james22

So now you're convinced of bitcoin's adoption? Because the internet is an example of the adoption of something other than a going concern (your previous objection)?

Is there anything that would convince you of bitcoin's adoption? The SBR announcing they have bought additional bitcoin or the Loomis bill passing? Another major country or Mag7 company buying? Vanguard trading the BTC ETFs? Buffett buying bitcoin?

I'm 61 and retired. I can afford to take risk (or not), but it's actually the short-term I'm most excited by. The opportunity cost of missing out on the steep part of the adoption curve will be high.

The most powerful computer network on Earth has no value?

Now we're repeating ourselves from just days ago. Again, was early Amazon/Google/Facebook/Netflix only speculative? Or were they investable assets to those with a better understanding?

That's evolution.

You agree Conservatives are wildly underrepresented, yes?

Your money, you get to dictate how it's used. Taxpayer's money cannot discriminate so.

Sure, let's. How does a demand that Harvard end its racial discrimination violate the college’s First Amendment rights? https://donsurber.substack.com/p/harvard-welfare-queen

Funny how the video of Bill Maher explaining how his time with Trump went got no response. No one wants to risk their assumptions? It seems possible Trump's puffery and vainglory is mostly an act. (Not that choosing to act that way isn't damning as well, but it's very different.) From the comments, someone related that Trump has said he learned The Apprentice's ratings only improved when he played an asshole. Maybe that was the wrong lesson. Maybe not.

On lunch break from the Satoshi Papers Symposium. https://www.uaustin.org/news/uatx-satoshi-papers-symposium

Again, I've made the earned distinction. One should have a little experience (like yourself) to volunteer without otherwise just adding noise. That's the nature of Sowell's "visions," they are internally consistent and self-reinforcing. That's exactly right, though the relationship is ordered - methods (solutions) are downstream problem recognition. it's hard to take advice about methods by those who don't/didn't recognize the problem. Wrong once, they've lost credibility. And I've admitted before that Trump's methods makes me wince. But that's the package.

That's fair. We'll see soon enough.

Is Luke asking questions (of someone who had knowledge of the subject), like you did? Or volunteering his opinion (likely without knowledge), like the moron?

I thought maybe you recognized Trump as the change agent he is. But you're making the exception is the rule argument? Luke is a change agent on par with Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, Dell? Sure.

Wait, are you talking about Trump?

That those without aren't in a position to criticize. It's like questioning a coach's call when you've never played organized ball. I couldn't disagree with you more on your Trump position, but you've earned the right to it. What? They were no more capable of criticizing leadership before they had experience than anyone else. And ineffective leaders shouldn't criticize either. No, I'm saying in this world, it doesn't matter what leaders should be. Look at the characteristics of effective leaders instead. They don't overlap much with Luke's standard. I have, and learned the higher the level, the more difficult the decisions and the more invested the supporters. When your job is decision-making, it's very difficult not to anger those you decide against. (With the exception of tariffs, Trump's just lucky enough to keep getting to decide on the 80/20 side.)

Pomp: Do you have a personal goal for the number of Bitcoin that the United States could have? Bo Hines, Executive Director of the Crypto Council: I want as much as we can possibly accumulate.

Should's got nothin' to do with it. Don't immanentize the eschaton, Luke.

LOL That's exactly what it was: Trump should be some sort of philosopher with deep knowledge of philosophy, politics, economics, psychology etc and have shown over his biography that he is a reliant, diligent and hard working citizen that can bring his country and humanity forward. "Should" is childish.

It's a target-rich environment.

Only someone without leadership experience could question why it's a prerequisite to judging leadership.

Ever run a business, Luke? Held an elected leadership role? Negotiated for anything of value? You must at least be in management, surely?