tysker said:

---

Algorithmic Epiphany said:

---

About the same (difficulty adjustments)

---

I disagree. But if there is no significant difference relative to the underlying energy usage, then it cant be a positive (pro-BTC) or negative (anti-BTC) factor toward BTC. It's not going to be reflected in the Price.

So the same question remains: what's the value proposition?

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

We live in a world today where I read some of these Bitcoin influencers on YouTube are making 20-25K a month income just from pushing crypto on their YouTube channel. I read that book 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis regarding FTX and SBF's rise and fall and it is hard to not come away with anything but an impression that the crypto stuff is not much more than a huge gambling casino fueled by a new banking universe that is pure wild west. Lewis comments in his book that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' if a person is likely baffled by what his idea actually turned into.

A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.

---

tysker said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

tysker said:

---

Algorithmic Epiphany said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.

Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.

---

No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.

Like Visa.

Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.

A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.

---

The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.

---

So as energy and hardware costs trend toward zero what happens to the so called'market value?'

---

Market value is determined by supply and demand, same as any other commodity.

If cost to do business for a mining company goes down while demand stays the same, it just got more profitable to do business.

If those higher profits attract more miners, everyone gets a smaller pc of the same pot (predetermined in size), thus driving down the value of mining.

There is no problem with this scenario, if you believe there is, then you are misunderstanding the fundamentals...

---

Price is determined by supply and demand. BTC supply is controlled (ie manipulated) by the code.

AE's ananlysis suggests that there is a correlation between energy prices and BTC.

---

Algorithmic Epiphany said:

---

tysker said:

---

Algorithmic Epiphany said:

---

About the same (difficulty adjustments)

---

I disagree. But if there is no significant difference relative to the underlying energy usage, then it cant be a positive (pro-BTC) or negative (anti-BTC) factor toward BTC. It's not going to be reflected in the Price.

So the same question remains: what's the value proposition?

---

To reiterate, you believe that the difficulty adjustment every two weeks can be broken if we had infinite energy AND therefore it alters the value proposition?

Please correct my misunderstanding because what I think you're claiming sounds nonsensical.

---

Quote:

---

The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It's digital land. Just like you compared the Wild West. When people starting moving west land was for pennies but it was extremely risky and dangerous. As people moved further and further west things became less risky and more established but the price for land began to rise. Until you get to California and the coast. You run out of land and the remaining pieces become parabolic in value. It is the same with bitcoin and yes for some years it's been the Wild West. But those who have participated have paved the way for others.

---

Quote:

---

7. Jurassic Park
Speaking of Jurassic Park, it is the seventh best-selling VHS, it was released in 1994 with a total of 21 million copies sold, generating a revenue of $315 million.

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

tysker said:

---

Not Coach Jimbo said:

---

tysker said:

---

Algorithmic Epiphany said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.

Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.

---

No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.

Like Visa.

Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.

A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.

---

The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.

---

So as energy and hardware costs trend toward zero what happens to the so called'market value?'

---

Market value is determined by supply and demand, same as any other commodity.

If cost to do business for a mining company goes down while demand stays the same, it just got more profitable to do business.

If those higher profits attract more miners, everyone gets a smaller pc of the same pot (predetermined in size), thus driving down the value of mining.

There is no problem with this scenario, if you believe there is, then you are misunderstanding the fundamentals...

---

Price is determined by supply and demand. BTC supply is controlled (ie manipulated) by the code.

AE's ananlysis suggests that there is a correlation between energy prices and BTC.

---

Controlled yes. manipulated, no.

It's a known amount.

You seem awfully concerned about mining, mining collusion, etc..

Have you mined before? I have... years ago and granted it was before the rise of hash miners and huge mining companies... maybe that's why I'm not as concerned on this as you are, but it seems like a mountain out of an anthill based on my personal experience

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Bitcoin has an actual value of $0. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that at your own peril.

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

We live in a world today where I read some of these Bitcoin influencers on YouTube are making 20-25K a month income just from pushing crypto on their YouTube channel. I read that book 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis regarding FTX and SBF's rise and fall and it is hard to not come away with anything but an impression that the crypto stuff is not much more than a huge gambling casino fueled by a new banking universe that is pure wild west. Lewis comments in his book that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' if a person is likely baffled by what his idea actually turned into.

A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You're typically a pretty intelligent person IMO. However in this thread you keep coming up with absolutely dumb and irrelevant arguments to try and defend your position. It seems like you're coping with the fact you made a bad evaluation on bitcoin years ago. And you're having to double down to justify your poor choice instead of admitting to yourself you were wrong.

Pride man. It's a killer.

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

70% of btc wallets haven't moved their btc in over a year. So majority of btc and majority of btc holders aren't engaged in wash trading and are just holding.

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Peter would be a billion multiple times over if he got over his ego lol

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Peter has been telling people not to buy bitcoin for a decade. He was wrong. He has scammed 1,000s of people who are now getting priced out.

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Wouldn't Forever stamps be a better investment?

At least they're worth something.

---

bmks270 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

We live in a world today where I read some of these Bitcoin influencers on YouTube are making 20-25K a month income just from pushing crypto on their YouTube channel. I read that book 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis regarding FTX and SBF's rise and fall and it is hard to not come away with anything but an impression that the crypto stuff is not much more than a huge gambling casino fueled by a new banking universe that is pure wild west. Lewis comments in his book that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' if a person is likely baffled by what his idea actually turned into.

A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.

---

A lot of people see Bitcoin as some kind of get rich quick method. They're buying because they think it'll 10x and it's their only hope. They're buying it as a lotto ticket.

FIAT being debased is an after the fact rationalization for a lot of them.

Everyone including Blackrock, YouTubers, and the exchanges are making money off of the speculative traders.

Crypto as a sector is just a lot of Ponzi like schemes to flip coins and make a quick buck.

But remember, The Bitcoin is different.

---

tysker said:

---

I don't think QTR would say he's pro-BTC any more than Aggies would be considered pro-Sooner during the RRR (is that the right analogy?). I think he falls into the 'not-anti-BTC' bucket. He's more positive on BTC but is still a gold-first kind of guy. IMO, he's a trader at heart, and traders are generally agnostic to the assets they are trading. If you get emotional, you lose money.

As for the debate, it's been a while since I listened, but I recall thinking both guys were talking their book. Peter doesn't grasp certain aspects of BTC or just handwaves them away, and Larry makes the same tired remarks about adoption and use cases for which there is little to no evidence.

---

Quote:

---

QTR's Fringe Finance

Why I Bitcoin
Am I 13 years late or 13 years early on bitcoin? Deadass wrong or totally right? Who knows. It's a risk, but one I now understand better and can't ignore anymore.

QUOTH THE RAVEN
FEB 4, 2024
Readers of my blog know that I started dabbling in buying Bitcoin in late 2022.

In fact, it was the best performing asset out of any of the names I wrote that I was watching for 2023. Similarly, and not to give away the suspense, I added Bitcoin exposure once again to my list of 24 stocks I'm watching for 2024.

So, it may not have been that much of a surprise when my subscribers saw me on X yesterday proclaim that my days of disparaging Bitcoin were over. However, given that I have about 210,000 more Twitter followers than I do Substack subscribers, it is safe to say there were still plenty of people who were caught off guard by my mea culpa, and, somewhat alarmingly, even more people who were voraciously willing to immediately sing my praises and welcome me to the community.

As far as the welcome goes, all I can say is, I genuinely appreciate it. I'd be lying if I said that a large group of people proclaiming me to be making an intelligent decision didn't make me somewhat nervous. However, as I said in my post on X yesterday, I know I am also surrounded by people who are much smarter than I am.

As I also said in my post yesterday, I have been watching people that I know are much smarter than I am, specifically those in the sound money community, sing the praises of having exposure to bitcoin for years now. For me, that was the hardest thing to ignore. I felt like if I was looking to people like Lawrence Lepard, Luke Gromen and Lyn Alden for their incredible insights on the broken monetary system, why couldn't I at least try to take them semi-seriously when it came to their take on Bitcoin? I knew deep down there was work they had done and an understanding they had achieved with Bitcoin that I wasn't close to, despite understanding some of the basics.

I started to get a taste of this understanding while listening to my friend Lawrence Lepard describe Bitcoin as an invention all its own on this December 2022 podcast comparing it as a parallel to the Internet, instead of just another Internet software application. This video is queued up to the first moment I changed my thinking about Bitcoin - Larry's explanation starts at 36:00:


He referred to it in this interview as "the invention of digital scarcity". Honestly, I had no idea what that meant, and the idea of "digital scarcity" didn't seem too novel to me. I just shrugged and thought, "If Bitcoin can do it, other cryptocurrencies can do the same." I asked myself, "How can something be scarce when it doesn't exist tangibly and definitely didn't exist 15 years ago?"

Of course, like a key uses multiple teeth in concert to open a physical lock, Bitcoin only started to make sense to me once I understood it in the context of how the network works - all of the teeth of the key (the ideology, the network, the cryptographic invention) line up together, helping unlock its understanding. First, I had to understand how the cryptography of Bitcoin worked and why it is essentially unhackable and about as secure as something can be for the time being. I did that by watching this video:


Next, I had to understand the system of checks and balances that the network creates to ensure the integrity of itself. Sure, I understood the idea of a decentralized ledger that everybody could check that was relatively simple. What I didn't really understand was how having a majority of the nodes on the network, running the same code, essentially kept Bitcoin sacrosanct for as long as people decided they wanted it to be. I had heard about forks in the network, but now I understood them. They are points in time where people thought they knew best and should rewrite Bitcoin code. The majority of nodes rejected those ideas, in doing so protected the sanctity of the original Bitcoin code.

Once I understood the cryptography and the security of the network, it then became self-evident that the larger the network gets and the more adoption it gets, the more secure and indestructible it becomes. The idea of people "banning it" or, as my one friend put it, "Satoshi just coming back to change the supply of coins whenever he wants" simply doesn't hold much water once you understand how it works. If the people want the Bitcoin network, and they have power and an Internet connection, they're going to get it. The network is like a slippery fish someone tries to hold onto the harder you hold it and the more you try to control it, the quicker it slips from your grasp. If Canada bans it, it will drift to Mexico. If Mexico bans it, nodes will drift to Mauritius. If Mauritius bans it, nodes will drift to Russia. There's always going to be somewhere on the globe at least for the short to mid-term right now that is going to embrace Bitcoin.

For me, it was only once I understood how the cryptography worked and how the network functioned together, in tandem, that I started to assign the all-important intrinsic value to Bitcoin. I was, and in some degree still am, in the camp that sees gold as having intrinsic value that Bitcoin does not, because of its commodity bid and far superior and longer record as a store of value. This is why, despite coming around to the idea of Bitcoin, my gold position is still larger than my Bitcoin position.

But Bitcoin advocates make compelling arguments when they point out that Bitcoin is easier to transport and easier to verify than gold. I always found myself stuck when somebody would ask me how I would take $1 billion worth of gold over the border. You just can't. With Bitcoin, you just can. Even as exchanges are subjected to more AML and KYC regulation, the Bitcoin itself still remains an offramp from having your wealth centralized. The idea, coupled with the transmissibility and the ability to verify it anywhere in the world at any time with just an internet connection and power really do make it truly unlike anything that has ever existed before.

Continued: https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/why-i-bitcoin

---

LMCane said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Bitcoin has an actual value of $0. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that at your own peril.

---

what's the value of a dollar bill?

---

bmks270 said:

---

This debate just dropped.

Bitcoin going to $0 or $1,000,000

---