Re: @practicalthought

in tldr •  8 months ago 


Remember that time you were writing a comment that you never stopped writing and before you knew it, it's almost deserving of it's own damn post because it's so needlessly long winded?

  • Yeah, me neither.

Does anyone keep track of the Federal governments Bitcoin wallets? Being the largest holders of Bitcoin would allow them to do wash trades, or the reverse which would suppress prices.
--- @practicalthought (Link)

I trust the government to report accurately on that.


There are a lot of huge anonymous bags out there.
Who knows who controls them.

Still, Bitcoin is a big problem simply because they can't inflate it. People are about to realize how badly they've been getting fleeced when Bitcoin continues to double in value each year. They can manipulate stores of value pretty well. They can't seem to manipulate an asset increasing in value exponentially. At least not over a long period of time (4 years). This "coincidentally" is the same period as the halvings, leading one to believe that maybe Bitcoin is regulating itself even better than we think. This comes at a time when banks are weak and interest rates are literally going negative; an impossible thought when Bitcoin was born.

The very first thing central banks will do to a competitor is buy it out. That's not working so well with Bitcoin. It can't seem to be bought out... and if it does, there are forks everywhere calked full of established communities willing to fight for their network.


Consider the opening distribution of Bitcoin in the early days; a bunch of super nerds getting laughed at and criticized for trying something that was "doomed to fail". Then the value started flowing into the ultra-libertarian free-market that obviously created a huge black market... so those people have a lot. The distribution keeps getting better and better every year.

Every tech company will eventually get behind Bitcoin. It would be stupid not to. Is that good? Is that bad? It sure is something, and again the important thing is that the central banks lose more control and more healthy competition enters the space and breaks up this monopoly. We tend to complain a lot about the distribution and decentralization of cryptocurrency and somewhat ignore the system we are currently employing because it is so opaque.

Already this distribution is vastly superior to the people who are actually in charge of the world. It's not easy to buy Bitcoin is mass, that's why the price spikes so badly in the first place, and nobody likes to lose money for zero gain. If it keeps doubling in price it's obviously not being exploited as bad as fiat currency, not even close.

Bitcoin is money; the best kind of money we've ever seen, yet we all put our blinders on and convince ourselves that the price action of a few months matters; while every 4 years that pass are an absolute marvel; impossible even. Yet here we are. I guess the world just needs more than a decade's worth of proof. Change is slow.


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I maintain that while it is easy to complain about the distribution of Bitcoin (or any other single cryptocurrency) the simple fact is that crypto is widely distributed. Where are Bitcoin Whales yet they are mostly different from the EOS and Ethereum ones. We see this repeating itself on Steem. Steem Whales are much different from LEO or SCT ones.

With each new cryptocurrency, it further pushes the distribution outward. That is why the present system really stands no chance. There is no one area to target. Even if Bitcoin is in the hands of the government (no proof of that), what about the other tokens that are seeing development and progress? All of those can be used in lieu of fiat.

"Even if Bitcoin is in the hands of the government (no proof of that)..."

It isn't any single label that defines the enemy of freedom. Government is just one mechanism of control, after all. Blockstream is owned by AXA, which is controlled by a Bilderberger. Bilderberg isn't the government. It's a mechanism for controlling governments, arguably worse than government itself.

This is publicly verifiable information, which I recommend you undertake, to prevent being tricked into thinking BTC is free from being controlled by the banksters that are the real enemy of freedom.

Decentralization, continuing to develop as new cryptocurrencies are created, does indeed inevitably and ineluctably reduce centralization and monopoly. No single decentralized mechanism does that, so BTC alone does not do that. It is, as you point out, the myriad decentralized alternatives to centralized mechanisms that do that in toto.


Doesn't matter if they control the development of Bitcoin.
The network won't allow them to do 99% of the things that they want to do with it.

As long as they can't create inflation out of thin air that alone makes it a thousand times better than fiat. It isn't easy to push forks on the Bitcoin community. Who cares who the dev team is? It's not changing. Bitcoin is the most censorship resistant coin of them all, for better or worse.

It is by controlling transaction fees that they effect inflation. It doesn't matter if BTC tokens can't inflate when the cost of transacting in BTC is inherent to using BTC, and they can control transaction fees. Blockstream controls transaction fees, and thus BTC inflation.

Further the derivatives market is a mechanism to control the price of BTC irrespective of inflation, just as PMs and other assets are manipulated to artificially depress their prices, enabling other players than the specific entitites that control Blockstream to affect BTC, opening that market and increasing the real value of BTC to them for those purposes.

You aren't wrong about BTC and censorship AFAIK, but that merely demonstrates that there is no censorship proof mechanism extant today. This is why we need mesh networks and open source hardware before we can have secure and censorship free speech.


This is why I consider Bitcoin maximalism to be harmful.

Posted using Partiko iOS

It is. We all need to know that as soon as BTC ate the whole economy, it is our new enemy. Cuz it will be one of the biggest and most centralized systems out there..

Already a big step forward. ;)

But BTC won't be easy to fight. Especially not when it's grown up.

But there will be new dank ideas/ projects combining awesome knowledge and mechanics/ technic (code). ;)

The ownership of BTC is very centralized. The protocol and its development, however, are hard for any single party to control. That's actually a feature and a not a bug. But if Bitcoin were to become the new money, the concentration of wealth would be tragic.

That's why the next decentralized key-technic is going to have key mechanics implemented focussing on distribution and probably also privacy! ;)

That's what I was aiming at with my text.

The ownership of BTC is very centralized.

Doesn't matter because it's not centralized to the central banks. Anything that breaks up the bank monopoly frees the world in ways we can't even imagine. Any competition is good at this point. Doesn't matter what the source is.

Bitcoin vs the Banksters is definitely interesting.

The Banksters have always bought their way out of every situation.
Need the stock market to keep going up? Just throw money at it.
Need the economy to keep going? Just throw money at it.

But that doesn't work well against bitcoin.
The hands are stronger than they have ever experienced before.
And the on/off ramps are so tiny, that they can bring billions to bare on the problem.

Bitcoin can't just appear and disappear like all the other paper assets they deal with. (Selling 5x the worlds mining production of silver on the Comex?)
So, it becomes evident where things are coming and going.

I am waiting to watch as the off-track betting "bitcoin futures" are used to try and control the price, and the price of bitcoin does whatever it wants. Leaving that futures market to pay out more than they have.

"Every tech company will eventually get behind Bitcoin. It would be stupid not to."

Except that it has been shown that transaction fees can utterly prevent BTC from being useful as money. The price of BTC is not a single variable. Transaction fees are part of the price, and transaction fees clearly are not controlled by halvings. This renders the inflation proof BTC utterly subject to inflation through transaction fees.

Solve this problem, and you will become correct. However Blockstream is owned by AXA, which is controlled by a Bilderberger, and you can't get more bankster than Bilderberg. This transaction fee issue is not a bug from the perspective of banksters. It's the feature upon which their control of money depends.

That destroys the value of BTC to financial dissidents IMHO.



The world needs mental evolution.

Posted using Partiko Android

True that

Most times we forget that we actually need fiat to actually buy crypto currency, fiat is not going anywhere because we need it as much as we need cryptos