My point was a global powers' manipulation of M2 has a big impact on their own economy and in turn has ripple affects for the global economy. The more people storing wealth in bitcoin (or gold or whatever) the less of an impact M2 manipulation has.
It's a weird, weird time. Bitcoin has had these 6-12 month sideways chopping consolidation periods before, but normally they're routine and during periods of malaise. Effectively those markets try to bore the speculators out of the space, sending coins from new hands to old. But this one, more than most, feels very explicitly macro driven. Everyone seems to just be sitting on their hands waiting to see what shoe is gonna drop next from a geo-political standpoint. Ironically Bitcoin has outperformed darn near everything since the war started simply by holding in the 65-75 range. There may yet be one more good puke left in the market, but all the historical trend data says its more likely than not we've touched bottom. BTC tumbling 45% off the ATH before the war started may have been a blessing in disguise, as it really flushed all the tourists and gamblers out before things went haywire (which may have lead to an even bigger selloff). It's always important to keep your eye on the ball though. The same story that lead to BTC's creation and rise is still happening. The US is lighting money on fire left and right to fight another war. Powell is gone soon. Warsh is going to print until he's got dollar bills coming out of his ass. Price talk gets all the headlines, but what is most interesting is happening behind the scenes in the Bitcoin developer community. Bitcoin Core, the "reference implementation" software for those that want to participate in the network (nodes and miners), has basically self-immolated over the past year. Nepotism and inside dealing has led to a lot of problems in the product (bugs, exploits, etc) and there is a war raging between the pro-Core people and the anti-Core people. It's basically the sequel to the Blocksize War. One side supports Bitcoin as a purely monetary network controlled by node runners, the other side supports Bitcoin as a pay-to-play cloud database controlled by miners. Bitcoin Core's malfeasance has given rise to alternate software like Bitcoin Knots, temporary softforks like BIP-110, and the recently announced Production Ready. I'm VERY curious to hear @RC Cola 's take on all of this, because IIRC one of his key concerns about the Bitcoin network was the vulnerability of having the network run mostly via Core, which is obviously comprised of a handful of people whom could be compromised (and now obviously have been). My theory was that the network would reject any software or developers who decided to sidestep consensus, and that appears to be what is happening, although we're not out of the woods yet.
One of the doctors I work with showed me a graph that Bitcoin cycles every 4 years. And she was firm on it dropping below 60k a few months ago.
In all honesty, I don't follow this space much at all. Tagging me about it is really the first time I became aware of it. After the bit of digging I did, I can't say I really care to follow it much more (unless I wanted to study human sociology...which is very interesting to be fair, but I don't have much time for right now). The specifics of this all are pretty boring to me. This is just typical open source software drama. To your point though, yes I expressed concern that the Bitcoin community is/was essentially centralizing their trust and whatnot in a small group of individuals, and the decisions of those individuals could in fact result in changes (or a lack of changes) in how Bitcoin works (or doesn't work). I guess the community has caught on to that, and sure for that specific problem, trying to branch out and create new implementations of (still semi-compatible?) client software could address some of those issues...in theory. I think in practice, relying on this, especially over long periods of time, is not likely to work as people think. You'll likely just end up with centralized entities again (perhaps governed by folks on some non-profit board!). Which is...fine. Lots of stuff works like that (including systems Bitcoin/crypto are challenging). But my whole point is that with all of this, you don't get "pure math." You get a lot of "pure humanity" in the process. You have to. It is unavoidable. So let's focus on that and getting it right vs some mathematical formulas and cryptographic hashes. So yeah those are my thoughts, and I'm guessing we both see this in different ways. I do appreciate bringing it to my attention. I'll keep an eye on it at the very least, even if the specifics of the drama are not too interesting to me. Again from multiple perspectives, this is a very interesting set of events. I'm literally about to move across the country, so my focus is a bit diverted away from things like this (in addition to the normal family stuff that has eaten away from my "ranting and rambling" online time). Apologies if you wanted something more in-depth, but that's what I got for now.
I wasn't expecting you to be aware of it, but I was expecting you to be interested in it given it is testing your primary critique about bitcoin's resiliency as a network ran by decentralized consensus in real time. I wasn't looking for your take on the drama or intrigue, but rather the raw mechanics of the network rejecting bad actors and self-healing. To sound so dismissive and flippant about the whole thing is really weird given that this is where you planted your flag most rigidly before. You're never going to take humans out of the equation, but as you can see humans are both the poison and the antidote. You can corrupt humans, but Bitcoin isn't human, it's an idea, and once created, ideas cannot be destroyed. My bet is that there will always be a critical mass of people willing to carry forward the idea of decentralized digital property. Based on what I have seen you write, you seem to disagree. This is a critical test of that assumption, and so far, Bitcoin is passing.
Though the most powerful supercomputers active today will take thousands of years to decrypt cryptography, Google warns quantum attack could crack Bitcoin in 9 minutes While the computers active today use binary electrical signals or bits to represent ones or zeros, quantum computers use quantum bits (qubits), which are subatomic particles. Optimized qubits can simultaneously represent combinations of both ones and zeros. More qubits mean large-scale computing power for problem-solving.
You've been told this many times, but apparently it hasn't sunk in yet. We will see quantum computing coming long ahead of its arrival. There already exists quantum proof encryption that can be put into the bitcoin protocol, same as any other BIP/patch/update. This is not the case with most other systems right now. Quantum is a risk to everything except bitcoin.
who is more qualified ? no disrespect intended, I'll take Google's considered opinion. A considered opinion is one that is able to be specific, "9 minutes"; "long ahead of is arrival" is an eg of "all hat, no cattle"
Maybe you ought to take a moment and consider what that means. You're signing onto the idea that quantum level computing is going to appear abruptly, without significant run-up or notice. That is not how the vast majority of technologies have worked throughout history, and certainly not how quantum development is operating now. If quantum falls out of the clear blue sky one day, it means the entire world is going to be thrown into chaos. The bitcoin network is one of the best equipped to handle such a scenario either way. But if this is your expectation, you probably ought to convert your wealth into bullets and cigarettes.
I think quantum computing, like AI, can come about relatively quickly. I still feel like energy demand will be the biggest impediment, and will become political sooner than later.
quantum computing is theoretical. Break throughs will come in near zero gravity labs. There is nothing magical about AI either.
It's not theoretical in 2026. AI isn't magical but you'd have to have your head in the sand to not see the actual real world uses, which like cloud computing come at large energy costs. What does BTC actually do to justify the energy costs when energy is no longer cheap?
Bitcoin stores capital/value without any form of corruption, debasement, distortion. This is something literally everyone who has ever existed or ever will exist needs, but has never had until Bitcoin's immaculate conception. What is your theory here? That once energy reaches a certain price people will stop putting resources into securing and maintaining the network? So far Bitcoin hasn't been sensitive to energy price movements. Energy costs go up? Unprofitable miners go offline. But now it costs more to make a bitcoin, driving the price up and incentivizing miners back into the space. Market equilibrium is reached. Energy cost goes down? It's now cheaper to create a bitcoin. More miners enter the space, competition ramps up, gets more expensive to make a bitcoin, energy consumed to point of market equilibrium. If you think you don't need an incorruptible place to store your wealth, that's unfortunate for you but not my concern. I prefer not having my savings routinely debased.
