Thread 60633076

>>60633076 (OP)
That's nice, grandpa. Let's get you back to your containment thread now

>>60633087
>zoomzooms like fiat 2.0 over physical wealth
sasuga

love me gold
simple as

They used to dump their currency for US treasuries but now Trump happened, now they buy gold instead.

>>60633099
Yeah, thus proving it's a bad long term investment

>>60633076 (OP)
>CHINA BOUGHT GOLD
prove it

>>60633549
>Central Banks bought gold !
prove it

>>60633112
>now they buy gold
prove it

>>60633752
>>60633756
>>60633763
There isn't enough proof to satisfy you. Whatever is posted you would disagree with.

>>60633827
nah, any audit will do
go ahead

>>60633112
The gold buying started before trump mindslave

>>60633076 (OP)
because its china...
>buy gold
>apply thin layer of gold to less valuable metals to make fake chinese gold bars
>profit

>>60633076 (OP)
yeah and somehow the price barely moves

>>60634153
>institution buys
>therefore price should move
>nevermind the fact institutions buy at staggered rates to prevent prices from skyrocket
>it should just go up, because i said so, OK?
>this includes crypto

80 IQ.

>>60634159
price would go up if it actually had any impact on supply

>>60634167
Which only proves how suppressed silver is

Belief plays no part in value, price carries information precisely because it is a mechanical product of supply and demand alone, any ‘belief’ component is encoded via these and is not an additional variable. Bitcoin is a more useful economic unit than gold/land/equites, its perfectly inelastic emission & fixed total supply increases the fidelity of its price signal, and its trustless nature precludes corruption. Belief not needed. Bitcoin goes to ∞ in-the-limit by dint of outcompeting other economic units, this is guaranteed to happen as a high fidelity price signal for money is USEFUL, increasing the efficiency of economic calculation and therein improving the fitness of the superorganism by optimizing the arrangement of economic actors & resources.

>>60634153
The price of gold never ever moves, its just the price of everything in relation to it does

The 2x that just happened was fiat debasement, 1 gold = 1 gold

>>60634216
bro has a document with wise chatgpt thoughts to copy paste from

>>60634216
it's not trustless. you have to trust trannies not to alter the code, and blackrock not to rehypothecate.
there is a fixed supply but it's not 21M. there's 100 million satoshis per bitcoin which can be transacted just the same.
didn't read the rest.

>>60634198
Yeah...

>>60633076 (OP)
brb converting my crypto into gold
see ya on the other side

>>60633099
>physical wealth
Here we can observe the dimwit’s total lack of abstract thought. He can empirically see that Value exists (somewhere, somehow), but blind as he is to abstractions, Value MUST be a physical property of a good, as the physical is all that exists to him. But Value is not a physical property of an object, but an economic abstraction, imbued via economic demand.

>>60634407
me also, every 4 years at the end of the bullrun

>>60634318
False. Trustless == No Trusted Third Parties (TTP). Devs do not possess privileged access to the network.
>rehypothecation
Not a TTP, and carries immense risk for a financial institution given there exists no infinite BTC backstop like exists for fiat (the Fed). FTX and Celsius show the wages of the sin of rehypothecating BTC.
>fractions of a thing mean the thing has infinite supply!
I don’t even.

>>60634608
>but actually i didn't mean trustless like as in trustless trustless!
when you need chatgpt to fabricate a new term for you.

>immense risk
oh sure, blackrock is scared.
why doesn't saylor and coinbase disclose their exact wallets?

>fractions of a thing mean the thing has infinite supply!
you... actually don't get it.
eg, what happens if i split 1 ounce of gold into 100 million pieces? their usage is limited compared to 1 ounce.
and what happens if i split 1 bitcoin into 100 million? nothing. we can transact 1 satoshi just the same as 1 bitcoin.

>code (((democratically))) altered to 21 billion btc
>legal precedent to confiscate crypto held on exchanges after 90 days
>state begins to confiscate dormant cold wallets
>nothing personal
Kinda weird how jews are trying to add a skewed version of the definition of trustless when it comes to crypto. Did you know that the jewish safras banking clan owns a majority stake in the dictionary business? Kinda funny how trustless means not worthy of trust and we have a shill here claiming its trustless despite relying on code that can and has been forked or altered. He isnt it also strange how a certain type of computer attack is called a fork bomb. Crypto is a ponzi scheme. Always has been. Simple as. This is why gold is trustworthy.

>>60634198
Silver is a shitcoin, 100% of supply is extracted from waste streams of gold & copper mining, this isn’t because silver deposits are scarce (indeed, the US has huge silver deposits), but because demand does not exist to justify mining silver currently. This monumental elastic supply of silver is the reason the OG shitcoin can’t pump.
>>60634389
>trading volume/annual production = paper silver ratio
Silverbugs are so fucking retarded. Holy shit, so fucking dumb.

>>60634318
>you have to trust trannies not to alter the code
how do trannies alter the code in my node without me updating it and running their fork?
lol

>>60634628
>we can transact 1 satoshi just the same as 1 bitcoin
he doesn't know transactions are priced in sat/vByte

Meanwhile in reality

>>60634694
you'll be left in the dust, later loser! see ethereum classic.

>>60634698
retard alert. all you are saying is the transaction may sit in limbo.

i can quickly send a few hundred satoshis, that's a whole lotta zeros.
and wait until you learn about the lightning network.
did you know you can transact even less than 1 satoshi?

>>60634693
>so fucking dumb
I'm smarter than anyone who puts their wealth in fiat debt receipts or the hypothetical, future value of said fiat debt receipts.

>>60634735
>i can change a number in a distributed database (my request to change a number may sit in limbo though)
wow

>>60634743
neither of you have an argument. you're both confused.

if it makes you feel better, i will simplify the wording: 1 bitcoin can be transacted just the same as 0.000001 bitcoin.
(i removed 2 zero's to make sure my transaction goes through in a timely matter)

>>60633076 (OP)
meanwhile the most economically illiterate commie country that doesnt know how markets work is buying high

>>60634770
>(i removed 2 zero's to make sure my transaction goes through in a timely matter)
if your transaction has a fee too low for anyone to bother - it will sit in limbo
and you cannot pay less than 1 satoshi
so you can transact 1 satoshi but for it to get added to the blockchain you have to pay at least 1 satoshi or more which makes it all retarded

>>60634799
sure. a few hundred satoshis will send no problem.
i simply said you can transact 1 satoshi just the same as 1 bitcoin. if that happens to not be economical, then use lightning, use a layer2, etc.

btw if today 1 satoshi was worth $1 thousand dollars, do you think people would just pay the fee to transact on mainnet?

>>60633087
>Accidentally deletes your private key file
Sorry son I dont how to use these fandangled new gizmos...i hope i didnt break anything

>>60634902
people transact bitcoin for any reason except moving it to or from exchanges? strange, why would they do that

>>60634628
Without Trusted Third Parties is what Trustless has always meant, dumdum. This is infosec terminology that existed decades before Bitcoin. BTC is a trustless distributed ledger, a distributed ledger without a TTP. Again, devs nor blackrock nor the US gov have privileged access to the network. Trustless. Permissionless.
>why don’t they publish their addresses?
Maybe they worry about leaking information from internal movements? More importantly, who gives a fuck? Don’t keep BTC on exchanges, don’t buy custodial BTC equities or funds, problem solved. Rehypothecation isn’t a bitcoin problem, it’s a custodial asset problem.
>we can transact 1 satoshi just the same as 1 bitcoin
Anon, please tell me you aren’t actually THIS stupid, the value is not in transferring an arbitrarily small amount of BTC, the value is in having a trustless means of economic accounting, the amounts matter.
>>60634682
>confiscate cold wallets
Dull.

>>60634966
what are you transacting? genuinely curious
paying 3rd worlders without paypal for making websites or something?

>>60634966
shaking my head irl.

your post boils down to "ignore the price, the network will still function." sure, take me back to 2010.
it's the same argument coping gold bugs make when they say "it's not an investment, it's a store of value."

>More importantly, who gives a fuck?
it's ironic that silver ETFs get traded at ~400 paper to every 1 real ounce.
and here, bitcoiners, who possess a publicly verifiable ledger, are arguing AGAINST such easy transparency.

>Anon, please tell me you aren’t actually THIS stupid, the value is not in transferring an arbitrarily small amount of BTC
huh? let's say my 1 satoshi is worth 1 million dollars today. i want to transfer it and cash out my 1 million dollars. is that a problem?

>>60633087
FPBP

China:Gold
as
Saylor:BTC

>>60633112
They drastically reduced buying treasuries after the financial crisis and the world stopped buying after seizing Russias both under democrats

You FOOLS
Buy gold MINING stocks instead

>>60633752
Russia's gold reserve went from 400 tonnes to 144 tonnes.

>>60634992
>"ignore the price, the network will still function."
Yes. Again, you fail to appreciate that what bitcoin does is NOVEL, a trustless, permissionless, distributed ledger did not exist before bitcoin, now it does. The question has never been “what is the purpose of bitcoin” as bitcoin is a new thing, the question has only ever been “what can we use bitcoin for”? We can use bitcoin as a trustless abstract economic unit, THE economic reference point, an incorruptible tally board for those most significant systemic values. Short term price-action is irrelevant.
>arguing against transparency
Are you illiterate or just retarded? Custodial btc is outside the purview of bitcoin. It is literally impossible to prevent an unscrupulous actor from selling more claims to an asset than they actually possess, obviously. Again, rehypothecation is a custodial asset problem, not a bitcoin problem. Not your keys, not your coins.
>$1m sat
If sats were trading for $1m each than BTC would be trading for $100 trillion each and the mcap of the network would be 2.1 billion trillion dollars.

>>60635531
me: "not trustless, blackrock will rehypothecate, 21M is only perceived."
you: [essay on the imagined virtues of bitcoin.]

>Custodial btc is outside the purview of bitcoin. It is literally impossible to prevent an unscrupulous actor..
um, and what if you ARE the custodian?
nothing prevents coinbase custody from reaching 51%. their friend saylor and the etfs alone are at 10% already.
maybe satoshi wallets wake for another 1 mil. or will satoshi market dump? cause a fork? seems like a lot of trust.

>the mcap of the network would be..
not an argument. "Short term price-action is irrelevant."
why would you try to stop someone from transacting 1 satoshi? we don't stop anyone from transacting 1 penny.

>>60633087
>>60634153
>>60634216
>>60634966
Ain't nothing like the real thing baby. If you've be fooled into thinking digital nothing has real value and gold doesn't, you're completely lost. Enjoy the imaginary fiat value just like with inflated stocks, when real monetary crisis hits, your "digital gold" will collapse to zero in value, since clown world fiat is the only way you can ascribe value to it at all.

>>60635752
Dull.

Control of coinage does not grant privileged access to the network. Precisely the reason PoW > PoS, granting privileges to holders fucks up the game theory.

If you give your property to another they, not you, have control over it. There are no technical solutions to “I trusted someone with my property”. ETFs are trust-based, MSTR is trust-based, bitcoin is trustless. Rehypothecation does not happen on the network, it is not part of bitcoin, it is outside of the purview of bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot prevent someone from selling a claim on something they don’t possess. Bitcoin cannot prevent you from trusting someone. Skill issue. Not bitcoin’s problem.

Saylor dumping does not comprise the network.
Satoshi dumping does not comprise the network.
Coinbase market selling all their customers coinage does not comprise the network.
Forks do not comprise the network.

>1sat
No one is preventing you from transferring 1 sat, but 1 sat is not 1 btc, 1 sat is 1 sat.

>>60636318
You are incapable of abstract thinking. Sad: >>60634540

>>60633076 (OP)
I'm not a fucking miner digging for gold, I'm a fucking burger flipper
My place is with memes like npc or with number 9 on the casino roulette wheel