Why Cryptocurrencies Will Never Be Safe Havens

[Ares]

Every further new high in the price of Bitcoin brings ever more claims that it is destined to become the preeminent safe haven investment of the modern age — the new gold.

But there’s no getting around the fact that Bitcoin is essentially a speculative investment in a new technology, specifically the blockchain. Think of the blockchain, very basically, as layers of independent electronic security that encapsulate a cryptocurrency and keep it frozen in time and space — like layers of amber around a fly. This is what makes a cryptocurrency “crypto.”

That’s not to say that the price of Bitcoin cannot make further (and further…) new highs. After all, that is what speculative bubbles do (until they don’t).

Bitcoin and each new initial coin offering (ICO) should be thought of as software infrastructure innovation tools, not competing currencies. It’s the amber that determines their value, not the flies. Cryptocurrencies are a very significant value-added technological innovation that calls directly into question the government monopoly over money. This insurrection against government-manipulated fiat money will only grow more pronounced as cryptocurrencies catch on as transactional fiduciary media; at that point, who will need government money? The blockchain, though still in its infancy, is a really big deal.

While governments can’t control cryptocurrencies directly, why shouldn’t we expect cryptocurrencies to face the same fate as what started happening to numbered Swiss bank accounts (whose secrecy remain legally enforced by Swiss law)? All local governments had to do was make it illegal to hide, and thus force law-abiding citizens to become criminals if they fail to disclose such accounts. We should expect similar anti-money laundering hygiene and taxation among the cryptocurrencies. The more electronic security layers inherent in a cryptocurrency’s perceived value, the more vulnerable its price is to such an eventual decree.

Bitcoins should be regarded as assets, or really equities, not as currencies. They are each little business plans — each perceived to create future value. They are not stores-of-value, but rather volatile expectations on the future success of these business plans. But most ICOs probably don’t have viable business plans; they are truly castles in the sky, relying only on momentum effects among the growing herd of crypto-investors. (The Securities and Exchange Commission is correct in looking at them as equities.) Thus, we should expect their current value to be derived by the same razor-thin equity risk premiums and bubbly growth expectations that we see throughout markets today. And we should expect that value to suffer the same fate as occurs at the end of every speculative bubble.

If you wanted to create your own private country with your own currency, no matter how safe you were from outside invaders, you’d be wise to start with some pre-existing store-of-value, such as a foreign currency, gold, or land. Otherwise, why would anyone trade for your new currency? Arbitrarily assigning a store-of-value component to a cryptocurrency, no matter how secure it is, is trying to do the same thing (except much easier than starting a new country). And somehow it’s been working.

Moreover, as competing cryptocurrencies are created, whether for specific applications (such as automating contracts, for instance), these ICOs seem to have the effect of driving up all cryptocurrencies. Clearly, there is the potential for additional cryptocurrencies to bolster the transactional value of each other—perhaps even adding to the fungibility of all cryptocurrencies. But as various cryptocurrencies start competing with each other, they will not be additive in value. The technology, like new innovations, can, in fact, create some value from thin air. But not so any underlying store-of-value component in the cryptocurrencies. As a new cryptocurrency is assigned units of a store-of-value, those units must, by necessity, leave other stores-of-value, whether gold or another cryptocurrency. New depositories of value must siphon off the existing depositories of value. On a global scale, it is very much a zero sum game.

Or, as we might say, we can improve the layers of amber, but we can’t create more flies.

This competition, both in the technology and the underlying store-of-value, must, by definition, constrain each specific cryptocurrency’s price appreciation. Put simply, cryptocurrencies have an enormous scarcity problem. The constraints on any one cryptocurrency’s supply are an enormous improvement over the lack of any constraint whatsoever on governments when it comes to printing currencies. However, unlike physical assets such as gold and silver that have unique physical attributes endowing them with monetary importance for millennia, the problem is that there is no barrier to entry for cryptocurrencies; as each new competing cryptocurrency finds success, it dilutes or inflates the universe of the others.

The store-of-value component of cryptocurrencies — which is, at a bare-minimum, a fundamental requirement for safe haven status — is a minuscule part of its value and appreciation. After all, stores of value are just that: stable and reliable holding places of value. They do not create new value, but are finite in supply and are merely intended to hold value that has already been created through savings and productive investment. To miss this point is to perpetuate the very same fallacy that global central banks blindly follow today. You simply cannot create money, or capital, from thin air (whether it be credit or a new cool cryptocurrency). Rather, it represents resources that have been created and saved for future consumption. There is simply no way around this fundamental truth.

Viewing cryptocurrencies as having safe haven status opens investors to layering more risk on their portfolios. Holding Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies likely constitutes a bigger bet on the same central bank-driven bubble that some hope to protect themselves against. The great irony is that both the libertarian supporters of cryptocurrencies and the interventionist supporters of central bank-manipulated fiat money both fall for this very same fallacy.

Cryptocurrencies are a very important development, and an enormous step in the direction toward the decentralization of monetary power. This has enormously positive potential, and I am a big cheerleader for their success. But caveat emptor - thinking that we are magically creating new stores-of-value and thus a new safe haven is a profound mistake.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-15/spitznagel-why-cryptocurrencies-will-never-be-safe-havens

[Bigjon]

My major complaint is this involves mathematical secrecy, where the solution of the problem can be discovered at any point in time rendering their crypto's not crypto.

Witness James McCanney and his calculate primes book, that is shunned by all the official math community. Like how dare this upstart Physicist invade our math territory and claim he has a solution to one of the oldest problems of math.

There are so many bogus supposedly educated experts who don't know shit from shinola, that it makes me wonder how many math secrets are just ready for the right mind to unlock the door.

All these crypto's rely on the difficulty of calculating prime numbers. I believe the elliptical curve uses Primes, could be wrong and don't feel like digging through all the math to find it.

[Ares]

All these crypto's rely on the difficulty of calculating prime numbers. I believe the elliptical curve uses Primes, could be wrong and don't feel like digging through all the math to find it.

No different Cryptos use a different algorithms (hash functions). Some cryptos don't even use a Proof of Work concept and instead use Proof of Stake (Potcoin as an example.)

There was (well is, but hardly anyone mines it anymore) is Primecoin which solved prime numbers and I believe is the current record holder for the largest prime number ever found.

[crimethink]

Bitcoin is a tool, and tools can be gained control of from you. Use it, and use it wisely, and be ready to toss it in the trash can when it's compromised.

[Bigjon]

No different Cryptos use a different algorithms (hash functions). Some cryptos don't even use a Proof of Work concept and instead use Proof of Stake (Potcoin as an example.)

There was (well is, but hardly anyone mines it anymore) is Primecoin which solved prime numbers and I believe is the current record holder for the largest prime number ever found.

http://www.cs.nthu.edu.tw/~cchen/CS4351/jurisic.pdf


THE ELLIPTIC CURVE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ALGORITHM (ECDSA)

ECDSA is the elliptic curve analogue of the DSA.

That is, instead of working in a subgroupof order q in p∗ , we work in an elliptic curve group E(p).

The ECDSA is currently being standardized within the ANSI X9F1 and IEEE P1363 standards committees. Table 2 shows
the correspondence between some math notation used in DSA and ECDSA.

Using Tables 1 and 2,the analogies between the DSA and ECDSA should be more apparent.DSA notation ECDSA notationqgxynPdQ
Table 2: Correspondence between DSA and ECDSA notation.

The key generation, signature generation, and signature verification procedures for ECDSAare given next.

ECDSA key generation.


Each entity A does the following:

1. Select an elliptic curve E defined over .
The number of points in E( ) shouldbe divisible by a large prime n.

2. Select a point P ∈ E(p) of order n.

3. Select a statistically unique and unpredictable integer d in the interval [1, n - 1].

4. Compute Q = dP.5. A's public key is (E, P, n, Q); A's private key is d.

[Ares]

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to sign transactions.

For ECDSA the secp256k1 curve from http://www.secg.org/sec2-v2.pdf is used.

Public keys (in scripts) are given as 04 <x> <y> where x and y are 32 byte big-endian integers representing the coordinates of a point on the curve or in compressed form given as <sign> <x> where <sign> is 0x02 if y is even and 0x03 if y is odd.

Signatures use DER encoding to pack the r and s components into a single byte stream (this is also what OpenSSL produces by default).

Transaction Verification

Transactions are cryptographically signed records that reassign ownership of Bitcoins to new addresses. Transactions have inputs - records which reference the funds from other previous transactions - and outputs - records which determine the new owner of the transferred Bitcoins, and which will be referenced as inputs in future transactions as those funds are respent.

Each input must have a cryptographic digital signature that unlocks the funds from the prior transaction. Only the person possessing the appropriate private key is able to create a satisfactory signature; this in effect ensures that funds can only be spent by their owners.

Each output determines which Bitcoin address (or other criteria, see Script) is the recipient of the funds.

In a transaction, the sum of all inputs must be equal to or greater than the sum of all outputs. If the inputs exceed the outputs, the difference is considered a transaction fee, and is redeemable by whoever first includes the transaction into the block chain.

A special kind of transaction, called a coinbase transaction, has no inputs. It is created by miners, and there is one coinbase transaction per block. Because each block comes with a reward of newly created Bitcoins (e.g. 50 BTC for the first 210,000 blocks), the first transaction of a block is, with few exceptions, the transaction that grants those coins to their recipient (the miner). In addition to the newly created Bitcoins, the coinbase transaction is also used for assigning the recipient of any transaction fees that were paid within the other transactions being included in the same block. The coinbase transaction can assign the entire reward to a single Bitcoin address, or split it in portions among multiple addresses, just like any other transaction. Coinbase transactions always contain outputs totalling the sum of the block reward plus all transaction fees collected from the other transactions in the same block.

The coinbase transaction in block zero cannot be spent. This is due to a quirk of the reference client implementation that would open the potential for a block chain fork if some nodes accepted the spend and others did not[1].

Most Bitcoin outputs encumber the newly transferred coins with a single ECDSA private key. The actual record saved with inputs and outputs isn't necessarily a key, but a script. Bitcoin uses an interpreted scripting system to determine whether an output's criteria have been satisfied, with which more complex operations are possible, such as outputs that require two ECDSA signatures, or two-of-three-signature schemes. An output that references a single Bitcoin address is a typical output; an output actually contains this information in the form of a script that requires a single ECDSA signature (see OP_CHECKSIG). The output script specifies what must be provided to unlock the funds later, and when the time comes in the future to spend the transaction in another input, that input must provide all of the thing(s) that satisfy the requirements defined by the original output script.
Addresses

A bitcoin address is in fact the hash of a ECDSA public key, computed this way:

Version = 1 byte of 0 (zero); on the test network, this is 1 byte of 111
Key hash = Version concatenated with RIPEMD-160(SHA-256(public key))
Checksum = 1st 4 bytes of SHA-256(SHA-256(Key hash))
Bitcoin Address = Base58Encode(Key hash concatenated with Checksum)

The Base58 encoding used is home made, and has some differences. Especially, leading zeroes are kept as single zeroes when conversion happens.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Merkle_Trees

[Bigjon]

When you sign the transaction you use your private secret key.

Using McCanney's generator function we should be able to generate all of the primes in the size of the range of ECDSA keys. For someone like McCanney (not me) it would be trivial to find your secret key.

My point is the theory is an attacker has to use the whole number set, but if you know they use primes that set is reduced to a much smaller number.

OK, I know that good practice means you never use that key pair again. And I believe the key generator function also uses primes. so once you publish that public key you are exposed to being hacked and your private key discovered and then kiss your money goodby.

[Ares]

When you sign the transaction you use your private secret key.

Using McCanney's generator function we should be able to generate all of the primes in the size of the range of ECDSA keys. For someone like McCanney (not me) it would be trivial to find your secret key.

My point is the theory is an attacker has to use the whole number set, but if you know they use primes that set is reduced to a much smaller number.

OK, I know that good practice means you never use that key pair again. And I believe the key generator function also uses primes. so once you publish that public key you are exposed to being hacked and your private key discovered and then kiss your money goodby.

Reading into Jim and I'm not finding anything new. He seems to doing the same thing as Sieve of Erotosthenes regarding prime calculations that have been around for 2,600+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes

If he can crack it using Primes I'd love to see it. With a market capitalization close to 70 billion, that's a hell of an incentive.

[Bigjon]

Reading into Jim and I'm not finding anything new. He seems to doing the same thing as Sieve of Erotosthenes regarding prime calculations that have been around for 2,600+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes

If he can crack it using Primes I'd love to see it. With a market capitalization close to 70 billion, that's a hell of an incentive.

You read bullshit, you understand bullshit.

Buy the man's book and read it.

I think you will find the truth there not on jewpedia.

What good would it do for an honest man, that believes theft is a crime beneath his moral standards. There are still some people left who have morals.

[Ares]

You read bullshit, you understand bullshit.

Buy the man's book and read it.

I think you will find the truth there not on jewpedia.

I've read sections from a PDF online. Are the grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and misspelled words in the original work? If so it's an insult to the readers intelligence to try and explain a difficult concept yet sound like an idiot doing it.

Bullshit you say?

Look at the numbers on the left hand side when using the "magic number" 2. They are all numbers that are not multiples of 2. When the "magic number" is 6 (= 2 x 3), the numbers on the left hand side are not multiples of 2 or 3. Finally, when the "magic number" is 30 (= 2 x 3 x 5), the numbers on the left hand side are not muliples of 2, 3, or 5.

This is FOLLOWING MCCANNEY's "function".

It's a Sieve of Eratosthenes. :rolleyes:

He's definitely doing it a different way, but his generator function is essentially doing the same thing as Sieve of Erathosthenes (Same results is what I mean)

[Bigjon]

I've read sections from a PDF online. Are the grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and misspelled words in the original work? If so it's an insult to the readers intelligence to try and explain a difficult concept yet sound like an idiot doing it.

Bullshit you say?

Look at the numbers on the left hand side when using the "magic number" 2. They are all numbers that are not multiples of 2. When the "magic number" is 6 (= 2 x 3), the numbers on the left hand side are not multiples of 2 or 3. Finally, when the "magic number" is 30 (= 2 x 3 x 5), the numbers on the left hand side are not muliples of 2, 3, or 5.

This is FOLLOWING MCCANNEY's "function".

It's a Sieve of Eratosthenes. :rolleyes:

But McCanney figured out the pattern where the sieve fails to deliver.

At key points in the process the pattern changes and if you buy his book you will see it differently.

[Ares]

But McCanney figured out the pattern where the sieve fails to deliver.

At key points in the process the pattern changes and if you buy his book you will see it differently.

I added this section after I posted that response:

He's definitely doing it a different way, but his generator function is essentially doing the same thing as Sieve of Erathosthenes (Same results is what I mean).

[Bigjon]

I added this section after I posted that response:

He's definitely doing it a different way, but his generator function is essentially doing the same thing as Sieve of Erathosthenes (Same results is what I mean).

The sieve looses its way and McCanney's generator function puts back on the track and the pattern in which it changes is predictable. McCanney's Generator function does produce some false positives , but they fall out upon further calculations.

What do you suppose would happen if McCanney used his knowledge to steal bitcoin? I mean like how many nanoseconds would it take for the feds to be pounding on his door with a fully armed swat team.

[Ares]

The sieve looses its way and McCanney's generator function puts back on the track and the pattern in which it changes is predictable. McCanney's Generator function does produce some false positives , but they fall out upon further calculations.

What do you suppose would happen if McCanney used his knowledge to steal bitcoin? I mean like how many nanoseconds would it take for the feds to be pounding on his door with a fully armed swat team.

If he's smart enough to crack it with prime calculation, then he can transfer all the coins to a paper wallet. It can be done through Tor, or even I2P to mask the initial transfer to an address of his choosing.

It would have 1 or 2 consequences.

Crash the entire crypto currency market.

or

They fork the blockchain before the transaction (essentially what happened with Ethereums DOA hack) and secure signatures using a different method.

[Bigjon]

If he's smart enough to crack it with prime calculation, then he can transfer all the coins to a paper wallet. It can be done through Tor, or even I2P to mask the initial transfer to an address of his choosing.

It would have 1 or 2 consequences.

Crash the entire crypto currency market.

or

They fork it before the transaction (essentially what happened with Ethereums DOA hack) and secure signatures using a different method.

He used to live about thirty miles north of me, but from what he has said lately it sounds like he has moved, maybe to a tropical island, maybe he is already living large. As a young man he traveled to Mexico and South America and speaks their language.

If he knows the backdoor the perfect bitcoins to steal are the lost bitcoins. No one would be the wiser. Of course I don't know how they would be identified as the lost or just someone's stash.

All the coins are a matter of public record and are just sitting there in the blockchain, am I right?
So it's just a matter of knowing the private key to grab them, right?

[Ares]

He used to live about thirty miles north of me, but from what he has said lately it sounds like he has moved, maybe to a tropical island, maybe he is already living large. As a young man he traveled to Mexico and South America and speaks their language.

If he knows the backdoor the perfect bitcoins to steal are the lost bitcoins. No one would be the wiser. Of course I don't know how they would be identified as the lost or just someone's stash.

All the coins are a matter of public record and are just sitting there in the blockchain, am I right?
So it's just a matter of knowing the private key to grab them, right?

Correct. All public addresses are viewable in the Blockchain. You can even see a site that lists the most wealthy wallets

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

Or you can use another site called Wallet Explorer:

https://www.walletexplorer.com/

You'll see a lot of Exchanges on there, which is good to keep an eye on. Just to make sure the Exchange you're trading at is actually funded. I think thats how Cryptsy was "discovered" after they were hacked and their wallet was drained.

[Bigjon]

Here is the algo for key generation, as you can see ECDSA uses prime numbers to generate it's keys.

The key generation, signature generation, and signature verification procedures for ECDSAare given next.

ECDSA key generation.

Each entity A does the following:

1. Select an elliptic curve E defined over Z . The number of points in E( Z) should be divisible by a large prime n.

2. Select a point P ∈ E(p) of order n.

3. Select a statistically unique and unpredictable integer d in the interval [1, n - 1].

4. Compute Q = dP.

5. A's public key is (E, P, n, Q); A's private key is d.

[singular_me]

some interesting points by mike adams, who started the website below.

Bitcoin has devolved into a “pyramid scheme,” warns analyst who foresaw the dot com crash and more http://bitcoincrash.news/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmbndit7ek


wealth cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes hands, and ((they)) have been pretty to at make humans believe otherwise. Again, ((they)) bank on a Natural Law, INvert it to cash in... diabolical

bitcoincrash.news
Bitcoin just blasted through $4000 as new suckers have been convinced that a cryptocurrency backed by nothing is a magical …

[Ares]

some interesting points by mike adams, who started the website below.

Bitcoin has devolved into a “pyramid scheme,” warns analyst who foresaw the dot com crash and more http://bitcoincrash.news/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmbndit7ek

wealth cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely changes hands, and ((they)) have been pretty to make humans believe otherwise. Again, ((they)) bank on a Natural Law, INvert it to cash in... diabolical

Mike Adams is NOT a reliable source for crypto currency related discussions. His last videos were full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

[singular_me]

why should there exist a limited amount of bitcoins, care to explain? I heard that many times

I agree with him on the mania aspect... does not bode well, and I agree with this: Cryptocurrency value only exists relative to fiat value, both of which are made up http://bitcoincrash.news/2017-08-07-bitcoin-has-devolved-into-a-pyramid-scheme-warns-analyst-who-foresaw-the-dot-com-crash.html



Mike Adams is NOT a reliable source for crypto currency related discussions. His last videos were full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

[Bigjon]

My ideal of a monetary system is a local credit union only called something different to keep the gov from getting ideas that it has dibs on it.

Each depositor puts up a stash of gold/silver/platinum/palladium/xxx (valuable by consensus of members. Which entitles the depositor a line of credit denominated in a unit with a name that doesn't infringe upon the gov monopoly. Like "anyville hours". A local currency for local use.

The guys in the British Constitution Group started talking about this sort of bank, but quietly dropped it after Roger Hayes got locked up.
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/roger-hayes-arrested-tried-secret-court-imprisoned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZcTwsubzk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZcTwsubzk

[Ares]

why should there exist a limited amount of bitcoins, care to explain? I heard that many times

Because any currency that is not limited in supply will be abused and created without abandon as has been shown countless times throughout history no matter who the nation is. The Bitcoin protocol is hard coded to never produce more than 21 million coins.


I agree with him on the mania aspect... does not bode well, and I agree with this: Cryptocurrency value only exists relative to fiat value, both of which are made up http://bitcoincrash.news/2017-08-07-bitcoin-has-devolved-into-a-pyramid-scheme-warns-analyst-who-foresaw-the-dot-com-crash.html

With that mindset, why even have a store? https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ The prices are completely made up and based on a made up value of Federal Reserve notes.

The free market determines price, at least with a currency that isn't currently regulated.

[singular_me]

the article at the link is not written by adams


Because any currency that is not limited in supply will be abused and created without abandon as has been shown countless times throughout history no matter who the nation is. The Bitcoin protocol is hard coded to never produce more than 21 million coins.

there are two ways of inflating... multiply the supply or raising the price... more more supply means higher prices

as much as 0.01oz of gold could be 100,000 dollars worth.

Not really convincing, sorry. 21 millions coins based on what market values, and I am not referring to fiat currencies here, what has determined 21 million coins. why not 25 or 50 million of them?

More over, I think buying bitcoin - or even PMs - with fiat money make it subjected to manipulation

[Ares]

the article at the link is not written by adams



there are two ways of inflating... multiply the supply or raising the price... more more supply means higher prices

as much as 0.01oz of gold could be 100,000 dollars worth.

Not really convincing, sorry. 21 millions coins based on what market values, and I am not referring to fiat currencies here, what has determined 21 million coins. why not 25 or 50 million of them?

More over, I think buying bitcoin - or even PMs - with fiat money make it subjected to manipulation

The protocol itself is hard coded at 21 million. If the core development group wanted to inflate they would have to get the miners to agree to it. Core can develop and make changes all day long, but if miners and pools do not install it or mine against it, it does not get implemented.

I'm order for anything to be done within the bitcoin ecosystem, core and miners have to agree.

Good luck, it took them 2 years to resolve a structural problem.

[crimethink]

Mike Adams is NOT a reliable source.

You could have ended your sentence there.

[crimethink]

why should there exist a limited amount of bitcoins, care to explain? I heard that many times

An infinite currency means your pieces of the whole get smaller and smaller relative to the whole as the whole gets larger.

Finite guarantees your value doesn't go to zero.

[singular_me]

I understand that, but you dont explain WHY the limited amount of 21 million of coins


An infinite currency means your pieces of the whole get smaller and smaller relative to the whole as the whole gets larger.

Finite guarantees your value doesn't go to zero.

[singular_me]

you have your beef with adams because he sells vitamins, which is really kind of irrational. Just like people mocking my stance about a money free system because we still live in a money driven world.

Mike adams may push his vitamins a little too much but his materials on economics/politics are right on. The sources on naturalnews.com are 85-90% reliable and often well researched



You could have ended your sentence there.

[singular_me]

ok but this doesnt answer the question related to the amount of 21, will have to research that my self. Because in some way it is coercive economics. Just like the Gissell theory penalizing dormant money with negative interest rates. Coercion never works out.

bitcoin started at $200 and is now blasting through $4000 and Macfee predicting $500K

well, that doesnt bode well, IMHO. This time is different...we shall see. AI's banksters is lurking and will find the loopholes.


The protocol itself is hard coded at 21 million. If the core development group wanted to inflate they would have to get the miners to agree to it. Core can develop and make changes all day long, but if miners and pools do not install it or mine against it, it does not get implemented.

I'm order for anything to be done within the bitcoin ecosystem, core and miners have to agree.

Good luck, it took them 2 years to resolve a structural problem.

the owner of dollarvigilante.com who used to be a bitcoin bull, now going through inner questioning after the bitcoin crash that took place 1 month ago (he lost a lot of money) and experiencing ayahuasca and iboga... finding out that materialism, the golden calf/bull, is an illusion.

What's The Point? Jeff Considers Giving Everything Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-cEgbcfU-4

[Neuro]

I understand that, but you dont explain WHY the limited amount of 21 million of coins

That's how it was created from the beginning by "Nakamoto Satoshi". He most likely wanted a currency that couldn't inflate to infinity like all fiat currencies. Then you have to pick a number. He probably envisioned that one day they may even be worth a dollar each, and he figured that having mined the first million coins would net him upwards of a million bucks, which is a nice retirement fund... :) Now they are worth $4 Billions +, not bad...

[Neuro]

ok but this doesnt answer the question related to the amount of 21, will have to research that my self. Because in some way it is coercive economics. Just like the Gissell theory penalizing dormant money with negative interest rates. Coercion never works out.

bitcoin started at $200 and is now blasting through $4000 and Macfee predicting $500K

well, that doesnt bode well, IMHO. This time is different...we shall see. AI's banksters is lurking and will find the loopholes.



the owner of dollarvigilante.com who used to be a bitcoin bull, now going through inner questioning after the bitcoin crash that took place 1 month ago (he lost a lot of money) and experiencing ayahuasca and iboga... finding out that materialism, the golden calf/bull, is an illusion.

What's The Point? Jeff Considers Giving Everything Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-cEgbcfU-4

Would you been happier with a limited amount of 100 million coins? Either it is a limited amount or the sky is the limit. If you limit the amount by necessity you have to put a limit on it, what that number is doesn't matter one bit. A hundred million bitcoins worth $800 is equal to 20 million worth $4,000 is equal to 80 billion worth $1. But you can buy bitcoin anyway they are divisible down to Satoshi's which is 1/100,000,000 of one bitcoins, so a Satoshi or two would still be within your reach. ;D

Sometimes you are just incredibly stupid...

[singular_me]

you do not answer the question either... what defines the limited amount of 21 ??

Either it is a limited amount or the sky is the limit = both different but coercive tactics and have loopholes embedded therefore, the mind will always work around that. prohibition does not work. However, the sky is the limit seems to match the $500K macfee prediction.

Listen to jeff brewick a little bit more because he knows a lot more about bitcoin than you, thats is for sure



Would you been happier with a limited amount of 100 million coins? Either it is a limited amount or the sky is the limit. If you limit the amount by necessity you have to put a limit on it, what that number is doesn't matter one bit. A hundred million bitcoins worth $800 is equal to 20 million worth $4,000 is equal to 80 billion worth $1. But you can buy bitcoin anyway they are divisible down to Satoshi's which is 1/100,000,000 of one bitcoins, so a Satoshi or two would still be within your reach. ;D

Sometimes you are just incredibly stupid...

[Neuro]

you do not answer the question either... what defines the limited amount of 21 ??

Either it is a limited amount or the sky is the limit = both different but coercive tactics and have loopholes embedded therefore, the mind will always work around that. prohibition does not work. However, the sky is the limit seems to match the $500K macfee prediction.

Listen to jeff brewick a little bit more because he knows a lot more about bitcoin than you, thats is for sure

You have to direct the question to "Satoshi", as he is the only one who can answer the question as to why he created a code that limited the number of bitcoins to 21 million. Good luck!

On the bright side though the bitcoin code is limited to an astounding 2.1 Quadrillion Satoshi's, so if you are dismayed by the relatively few bitcoins that can exist, you can comfort yourself with the genormous amount of Satoshi's, regardless if you get an answer as to why Satoshi decided to make only 21 million...

As to your ability to judge anyone's capacity for evaluating knowledge of bitcoin, it is apparent to anyone who knows anything about it, that you have none.