wachtwoord

Without any quantum safe protocol the current situation is as follows: Addresses are only vulnerable to Shor's algorithm if the public key is known. So this only concerns the extremely old P2PK addresses and addresses that have been spent from (that's why you should never reuse addresses). Grover's algorithm for hashes only gives a theoretical sqrt(N) speedup which doesn't make an attack on unexposed public key addresses feasible. Of course you do need to expose your public key when you ever spend. So if quantum computers get so fast they can determine the private key to a public key exposed bitcoin address faster than the block interval time you wont be able to spend safely anymore (as an attacker can quickly make a transaction for your coins with a higher fee that the miners will include in the block instead of yours). So by the time quantum computers are able to break ECDSA Bitcoin will immediately migrate to a quantum safe form of encryption to pre-empt that situation from happening (and everyone will have to migrate to new addresses).

Lol. It's more likely to go down 280x

Just to expand on this (I'm sure you know this but for others reading along): Plus IF vulnerabilities in any of the cryptographic functions used are found: 1. Bitcoin would actually be fine until they hard fork to another one that doesn't have such a vulnerability because it uses several different ones layered on top of each other 2. The same can most likely not be said about the economy at large, these functions are used ubiquitously (depending on which one we are talking about) for security by basically everyone. Same is true for quantum computing breakthroughs btw. Just dont store any BTC on old style P2PK outputs (non-standard since very early on) or addresses with any outgoing transactions as both leak the public key of an address (an address is the hash of a private key) making an attack much easier (but currently still impossible).

The reason it's been, and stil is, a growth investment is because of its amazing properties as a store of value and the fact that the market/society at large hasn't (fully) absorbed this reality yet. The more it does, the less growth's left.

Ok final time: it's not suitable/good as a currency, it's a store of wealth. Terrible stores of wealth are for payments (USD, EUR etc). But at this point I do tap out. I respect your right to stay delulu.

You sir are totally delulu. If I were you I would re-analyze the amount of boot licking you are doing you seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Your questions: The moment they dropped the gold backing it no longer bought what it promised (the value of that gold backing). Why should it be defined in gold? 1that was the promise they made and defaulted on (or no one would have ever wanted to use it) 2. What else of value is there? A dollar has no value beyond what's enforced with the threat of violence.

They defaulted every time they changed the ratio of convertability to gold as well as the last time when the convertability was scrapped altogether. Since then they cant really default anymore but the promise also became valueless (it promises to give you an amount of something that's inherently valueless as it can be produced without limit or effort by the party making the promise). The only reason it's still in active use is the threat of violence.

And when you spend you trade a larger amount for fiat in larger less frequent transactions after which you spend the fiat for everyday expenses. Bitcoin isnt made for those type of frequent transactions. I know lightning was made to "fix" that but there isnt really much of a point. Fiat exists to fill this need. Dont store your wealth in it though other than for short term liquidity.

Strong disagree. You'll use one for keeping long term and one for short term liquidity. This is also why Bitcoin's current high price instability isnt the drawback people make it out to be.

For exchange one tends to use the lowest quality money though: the worst store of value. The best store of value you spend last. Gresham's law: bad money drives out good

You mean store of value, not money

If you still think Bitcoin's currency that means you haven't even clicked the link. Why spend so much effort writing crap? Are you just trolling? Lol

One more time, just for you: https://medium.com/lux-initiative/bitcoin-the-libertarian-introduction-c616edd8496c Good summary.

I think that perfectly illustrates your lack of understanding. As long as you dont understand Bitcoin is better gold (I shared the old Erik Voorhees article here many years back and many times since) then indeed stay away from it as you dont understand it at all.

It's a useless discussion. Every investment based on a free cash flow analysis is speculative too (you speculate those free cash flows materialize). Investments based on undervalued relative to tangible book or even cash and cash equivalents? You are still speculating those assets will get liquidated for more than you paid within a reasonable amount of time and without too much leaking. People tend to use the term speculate to mean making assumptions about the future. By definition everyone speculates. Graham used another definition in his famous book everyone here has read (I hope). By that definition it IS investing as long as you believe what you buy IS worth more than you are paying for it (margin of safety and all). Using that definition buying Bitcoin is investing if you buy it because you reasonably assume it's undervalued. If you are just buying because you think someone else will buy it from you for more you are speculating though. Most "crypto" investors are speculators (and as such tend to sell when prices drop). But the same is true for the stock market (admittedly likely to a lesser degree).

Science is never unwelcome to any scientist. Only to the woke elites that cosplay as scientists and/or science-proponents. Disallowing the rigorous research of something, anything, is inherently oppressive. It just results in contrarions to be extremely suspicious of what is attempted to be hidden. Just research it in broad daylight and show there's nothing there!

But that is inherently unfair and extremely exploitable, as modern politics CLEARLY demonstrates. Voting power SHOULD be weighed by tax contribution otherwise politicians will just use the many to hold the few true societal contributors hostage and share the spoils (5% for the plebs and 95% for the politicians and their robber buddies). Who pays should decide. Any other system is no different than paying the mafia protection money: theft by extortion. Next to being immoral, it also stunts societal growth. Far less will spend their energy and time on this planet creating true betterment for society in such an environment.

Wow SD, couldn't agree stronger with this. Absolutely the best asset to hold passively. Could you make a but on top with trading? Sure, some people can, as eg you yourself have demonstrated but imo that's a negative return if you would properly correct for risk taken. Yes the main risk materializes infrequently but when it does the losses are so enormous it doesn't compensate for the hundreds of quarters you picked up from in front of the steamroller before. Everyone needs to have btc sure. But buy and hold only.

Smal correction: Value betting is betting with a range ahead of your opponents perceived calling range. Not irrational at all.

Yeah this. Tariffs are circumstancially good, when an actor needs to protect itself from external exploitation. They play no role in a full trust, zero exploitation environment but that's not what we are in of course. Of course Trump is behaving like an elephant in a porcelain shop (likely on purpose to speed matters up in exchange for risk and disruption) and the imposed tariffs are both too high, determined using a odd formula, misrepresented and introduced in a non-diplomatic fashion (likely all for the same reason: to start of negotiations in Trump's aggressive, low trust style). And yes the above is written that indeed prefers Trump in the oval office rather than any of the alternative options.

What "foreign tax on US assets" are you referring to? By whom?

Who's that?

Dave gets it.

Of course there's a security trade off ffs. It's lightning, it's for low value transactions that don't need the security of yransactions worth many millions. It really looks like you didnt do any research or understand anything about this topic. All your claims are either fundamentally flawed or are missing the forest for the trees.

Proof of stake leads to centralization and kills any security. Come on this was tried back in 2013 with Peercoin (and copy cats after) there's no reason to be making this mistake in 2025!