administrative errors said:

---

tysker said:

---

You said:

---

I can kind of understand that, but it's still massively hypocritical.

---

Indeed, it can be and something we in the industry have a difficult time explaining and defending. Its the appearance of impropriety. It's actually a similar issue that underlies why I asked AE about the disclosure of BTC holdings for politicians, governments, bank etc. Would it change your opinion about politicians like Pelosi or Huffines if you found out she/he had purchased a bunch of BTC before passing a law enabling its acceptance and wider usage?

---

huffines has disclosed his holdings for years, fyi.

Pelosi needs to be held accountable to a number of things, if she bought bitcoin,I wouldn't mind, I'd be surprised if she doesn't or her husband considering how close they are to Silicon Valley.

I personally think the govt is playing kabuki theater with the displays at congress, I can't imagine ALL OF EM being that Obtuse on the topic considering the at least 7 years of lobbying efforts by bitcoin and crypto folks in major capacities.

The neat thing about bitcoin, adopting it enforces the standards of the philosophy at least to some degree. It changes people, because it changes the game theory and therefore the incentives and moralities...

Maybe I'm building it into something far greater than it actually is, but having watched thousands of people change their patterns of behavior I can only expect it to continue for all walks of life.

---

go on...

what methods of patterns of behavior have changed?

I have owned BTC and ETH going back years.

Many never budgeted before and now do so they know how much bitcoin they can buy.
Many during this process reduce spend on rampant consumerist purchases to maximize their bitcoin investment.
Many learn new skills or launch new business in order to maximize their energy output to put into bitcoin.

It changes the way people view everything, historically.

BREAKING NEWS: America COMPETES Act passes in the House with an amendment to stop the Federal Government from expanding their power to spy on and ban #Bitcoin and Crypto Transactions.

— Dennis Porter (@Dennis_Porter_) February 4, 2022

Looking more like the US is gonna use it as a currency eeryday.

I haven't read it and can't confirm that's true. However, there is a lot of progressive **** jammed in that bill that May outweigh any benefits for BTC. Not sure…

I can confirm the obnoxious bitcoin/crypto portion was amended.

But I'll find a link to display

Deluxe said:

---

Instant, free, borderless settlement via lightning. Avoid archaic, expensive rails of legacy financial transaction infrastructure.

---

This. Plus, often a discount is offered. Also, it is one transaction that in a small way starves the legacy system and supports BTC and Lightning. And, it is at least as easy as PayPal, Venmo, etc. . .

This can be built with a liquid multisig. Recipients have one, the server has one.

- Server only signs if the goal is achieved
- User only signs if the final transaction is valid (amount and destination)
- Donors can donate using either Liquid, Lightning or L1 (with a bridge).

— Libre ⚡️ (@LibrePGP) February 5, 2022

I have not played around with liquid yet, but this sounds like a good time to market this ability.

administrative errors said:

---

I can confirm the obnoxious bitcoin/crypto portion was amended.

But I'll find a link to display

---

You find anything on this? WSJ doesn't mention it in their article on the legislation.

It does sound like the house version is going to get carved up when it gets to senate so hopefully they cut out the racial crap they put in their.

Just verbals from lobbyists that ot was removed. Nothing in writing yet.

Drop Gold Buy #Bitcoin Commercial pic.twitter.com/KKMsStSExk

— Dennis Parker (@Xentagz) May 1, 2019

I think gold isn't bad to have. But.

Please listen to this…#btc is your insurance on credit contagion…. https://t.co/FZndzILswr

— Greg Foss - Honkhonkhodl please 🇨🇦 (@FossGregfoss) February 6, 2022

Crap, researchers discovered a Y2K bug in satoshis code regarding block height! Emergency, all hands on deck!

A pretty significant #bitcoin bug has been discovered. Described as a Y2K style bug in that Satoshi didn’t plan for enough digits in the block height. For those who are more technical, max height is a 32-bit unsigned integer which means max height is 2^32 - 1. Not enough!

— Jared Pierce (@bitcoinplanner) February 6, 2022

We call it the Y83K bug. We only have until past the year 83,737 AD to correct the issue.

administrative errors said:

---

Crap, researchers discovered a Y2K bug in satoshis code regarding block height! Emergency, all hands on deck!

A pretty significant #bitcoin bug has been discovered. Described as a Y2K style bug in that Satoshi didn’t plan for enough digits in the block height. For those who are more technical, max height is a 32-bit unsigned integer which means max height is 2^32 - 1. Not enough!

— Jared Pierce (@bitcoinplanner) February 6, 2022

We call it the Y83K bug. We only have until past the year 83,000 to correct the issue.

---

As someone who led a Y2K project, this is relevant to me. I weep for my future selves.

administrative errors said:

---

Drop Gold Buy #Bitcoin Commercial pic.twitter.com/KKMsStSExk

— Dennis Parker (@Xentagz) May 1, 2019

I think gold isn't bad to have. But.

---

PM exposure is part of a well-rounded portfolio that includes stocks, bonds, RE, crypto and PMs.

(Insert "Why not both" gif here)

Agreed, but I do think asset holdings should be properly allocated now that bitcoin exists. I think gold is a SHTF scenario, versus anything else. But even then, I struggle to see the use case if there isn't a final buyer who's wealthy enough to use it for jewelry/coinage.

Doesn't mean I don't own any, just not a "whole lot." And I don't plan to accumulate more, paper or physical, gold.

administrative errors said:

---

Agreed, but I do think asset holdings should be properly allocated now that bitcoin exists. I think gold is a SHTF scenario, versus anything else. But even then, I struggle to see the use case if there isn't a final buyer who's wealthy enough to use it for jewelry/coinage.

Doesn't mean I don't own any, just not a "whole lot." And I don't plan to accumulate more, paper or physical, gold.

---

Agreed.

As someone who is only minimally exposed to BTC, and not as educated as one should be if one were to advocate for BTC as THE decentralized form of money, can you get into the divisibility of BTC? It seems we are still so early on that folks only refer to Bitcoin as the unit of reference when satoshis are where it's really at, at least in terms of functionality. This may be a jumbled and poorly constructed question but will there need to be a point where adopters start discussing and publishing thesis on the satoshi, or at the satoshi level?

Great question and one that is still being developed in real time. Early adopters decided satoshis would be the nomenclature for the smallest denomination of Bitcoin.

Recently the denomination discussion has been reopened, and now we clearly have more marketing expertise in the mix than prior attempts.

Ascribe now that instead of satoshis we have Bitcoin (BTC) AND bitcoin (btc/bits/sats). BIG B Bitcoin and Little b bitcoin.

I think this denomination plays better to the uninformed than saying sats, and is far easier to digest.

It may have been a poorly formed question, but I'm sure I've given an even worse formed answer.

100,000,000 bitcoin(bits) = 1 Bitcoin (BTC)
21M BTC = 2.1 quadrillion bits (btc)

There have been a number of attempts to make sats/bits the standard display on exchanges and coinmarketcap, but you must remember that these entities exist for profit, and a bitcoin denominated in bits would most likely make everything else look FAR more expensive and decrease profits. It's an interesting conundrum. Similarly Lightning network has been slow to be adopted at exchanges due to the fees that can be advertised for bitcoin as a reason to buy other coins. Not including the cost of changing itself.

Lemme know what needs clarity.

Gold is just the most recent physical good to represent value.

Historically, all information was passed verbally from one generation to the next. It took the internet to nearly destroy completely this very ancient custom of wisdom accumulation and knowledge sharing. Before that it was the profileration of cheap printing presses.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/mit-researchers-unlock-scalable-qubit-by-chance


For those interested in the advancement of quantum computing .

While fascinating, especially the diamond lattice designs that are alleged to be able create "desktop quantum computers,"

Probably should be a different thread.

Blockfi Horrible Loan Experience (FORTUNE Lost)

"Took out a loan for $300K and put up 600K worth of BTC as collateral. Market kept going down so I kept posting collateral as needed to keep the loan healthy.

I got an email saying that the loan was being called back because of "indirect exposure to a mixing service"

I appealed the decision because I bought the BTC back in May of 2020 and kept it on my Trezor the entire time. However, since I didn't buy it on an exchange and the person before me mixed it (BISQ) I get absolutely screwed.

In summary I took out a loan when BTC was 65,000, Cost me over $6000 in origination fees, paid two months of loan payments ($2500+), got liquidated at $37,000 a few MINUTES before a pump to $42,000 today because of "indirect mixing exposure" and now I lost more than half of my BTC holdings, have a huge tax bill, and was screwed out of a fortune.

DO NOT USE BLOCKFI LOANS. Worst experience I have ever had in Bitcoin"

I'm still learning about coinjoin. It appears that BlockFi states they can screw you over if you borrow from them against any non-KYC coins. Scary.

This was a hot topic early on when "colored coins" were first discussed.

I dont find products interesting that demand "clean coins" or "untainted coins." While blockfi loans ARE interesting. The fact they are censoring really disappoints me, although it's probably being enforced by govt/regs.

I think we should all endeavor for KYC-free coins, and believe they will have a premium where current markets might put a discount on potentially "tainted coins" they've been run through a mixer.

The idealization I'd like to achieve is that we have sufficiently decentralized and fangless govt that won't find money laundering sufficiently interesting enough to pursue.

administrative errors said:

---

This was a hot topic early on when "colored coins" were first discussed.

I dont find products interesting that demand "clean coins" or "untainted coins." While blockfi loans ARE interesting. The fact they are censoring really disappoints me, although it's probably being enforced by govt/regs.

I think we should all endeavor for KYC-free coins, and believe they will have a premium where current markets might put a discount on potentially "tainted coins" they've been run through a mixer.

The idealization I'd like to achieve is that we have sufficiently decentralized and fangless govt that won't find money laundering sufficiently interesting enough to pursue.

---

Thanks for this. So you think everybody should mix their coins so there are no KYC coins?

I'm hopeful that one day my BTC will be worth enough that I want to borrow against it; however, relinquishing any of my BTC to a third party makes me nervous.

As it should.

Trust is nighly impossible to reestablish after being lost, I think blockfi deserves zero trust out of this incident, if they deserved any to begin with.

Exactly. If possible wait until you are able to borrow against it and eventually loan it out. Keep control.
Some ecosystems saw the issues on the horizon and are implementing methods for defi decentralization, security, and privacy.

US govt just seized 94K BTCs from a 2016 hack of Bitfinex.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-says-it-seized-3-6-billion-in-stolen-cryptocurrency-exchange-hack-11644339381?mod=hp_lead_pos7

I guess they will keep this BTC and put it in their BTC Fort Knox cold wallet.

From hot wallets.

Nykyk, iykyk

Quote:

---

On January 31, 2022, law enforcement gained access to Wallet 1CGA4s by decrypting a file saved to LICHTENSTEIN's cloud storage account, which had been obtained pursuant to a search warrant. The file contained a list of 2,000 virtual currency addresses, along with corresponding private keys. Blockchain analysis confirmed that almost all of those addresses were directly linked to the hack.

---

"On January 31, 2022, law enforcement gained access to Wallet 1CGA4s by decrypting a file saved to LICHTENSTEIN’s cloud storage account"

- DOJ statement of facts from $3.6B #Bitcoin seizurehttps://t.co/EBJKkxEZfA

— Andy Edstrom, CFA, CFP (@edstromandrew) February 8, 2022

Links

As hypocritically as I can sound, this is a bitcoin only thread. Post it in the crypto thread, please.

Jesus,

They found her tiktok, rofl.

lol she has a TikTok https://t.co/VITAoQeFwy pic.twitter.com/MVZmM1bYBQ

— Liz Franczak (@liz_franczak) February 8, 2022

The couple didnt perform the hack, just helped facilitate the money laundering. If you possess one of those stolen BTCs now in cold wallet, should you return it?

Personally?
I dont think it's a crime to hack an exchange.

They are supposed to be trusted fiduciaries and should suffer the consequences of flawed engineering or poor procedures. I'd like to see more exchanges go belly up and more P2P trading happening.

I say keep it.

SHOULD you return it? It was stolen. I think the answer is yes. But, others with more ambiguous ethics might argue otherwise.