wachtwoord

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).

But Ripple labs are a bunch of scammers with no product. Goes to show that just the quantitative data rarely tells the entire story.

Cheaper is obviously better but Bitcoin has been underpriced for its entire existance while its exact value is impossible to tell with any sort of precision. Definitely not an investment for everyone. As with any investment I'd advise against trying to time it in the general case.

Well yes. That 54% "devaluation" the western media reports about is just the "official" exchange rate. The real exchange rate (black market, non-official, free market) is lower still and wasn't (and cant) be overnight devalued like that by a government. The real situation is much more complicated btw with many different official exchange rates between Peso and USD for different purposes (implicit subsidization). All of that the new presidents is going to have to clean up. I wish him all the luck in the world but assign him a negligible chance of success.

It seems to me he certainly has double digit influence on what the world will turn into over the next few years, and likely even double digits. Try to read up on the AI developments especially if you have sufficient scientific background. This is the biggest thing that ever happened in human development. On par with from going from single cell to multicellular life, I'm not joking. It's crazy and the trajectory seems unavoidable at least to a degree where humans wont be dominant for long. Even within the next decade seems to have a double-digit chance of that.

The actual fuck I never knew Altman was behind the Worldcoin scam ..... That's really bad as his work at OpenAI is likely to be extremely impactful. If his morals are really that shady that's unfortunate for nearly everyone ....

I disagree. If it's impossible to capture tge value now or in the future the only correct conclusion is that there was never any value to begin with. Wrt Whatsapp, if no-one, neither customers nor advertises nor governments are willing to pay for the service in the long term and it also does not provide utility to the company owning it itself, the service has no value as it has no utility. I think Whatsapp has utility but it's marginal as it's extremely easy to compete with. Open source Signal is superior. Buying it for 20B was madness imo. I think FB itself thought and perhaps thinks the transaction was beneficial because of increased users of its core products. I really doubt that's true. Besides that they took out a competitor of their messenger product. Similar to their insane buyout of Instagram (a very simple image sharing site which happens to have many users with larger perceived hurdles to switch to a similar service. Buying users and taking out competitors).

Higher value yes, higher price no, not directly at least. If it wouldn't give any value it wouldn't be utility. Utility is worth something (of value) by very definition. Considering your guesses for current value it's obvious you just get glued to whatever the market price seems to be at a time. When the price was in the tens you thought it was around that, same with the hundreds the thousands and now the tens of thousands. When it's in the hundred thousands you'll think that's the right range. This is exactly the psychology which explains why price gets stuck in ranges until is violently moves to a new range: price stickiness in the individual translates to price stickiness in the market.