Bitcoins - digital currency
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer digital currency. Peer-to-peer (P2P) means that there is no central authority to issue new money or keep track of transactions. Instead, these tasks are managed collectively by the nodes of the network. Advantages:
- Bitcoins can be sent easily through the Internet, without having to trust middlemen.
- Transactions are designed to be computationally prohibitive to reverse.
- Be safe from instability caused by fractional reserve banking and central banks. The limited inflation of the Bitcoin system’s money supply is distributed evenly (by CPU power) throughout the network, not monopolized by banks.
Total size 5,811,700 BTC
or 4,585,431 USD
or 3,545,137 EUR
or 133,094,323 RUB
or 3,849 ounces of gold
Any value to this idea or will it never work?
The national debt stuff is because nobody is buying long bonds (30 year) from the Treasury. They would pay the bond in both USD and Bitcoin to attract buyers. Preston talked about it on what Bitcoin did a few weeks ago.
The national debt stuff is because nobody is buying long bonds (30 year) from the Treasury. They would pay the bond in both USD and Bitcoin to attract buyers. Preston talked about it on what Bitcoin did a few weeks ago.
What they could do is attach some grams of gold in the payment of long term bonds .
That would be an amazing enticement for inflation protection .
one spot open if anyone wants to join - i think it's the 7th season
Yah I’m not even advocating that they *DO* pay off the debt with Bitcoin profits in the future, but the mere act of adding a new reserve asset to the mix that will increase in value far greater than any other potential reserve asset and at a faster rate than your national debt is likely to grow seems like a no brainer to me, especially when you have a chance to build your position before every other major sovereign nation (which is inevitable in the long run).
But politicians are morons so we’ll
Exactly, US govt have a chance to become the greatest pump and dumpers of all time
So six months after the election, do you guys figure the price is the same no matter who wins?
It's an interesting debate. I think it can't be. But open to hear takes.
The world chopping up 21 million seems kind of absurd. I can see how people miss it right now.
For what reasons? Quoted could mean anything from they're a big bunch of sound investors with solid data/intuition/reasoning to they're a big bunch of right wing nut jobs who literally never think the D candidate will be better for a given investment than the R candidate
I'm more interested in the reasoning
Why would it be different ?
Both candidate want still continue to spend massively shrug .
To dip into the shallow end for what I just asked, I can tell you Trump is at least going to continue to proclaim his pro BTCness simply for the votes
On the D side, for all we know Kamala is listening to Elizabeth Warren behind the scenes (I admit I'm aware of some of Warren's takes and proposed lolgislation, but not of anything Kamala has said in public)
For what reasons? Quoted could mean anything from they're a big bunch of sound investors with solid data/intuition/reasoning to they're a big bunch of right wing nut jobs who literally never think the D candidate will be better for a given investment than the R candidate
I'm more interested in the reasoning
housenuts probably has a host of reasons, but what springs to my mind:
harris admin probably won't diverge too far from biden. biden proposed 30% electric tax on btc miners and installed gary gensler
trump has said he'll remove gensler day 1 and is by all accounts procryptosphere because he sees it as another meme he can profit from
It's really quite simple.
The Biden/Harris admin has been hostile for 4 years.
Harris had said nothing to indicate she's favorable, or will change.
She's brought on a number of anti-crypto people to her campaign, and a few have been listed as likely people to act as Treasury Secretary and other key roles.
Given she's currently in charge, would nice to see her actually do something positive in the next few months, rather than just say things (which she hasn't even done yet).
It's really quite simple.
The Biden/Harris admin has been hostile for 4 years.
Harris had said nothing to indicate she's favorable, or will change.
She's brought on a number of anti-crypto people to her campaign, and a few have been listed as likely people to act as Treasury Secretary and other key roles.
Given she's currently in charge, would nice to see her actually do something positive in the next few months, rather than just say things (which she hasn't even done yet).
Bitcoin is up nearly 100% under the biden administration including a set of landmark ETFs that have resulting in 300,000 bitcoin being hold'd by normies
The hostility though
Bitcoin is up nearly 100% under the biden administration including a set of landmark ETFs that have resulting in 300,000 bitcoin being hold'd by normies
The hostility though
the admin did everything they could to deny the ETFs. 2 democrat appointed commissioners still voted against them, but gensler buckled because the court effectively forced them through.
even after approval, pocahontas and other democrat power players still complained and said the sec was wrong to approve them.
the admin is very hostile. biden recently vetoed SAB121 that resoundly passed in both house and senate.
So the ETF made it through just fine and warren complained a little and that means something?
Do you even understand what SAB121 was/is?
BTC was up around 1500% under Trump:
That must mean he's 15x better than Biden given that other post, right?
They've been outright hostile. If you don't agree with that, remove the blinders.
Yes. If your point is I didn't say "repeal of" then bravo.
The point is SAB 121 is just an accountancy rule that restricted banks ability to offer crypto products compared to other asset classes. It was actively anti-crypto and you are using it as a point against Biden when you should be groveling at his feet for repealing.
The point is SAB 121 is just an accountancy rule that restricted banks ability to offer crypto products compared to other asset classes. It was actively anti-crypto and you are using it as a point against Biden when you should be groveling at his feet for repealing.
It was a made up rule by the SEC contrary to the typical rulemaking procedure. There was no commentary period.
It requires banks to hold an equivalent $ amount on balance sheet to any crypto they hold. So if they were to custody 1 Bitcoin, they'd also need to hold $63,000 on their balance sheet. This effectively makes it impossible for banks to custody crypto. This rule doesn't exist for any other asset class.
Everyone in crypto wants the rule repealed. The house and senate voted to repeal it. For some reason, probably from Warren's influence, Biden vetoed the repeal.
It was a made up rule by the SEC contrary to the typical rulemaking procedure. There was no commentary period.
It requires banks to hold an equivalent $ amount on balance sheet to any crypto they hold. So if they were to custody 1 Bitcoin, they'd also need to hold $63,000 on their balance sheet. This effectively makes it impossible for banks to custody crypto. This rule doesn't exist for any other asset class.
Everyone in crypto wants the rule repealed.
Okay, then I am wrong, and you are right
Anybody here picking up these cheap sats?
Gotta buy! No place better than BTC park $
preferred coinbase-like wallet that has more reasonable fees than coinbase?
