wachtwoord

It's arrogance if one significantly overestimated one's one ability or abilities. My abilities were not even up for discussion. I was mainly pointing out he was being far far too soft on himself and that by doing so he would never fix that particular shortcoming. It was meant to be nice but ignore the advice if you want to. Won't change my life I'll go back to mostly reading. I consider this topic a very interesting data point (well above average investors, among the more successful in society, higher educated in general, dealing with something that if succesful upsets the status quo and is rejected by the status quo for that reason).

All extremely extremely capped. Completely and utterly incomparable.

If one assumed in 2012 that failure was by far the most likely outcome (even >99% sure) it was STILL the wrong investment choice to walk away given the enormous potential gain. Only if failure was a nigh certainty walking away would have been the right choice. Of course that didn't mean throwing your net worth into it at the time ... I'd advise stronger self-reflection and to be honest with yourself rather than continue to seek excuses. It's the only way to self-improvement.

Would have worked fine. Yeah if you're going to give third parties uncollatoralized free loans on you don't you think it's you being the idiot? Hard to find? It's been the since 2012! And there hasn't been that much noise for the longest time (also I shared it here more than once: simplicity is key). It's just that most "educated" people didn't want to even look into this at all for forever since the arguments from those in their social class were negative. It's the same idiots that blindly took unneeded covid shots, believe thing like that Russia is the party to blame in the current war, man made climate change is proven, there's more than 2 human genders, BLM isnt racist etc etc. If you're going to believe people based on their social standing rather than the strength of their arguments and the accuracy of their words, you are going to have a bad time ... This societal problem is far from over. It's getting worse and worse (eg academia has nearly totally gone to shit now).

Not really. This very straightforward post from 2012 summarizes all you really need to know in easy to follow language: https://medium.com/lux-initiative/bitcoin-the-libertarian-introduction-c616edd8496c Do you consider reading that studying? Come on, there really isn't any excuse. Buffet has been really disappointing in his old age. Not because of his opinion in itself, but for stating his opinion publically on something he clearly doesn't understand (if he did understand it's bad too as then he'd have publically and purposefully lied to vulnerable people).

1. Bankman-Fried isnt on the other side. He was a scammer peddling scamcoins, NOT Bitcoin. 2. If you base your point of view in life on who says something rather than what they say you fully deserve any and all consequences/outcomes.

And this gets shared on one of the best public investment forums. Shows how early it really is (maybe not measured in time, but measured in saturation of understanding it's really low).

He doesnt mean religion of course. He's just pointing out that him running a node ike this doesnt provide him objective value > cost and effort to do so. He means his motivation is largely moral in nature (contributing to something he subjectively values as good, hence his use of "religion").

That's been true for many years though

So why own Ethereum? (Not trying to put you on the spot. You seem to understand matters but still choose to own it. Your reasoning could be interesting).

I shared this here early 2018 and the approach is still true today imo: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor's+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks for actually reading I guess I should have guessed it from the "Canadian equities" item. Seemed too fast too as you said in your earlier comment.

Love it's in the portfolio they label conservative. It's branded as inherently risky in most people's heads way too much. But that risk (volatility based) is just one of the aspects of risk, while for some other aspects it's just about the least risky thing in the world. Diversifying across "risk classes" is yet another form of diversification (downwards protection) so the allocation seems very reasonable to this type of portfolio even to those agnostic on Bitcoin.

Appearently US bankrupcy law (?!). Everything is valued in US Dollars at the petition date and that is what debtors get to claim and not a penny more. Celcius is the same. They may pay out in part in Bitcoin and Ethereum (and equity in some crazy "mining corp" that also retains a bunch of equity in Ethereum to "stake", utter nonsense as debtors are forced into an investment ran by incompentents) but everything is valued by the the Dollorized value at petition rate. That's why the recovery rates look so good (the only ones winning are the law firms that got to handle the bankrupcy, but I reckon that's nearly always the case). PS: the Celcius CEO is also such an obvious scammer you can smell from a mile away.

Lol, be sure to read the fine print of what in full means: it's just in full for the dollarized claim value at petition date. Not that hard when the underlying remaining assets go up like crazy (priced in dollars) after that date. Outside the world of lawyers everyone involved outside of the bankruptcy lawyers got majorly shafted. (But then again: who in their right mind would use such a scummy exchange?)

No not in writing it no. In designing one you are applying software engineering concepts (indeed concepts which exist before defined and named by humans) when done well. THAT is where the difference lies.

I hear programming and entrepreneurial experience and skills but not software engineering. That requires a different more conceptual approach. It explains why you think exploring the branches of the tree is (always) the solution. The tree you are going to have to explore might not even exist yet. That's where true (scientific) innovation lives.

Have you actually read the (or some of the) other works and writings of Szabo? Did you see the fields (computer science, economics, psychology and sociology) and specific topics within them that were needed to be combined not to just solve the Byzantine Generals problem but also operationalize an implementation of it that actually works in practice because the incentives of many actors are aligned? So many variables that needed to be aligned just right. And Szabo's works exactly align with that while Finney's doesnt for much/most of it. Are you sure you are a software engineer and not a programmer? Cause that is an extremely shortsided way of seeing reality that only applies to implementational problems (so it would match the less conceptual lense). Conceptual, logical problems often require a completely different way of looking at things, or combining existing solutions in such a (as of yet) different way that it can take very long to solve them and believing it will just take x hours/days/years of dedicated work is definitely not how this works. I've seen many programmers make this mistake wrt Bitcoin btw (while believing to be an expert on the matter because of their background, a dangerous combination). Your Einstein example is actually great. Both in his breakthroughs (special and general relativity, concepts very good scientists has grappled with since civilization began) and his "failure" (unification of quantum mechanics with special and general relativity) that he spend the rest of his life on. You can't plan such things or provide time restraints on them even in orders of magnitude. The Byzantine Generals problem was one of them and many more exist today.

I guess neither do you. Even after reading my post you stick to "It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin."? It's not me that is suffering from "arrogance overload" here. What's next: all of Galileo's discoveries are child's play?

This post conclusively shows you have no clue. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was a fundamental breakthrough he made and the solution is very creative. On top of that he managed to implement and operationaluze it sufficiently in a system that incentivises the right actions by the rights actors. In fact, even saying it's obvious after the fact seems wrong. I mean it's obvious to me and many others, but at the same time many more think proof of stake is a good idea, many more think the energy is wasted, many more think fast/cheap transactions are part of the core value proposition, many more think functionality outside of it being a secure, censor-proof, decentralized settlement network warrants risking those things. Many more seem to have no clue or sense whatsoever.

Couldnt you see yourself do it? If you do it, you do it right. And with NONE of the first year mining proceeds and simply buying 1 or even2 years after that you can still be very wealthy without the fame. Read up on Szabo. I like Finney (nice guy, good morals, willing to put in work, reasonably intelligent) but Szabo is in a league of his own imo.

Most likely it's Nick Szabo who isnt dead but very smart, wise and composed.

Please don't say things I "am saying" that I'm clearly not saying. I previously explained that the transaction layer of Bitcoin was kept simple on purpose as its main purpose is store of wealth not means of transaction. Of course you need to be able to assign that stored value to another entity but for everyday transactions much more insecure systems will be optimal as the extreme security Bitcoin provides is overkill (and therefore too expensive, cause in any free market system those two terms are equivalent). The point I WAS trying to make is way more generic. On this topic you are wrong once again with your belief that grass root movements are anything but a fringe factor for governmental change at best, and completely planned and controlled at best. The primary method to changing governments, rather than overthrowing them, is through mostly economical incentives. So that in your eyes most normal people don't recognize the occurring oppression through the financial system (at least not accurately, they are clearly mobilized to dislike "the rich") shouldn't really matter for that. It's about emergent organizations of macro behaviour anyway.

Governments ALWAYS need to be forced to reduce their power and never do it uncoerced. That doesn't preclude governments ever reducing their power. The hands of those in power simply need to be forced in some way.

Yeah it's ridiculous Coinbase is the custodian for all (?) ETFs. It's like it's bring setup to fail with a single point of failure (centralization).