bitcoin's biggest problem is it is not well understood by not only the masses, but even it's faithful.  It is misunderstood why it is important.  And why ETH is fundamentally NOTHING LIKE IT.  in fact it's opposite ultimately.

Explanation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV5QlSgq7lg

have you guys Watched this video made by Bizonacci?

We don't have to like it or acknowledge the existence of ETH, but I can tell you that while BTC will go to $100k or higher soon, in the same time frame we are also going to see ETH go to $10k or higher.

I too, saw it from the beginning, but decided not to buy any of it, or even mine it because I did not understand what it was supposed to do, or what it could achieve. What I do understand is that it is a platform for some smart contracts and all sorts of other things, and while I do not like the monetary issuance of supply and all sorts of other things about it, I know it's going to stick around for awhile, quite possibly long enough for many of us here to die of old age.

The "smart" thing to consider now is if you want to or can you make profits out of this or not, or are you willing to.

The maxi's inside of us (and around us) are going to stick to the "safety" of bitcoin, or that's actually the smart thing to do, stick to bitcoin. Don't bother with anything else no matter what their numbers say. No one understands them, and the guys who think they do, a lot of them lose money anyway.

About the only thing even considered smarter than this, is to simply buy and hold them if you want to play with different allocations among shitcoins. Buy and hold some BTC. Buy and hold some ETH. Hold for 5 years. Do not day trade or whatever. With the understanding that there is the possibility you will lose whatever you put into any shitcoins, including ETH, but you will most likely profit from just holding bitcoin for longer than 5 years.

Likely you do not know too much.



 


Hahahahaha

Along with providing some humour... Torque saved me from: 1) a potentially wordy postening, 2) further devolving into bullshit/irrelevant shitcoins and 3) causing pains upon my brains.

Thanks torquey porkey.   

I never thought this way. I was positive and tried to remember the golden old days.



To be honest, I am still learning from old members and trying to find out what is key to their success. You are a Legendary Member. And I always try to follow Legendary members and take a look at how many threads they created. how much affords they gave. So, I was looking at your account and I was just Surprised that you created only 5 threads. (I hope you won't mind just because I shared this info) So, I learned another lesson from your account that you don't have to create threads to rank up. You can contribute to the forum even without creating a thread.

I appreciate you didn't mind terribly.

Well it is interesting.  I would not think Tucker would be the place the puppeteers would want to have Saylor.  Unless they were trying to draw his audience in before xxxxx.  But that seems pretty paranoid.

That show has viewers in the millions a day.  I am not one of them, but I have no doubt some who are will get orange pilled by it, so to speak.

The question is how many... and how many will it take?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swhEa8vuP6U