Bit Cat

Bitcoin is social consensus around the idea of following a default rule (heaviest chain) to keep agreement around something (a global ledger of value) for which there would normally be very little agreement. It's just a default rule, that can be overridden at any time when there is social consensus around something else. If there was social consensus for deleting bitcoin, it would be gone in a split second and it would be hard to prove it ever existed. In the early days, in presence of a catastrophic bug and with the full agreement of the very few participants, the rule was neglected, and patched. It's a human tool after all, therefore human agreement is always king, when it exists. However, despite being just a default rule, it can become an incredibly sticky one, because of the well known difficulty of humans to take any kind of coherent and durable collective decisions, especially at a global scale. Newspapers contain very little traces of social consensus. And when alternatives are shaky and not immediate, the default rule easily becomes the only rule. So while it may sound like a contradiction, I think bitcoin exists thanks to a form of social consensus, but is also nourished by a total lack of it.

@BrianEastwoodx @BernieSanders The problem is that when wealth is too concentrated it effectively replaces the state, democracy remains only as a formality. A few CEOs control all your communications and the information you receive, they see everywhere you go and what you buy, etc.

Can anyone tell me why liberals think that a successful business owner is obligated to give other people money just because they think success isn’t fair? @BernieSanders thinks it’s appropriate to tax billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk so we can give random families $12,000. Bernie, how about we stop punishing success? I propose the federal government control their spending and tax the American working class a hell of a lot less. You do these two things, and I GURANTEE you that family of four that’s struggling will be able to afford way more than that $12,000. See, when you stop trying to fix problems with the printing of money and taxing people from being successful, the economy can breathe and thrive.

@multiplanet1 Well you can do that more easily when 60 million dollars are the daily interest on your checking account.

Elon Musk's first wife once described what it's like to watch him fail. She said he doesn't react the way normal people react. When a rocket explodes, most people in the room go silent. Some cry. Some start calculating the financial damage. Musk pulls out his phone and starts making calls. Not emotional calls. Engineering calls. "What failed. When can we fix it. When's the next launch." His voice doesn't change. His face doesn't change. The rocket that just cost $60 million is already in the past. The next one is all that exists. She said it was the most unsettling thing she'd ever witnessed. Not because he was cold. Because he genuinely wasn't affected. The failure didn't register as failure. It registered as data. An experiment that produced results. Results that inform the next experiment. This is why he wins. Not because he doesn't fail. He fails more spectacularly than anyone in history. He wins because failure occupies zero psychological space. It enters as data and exits as action. Most people lose not because they fail but because they spend weeks processing the failure before acting again. Musk spends zero seconds. The gap between failure and next attempt is a phone call.

@olvelez007 @HodlMagoo You'll need to delete so many tweets bro, hope you have a good team

@HodlMagoo You don't even realize that YOU are the one being trolled. 🤣

Ya we are cooked.

@HodlMagoo And this is why the more he buys it the more it goes down.

@JoshMandell6 How on earth is the need to pay more and more astronomical interest rates "a virtuous cycle"? Especially considering that BTC has been flat for 5 years?

In Strategy's Bitcoin treasury model, break-even mNAV is the multiple where issuing common shares to buy Bitcoin becomes marginally accretive to BTC per share. It's higher than 1x because of the preferred stock stack ... those senior claims need covering first. Right now it's around 1.22x thanks to that preferred layer. This construct encourages more preferred issuance as the means to fund further Bitcoin purchases. At some point, a higher dividend rate may be required by the market. More preferred issuance or higher dividend cost pushes that break-even level up. It's a virtuous cycle. $MSTR $STRC

@TheDesertLynx Of course he mined before anyone else because he literally invented and launched it lol. But it was public, that's the point. I could have mined too, if I hadn't been busy doing stupid shit.

Satoshi premined. He mined before anyone else and got (and holds) a much higher percentage of the supply than many founders. Sorry to kill your virgin birth myth.

@Truthcoin If you're launching a new coin, why using 2008 tech and sidechains that take months to bridge from? Why not using modern PoW tech that scales to thousands of TPS on the L1 and that can handle L2s that aren't silos and can actually talk to each other?

Comment here, if you want to suggest that something be discussed

Reminder: Weekly Twitter space -- Today 2-4 PM Lately, many have come around to my point of view -- so haters are in short supply We can still maybe get @MrHodl or @Pledditor or @SDLerner Or whomever Despite recent lack of haters, the space usually ends up running long

I doubt that the US will allow a pseudonymous exchange platform that takes away all their power to impose sanctions or even know (=tax) what you own. My feeling is that this thing will be baked with all sorts of KYC, custodians, admin users, security committees, etc, but we'll see.

The real value of a neutral layer like Bitcoin or Kaspa isn’t ignoring the underlying asset doesn’t need legal backing. It’s that China and the US (or any two countries that don’t trust each other) don’t have to route the actual transfer, setlement, and ownership record through each other’s financial systems, banks, or clearing houses. Right now, if you want to move big value crossborder, you’re often stuck trusting the other’s rails, stuff one side can sanction, slow down, or weaponise. On Kaspa the transfer happens on a ledger neither controls. It’s verifiable by both sides, atomic, fast, and doesn’t require asking permission from the other guy’s central bank. You still need trust in the issuer for the economic rights. But you remove a whole layer of mutual infrastructure trust that geopolitically distrustful nations hate relying on. That’s why the neutral public layer makes sense for tokenised assets between big players who don’t see eye to eye. It’s not full trustlessness. It’s reducing the points of trust where it actually matters for sovereigns, control over the rails themselves. Traditional finance already layers trust everywhere (DTCC, Euroclear, etc.). A shared neutral blockchain is just a more neutral, efficient version of those rails. Thats how I personally see it.

Crypto infrastructure is coming, that isn’t in doubt. What is still up for debate is which networks will be used. Most people think nation states would rather a centralised network that they can control but when it comes to global asset classes this isn’t the case. Why would the USA want to have to trust Chinas network to operate in tokenised Chinese assets and vice versa. The one thing most of the big boys will agree on is totally neutral infrastructure that can’t be gamed by either side, especially when you are dealing with trillions of dollars worth of asset transfers weekly. This narrows it down a lot. There are only 3 truly neutral layers: Bitcoin- great for secure settlement but slow Monero- unfortunately not as secure and potentially a problem with full privacy. #Kaspa- the Goldilocks network as it’s just right. This is obviously speculation but anything in life is speculation from waking up, walking out the front door and taking a chance you won’t be hit by a bus; it could happen but weighted probability tells you it’s unlikely. Kaspa has an incredible chance of being utilised heavily by big boys and retail alike because of its advantages. My conviction has never weakened on Kaspa as time has gone on, it’s only ever gotten stronger. $KAS

Ok so Americans still love Trump, interesting.

@simogattok Well that is true. Of course in PoS the rich can also censor and reorg the chain and get even richer by doing nothing.

@maxibitcat This is also the confutation by PoS people against PoW, as they claim that also PoW exercises a control by the rich, as they can dump the airopped undesired tokens, nuking the price.

Suppose there's a bitcoin fork, larry&saylor decide to hold the version with the rules they like, and nuke the other one to zero. Will you still go around saying that coin ownership doesn't affect the rules of the network?

@KaspaSilver Why is there any need for volume? If there's little volume, it will go to zero ever more quickly. If they announce they'll get rid of the "bad" version, most will front run and send it to zero even before they move a coin.

@maxibitcat The only way they nuke the other one to zero is if there is enough volume in this version they despise. Which if there is enough volume for them to nuke it I would say there is enough chance it will completely survive and make them look stupid.

@Chris_Hutch7 The fun thing is that they don't even need to do the market dumping part, simply having that power has the same effect, by market anticipation.

@maxibitcat i never actually thought about that. 🤔

If you consider the choice of money as a multi-decade social optimization/coordination problem, I suspect the optimum is to make a common choice at the start (when it's easy, with only one choice) and stick to it, instead of rediscussing it every couple of years when new tech comes along. I think a lot can be explained by people unconsciously following that rational path.

And Christianity and Islam don't prevent from other religions from existing and thriving as well. If you think Kaspa is about replacing Bitcoin or becoming the next Bitcoin you missed the point and Kaspa will fail.

@bouyguestelecom @tygr00 @HUMAIN Vous pouvez répondre en public svp c'est assez grave ça.

@tygr00 @tygr00 @Humain en voyage Bonjour, un échange avec l’un de mes coéquipiers du service clients est nécessaire. Je vous invite à nous écrire ici m.me/bouyguestelecom ou sur la messagerie de votre application mobile bytl.fr/App-BT-message…

Bonjour @bouyguestelecom Pouvez m'expliquer pourquoi un forfait annoncé à 11.99€ passe à 14€38. Sur votre site, il n'est jamais fait mention d'un tarif HT .

@BTC_for_Freedom 25,000 wholecoiners lost interest in a token mainly held by a single man and got rid of their holdings.

Microstrategy buys 25,000 BTC and the price goes down. Make it make sense.

@RonSwanonson When you buy one million coins and barely move the price, that's because your concentrated position has made the coin way less desirable as money by everyone else.

I’m glad that Strategy is continuing to buy OTC And I’m glad that people don’t understand why it isn’t jacking up the price yet It’s like draining a pool out of a garden hose; I can see the water coming out, but many are too busy looking at the waterline and saying “but it’s not going down” Oh… it is. And it’ll dry up eventually

@TheRealPlanC Sure, keep piling on debt to buy an asset that goes down in value while promising astronomical interest rates, what could possibly ever go wrong.

Bitcoin / Saylor: Very Important Point I would love to have someone give their best argument for how Bitcoin can go below $50,000. Michael Saylor literally has a USD printer that he can turn on and control the flow rate. Think about it. If Bitcoin were to go to $60,000 for a few weeks or a few months, which, to be clear is not my base case, Saylor could increase the STRC interest rate to 12% and buy 25k to 50k Bitcoin weekly. If Bitcoin somehow were to go to $50,000, he could increase the STRC interest rate to 13% and buy 50,000 to 100,000 Bitcoin in one week, and keep doing that until the price recovers. Increasing the interest rate by another 0.5% to 1.5% would be more than justified if he could load up on $50,000 to $60,000 Bitcoin, lower his cost basis, and increase his future capital gains. The money would come back to him in multiples versus the interest paid. And don't forget, STRC is a variable rate, so he would always drop back to 11.5% in 3 to 6 months once the price recovers. I'm not making an opinion on whether it's a good thing that a single entity can set the floor by ramping up its money printing temporarily. It's just the reality and the math of the situation for anyone who hasn't connected the dots yet. Saylor is all in, and he has many levers he can pull now to support the price and essentially set the floor. The longer Bitcoin trades at discounted levels, and the deeper the discount, the more he will load up, and the more he is incentivized to do so.

@BitcoinIsaiah @DrewVento @grok Many central banks of many different countries hold and recognize gold. Bitcoin is very US centric and the more it's controlled by a single man in a single country the less likely it is to gain global recognition as money.

@maxibitcat @DrewVento @grok what % of gold is held by central banks?

Saylor owning 4% of bitcoin is probably not a good thing