What a layup for Trump. The democrats gain absolutely nothing with their anti Bitcoin stance, but supporting it only gains more votes. Trump doesnt understand or care about Bitcoin, but he at least has a finger on the pulse of real Americans.
It's really going to start moving soon, and into September I project it'll knock your socks off. Just wait til you see what happens in 2025 
Bitcoin has a habit of doing what we least expect. Stay humbleIt's really going to start moving soon, and into September I project it'll knock your socks off. Just wait til you see what happens in 2025
A lot of people have been falling for the "it's doing nothing" like Jim Bianco, not realizing that this is just sideways consolidation and dip accumulation, and the big moves come later in the cycle, noting that we were at a higher post halving price. What's more, and you know this, is that the larger institutional money comes in between 12-15 months after something like the ETF was approved, mainly for administrative and fiduciary reasons. How others can't see this is beyond me, but I'll be referring to many of my former posts, including this one, when we get the last laugh.Bitcoin has a habit of doing what we least expect. Stay humble
The sad thing for most is that we're about to end the time in which you could still be early on this bad boy.
[TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast] #521: The Bushido of Bitcoin with Aleksandar Svetski #tftcABitcoinPodcast
https://podcastaddict.com/tftc-a-bitcoin-podcast/episode/178970750 via @PodcastAddict
0:00 - Intro
1:16 - It’s time to do more than complain
8:46 - Core virtues
17:26 - River & Unchained
18:41 - Justice
24:14 - Unbalanced femininity
30:29 - Gradually, Then Suddenly & Zaprite
32:07 - Energetic leaders
39:03 - Courage
41:55 - A structure to last the hard times
50:04 - Responsibility
55:59 - Low time preference
1:02:01 - Beauty and truth
1:09:10 - Physically rebuilding America
1:16:26 - Forging alliances
1:20:34 - A new heroic age
1:25:28 - Satlantis
1:32:49 - Satlantis walkthrough
1:38:29 - Layered technology
1:44:05 - Wrapping up
https://podcastaddict.com/tftc-a-bitcoin-podcast/episode/178970750 via @PodcastAddict
0:00 - Intro
1:16 - It’s time to do more than complain
8:46 - Core virtues
17:26 - River & Unchained
18:41 - Justice
24:14 - Unbalanced femininity
30:29 - Gradually, Then Suddenly & Zaprite
32:07 - Energetic leaders
39:03 - Courage
41:55 - A structure to last the hard times
50:04 - Responsibility
55:59 - Low time preference
1:02:01 - Beauty and truth
1:09:10 - Physically rebuilding America
1:16:26 - Forging alliances
1:20:34 - A new heroic age
1:25:28 - Satlantis
1:32:49 - Satlantis walkthrough
1:38:29 - Layered technology
1:44:05 - Wrapping up
"Satlantis" 
Trump's VP pick J. D. Vance owns some bitcoin:
Looks like Coinbase owns some bitcoin…
“Whereas the value of all other goods and services is in their consumption, the value of money lies in the utility of exchange. Exchange is the good an individual purchases when choosing to convert value (the subjective output of time, labor, and physical capital) into a monetary good. Individual consumption preferences are unique, but money serves one singular function for all market participants: to bridge the present to the future (whether it be for a day, week, year, or longer).”
“At the point of exchange, each individual must decide which monetary good will best serve the function of preserving value created in the present into the future. A or B? While an individual can choose to hold one or multiple currencies, one form of money will preserve future purchasing power better than the others. Everyone intuitively understands this and makes a decision based on the inherent properties of one medium relative to another.”
“ It is not a coincidence that the market converges on a single medium because each individual is attempting to solve the same problem of future exchange—an intersubjective problem dependent upon the preference of others.”
Excerpt From
Gradually, Then Suddenly
Parker A. Lewis
“At the point of exchange, each individual must decide which monetary good will best serve the function of preserving value created in the present into the future. A or B? While an individual can choose to hold one or multiple currencies, one form of money will preserve future purchasing power better than the others. Everyone intuitively understands this and makes a decision based on the inherent properties of one medium relative to another.”
“ It is not a coincidence that the market converges on a single medium because each individual is attempting to solve the same problem of future exchange—an intersubjective problem dependent upon the preference of others.”
Excerpt From
Gradually, Then Suddenly
Parker A. Lewis
“The scarcity of its fixed supply creates demand, but increasing demand creates greater scarcity. It sounds circular because it is. If there were 21 million bitcoin and only one person valued them, there would be nothing scarce or useful about bitcoin. But if 100 million people valued bitcoin, 21 million would start becoming scarce. And if the network grew to one billion people, 21 million would become extremely scarce, and the constant that bitcoin provides would offer even greater utility in facilitating trade.
“As a network, bitcoin becomes more valuable as it is valued by more people. Essentially, 0.1 bitcoin = $1,000 is more valuable than 1.0 bitcoin = $1,000, despite each being worth the same measured in dollar terms. More exchange becomes possible as bitcoin becomes more valuable, with value being the output of more and more people choosing to adopt bitcoin as an exchange intermediary. Each individual owns a smaller and smaller nominal amount of currency, but each equivalent unit’s purchasing power increases over time.”
Excerpt From
Gradually, Then Suddenly
Parker A. Lewis
“As a network, bitcoin becomes more valuable as it is valued by more people. Essentially, 0.1 bitcoin = $1,000 is more valuable than 1.0 bitcoin = $1,000, despite each being worth the same measured in dollar terms. More exchange becomes possible as bitcoin becomes more valuable, with value being the output of more and more people choosing to adopt bitcoin as an exchange intermediary. Each individual owns a smaller and smaller nominal amount of currency, but each equivalent unit’s purchasing power increases over time.”
Excerpt From
Gradually, Then Suddenly
Parker A. Lewis
No one holds currency to preserve purchasing power, they hold assets. Currency is not an investment.
It's good to see he is honest enough to admit that Bitcoin has no actual value.
A currency gains no utility from being more valuable in and of itself. A currency is ideally valueless - its value being extrinsically derived from that which it can purchase.
I think these quotes illustrate a major logical fallacy underlying the thinking of chance vought, Blade Runner and other Bitcoin enthusiasts. Namely, the idea that Bitcoin is at once a currency and an asset. But you can't have it both ways. Bitcoin must either be a medium of exchange or a scarce digital asset. The two categorizations are mutually exclusive, because the characteristics that make something a good currency prohibit it from functioning as an asset, and vice versa. But with Bitcoin proponents, you see them continually trumpeting the virtues of Bitcoin as both a currency and an asset, while admitting the drawbacks of neither. It's a very misleading presentation.
No, no, no. It is a medium of exchange and an asset, since it preserves purchasing power better than anything ever discovered/invented. You keep bringing up currencies, which are designed to be worthless for utility reasons, and for goverment/elite/parasite cheating, once they are established.
Again, no. You get everything wrong about this asset. It's money. Stop saying currency. They aren't mutually exclusive, as we've detailed at least 50 times up to this point.
Again, no. You get everything wrong about this asset. It's money. Stop saying currency. They aren't mutually exclusive, as we've detailed at least 50 times up to this point.
It is literally impossible for Bitcoin to function effectively as both a medium of exchange and an asset, since these are mutually exclusive designs. Mediums of exchange are designed to facilitate trade, while assets are themselves the object of trade. If a medium of exchange has the properties of an asset, then it will be hoarded in expectation of future appreciation rather than spent/exchanged.
Your misunderstanding of this point explains a great deal of your blind, steadfast faith in Bitcoin, because it allows you to constantly shift the goalposts in defense of it. When Bitcoin is criticized for its woeful inadequacy is a currency, you fall back on its strengths as an asset. When its flaws as an asset are pointed out, you retreat back to describing it as the most perfect form of money ever invented. But despite your tortured rationalizations, it simply cannot be both.
USD is a medium of exchange, and is also a digital asset. To poor people, it is a relatively scarce asset. To rich people, it is relatively abundant. It is valuable because people think it is valuable. Without that, it's green paper.
USD is more a medium of exchange than a scarce asset.
Bitcoin is more a scarce asset than a medium of exchange.
Btc is the beta version of CBDC.
As others have posted, I see it more like a stock in an individual company. A really good and obvious one to own.
It won't upend the US banking system. It could make huge effects in some tiny country like Lebanon with massive, rapid currency debasement.
The reasons that stocks are valuable is because they represent ownership shares in profitable companies. They entitle the owner, in perpetuity, to a fractional share of the company's earnings proportionate to their ownership stake. The price paid for a single share of stock is therefore directly related to the earnings to which it entitles the owner (or, very importantly, the anticipation of future earnings). This relationship is described simply and directly in the P/E ratio (price/earnings). When a company's P/E ratio increases drastically, it implies that there is a mania/bubble at play, and if the company's earnings do not soon rise to match its astronomical stock price, a crash is almost certain.
All that being said, how exactly is Bitcoin like a stock when it, by design, has zero earnings? And what does that say about Bitcoin itself, given that it is an asset with an astronomical price and with zero associated earnings, dividends, rents or coupon payments? Given that reality, it's very obvious that any increase in the price of Bitcoin must come solely from individuals buying in anticipation of a future increase in price. In other words, it is nothing but a Ponzi asset.
I agree with you -- it generates no cash flow, and unlike a tech startup, cannot generate a cash flow. That is the legitimate criticism of Bitcoin.
Yes. It's a ponzi asset, just a new flavor of ponzi asset. But this one is global, and people across the world have decided this one is worth it because it can be carried across borders and has better ownership properties than anything else.
In a way, I don't really like it. But I'm in a relatively good entry on the Ponzi ladder, and I speculate the ladder will keep going for a long, long time. So I'm not selling. It's also weathered enough attacks and gained enough traction that it is here to stay. Thank you Mr Fink.
If Bitcoin is a form of money then by definition money should not generate a return (unless credit risk is involved). And just like you can lend fiat and generate interest you can do the same with Bitcoin.
The question is do you believe Bitcoin is a form of money? If the answer is yes then by definition money should not generate a return as that would be inflationary.
Gold does not generate a return by the way. Yes gold has industrial uses apart from jewelry but they came much later.
Gold was originally just used for money and jewelry and many monetary historians and bitcoiners would argue that the use case as jewelry was just incidental to its use as money. Although I personally can’t be sure of that as it’s hard to prove.
As for arguing that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value it’s arguably true but there are many things that arguably have no intrinsic value but people pay a lot for.
Real natural diamonds are a lot more expensive than man made diamonds even though they are more less the same thing but one has the status attached to it and the other doesn’t.
What’s the difference between a high quality replica and an original artwork that is worth millions?
What’s the difference between a high quality $500 fake Rolex and a $10,000 real Rolex?