Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).
There is no such thing as WBTC....
I mean that WBTC is not BTC... So don't get fooled by what they are calling it. It is a fucking token.
So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.
Just for clarification, this is how it works.
You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher. What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?
You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.
If a depository offers a paper certificate redeemable for an ounce of gold, how is that a risk to gold? Moreover, there exist blockchains offering tokens that (promise to) represent ownership of gold. Thats wrapped gold. Should goldbugs be worried?
Accepting that is a risk to you, in the sense of not your
I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supplyall held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.
Sure Biodom seems to identify a kind of fractional reserve threat to bitcoin, but he seems to be also suggesting that WBTC is winning over BTC because it has functionality that regular grandpa BTC does not happen to have.
Therefore, since WBTC is so much more versitile, it is going to attract all of the value and cause grandpa BTC to lose its value because it is not as good.
In essence, Bitcoin 2.0 is actually coming, and it happens to have a W in front of it...
Sucks to be on grandpa BTC and all that we happen to have is actual security of our coin. sure wished that i were on a smoke and mirror scam project to hold my value rather than being on too much hashing power and cannot do anything fancy grandpa coin.
Insertion between the above and below:
right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?
Versus how much held in centralized exchanges?
There are a variety of fucktwat centralized holders of BTC that may or may not attempt to manipulate BTC in a variety of ways..
Will it work this time, though? And, sure wrapped BTC is one of them.. and sure any one of them (or in unison) could either fail, exit scam or attack the BTC network by dumping. So sure, these attack vectors existed previously, and there is another one. What is going to happen? I am so scared that I am going to HODL even harder.
(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc. The offer stands.)
Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path...
I am not so naïve to expect any non-negligible chance of that; but I thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.
(I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays)
I would be interested to know the original source. Is it Vays, or someone else? I saw that in qwks personal text.
Probably Tone did not originate the expression.. but I had heard an interview today on the Swan Signal podcast in which Max Keiser and Tone Vays were being interviewed (It's an hour and 20 minutes), and at some point in the interview - maybe in the middle? i cannot recall the exact location of the interview, Tone Vays said that he was wearing a Tshirt or something like that, and it said shitcoin minimalist.. that is if I recall the context correctly.. I was doing something else while I listened to the podcast, so I may have misremembered.. but that was what I had recalled Tone saying at some point.
Here's the link if you are interested in listening to that interview. It is an interesting interview because they are talking about the Microstrategy acquisition and a variety of other sound money ideas, and I also had appreciated that Max Keiser is much more bullish that Tone Vays.. and Vays still has some conservative estimations of where he expects the bitcoin price to go in the next year or two...... yet during the interview Tone was able to admit that 2019 was "rough" for him and he was "wrong" quite a bit in 2019.... hahahaaha.. Tone does not really concede as much as i would like regarding how wrong he was, and even though Tone is a bit bearish sometimes, i don't really have major problems with him, even though from time to time I would like to strangle him for his sometimes bearish BTC predictions.
I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....
I have observed many people mistake it as if Emerson were criticizing consistency as suchas if inconsistency and self-contradiction were good. Usually, the misquote without the foolish qualifier is presented to rationalize some bout of neophilia, or self-contradictory postmodernism, or divers other pseudointellectual navel-gazing. I should know that youre smarter than thatbut you should know that on the Internet, so many readers are not!
Damn, I wanted to reply to one of your earlier posts, among others. You keep writing; I keep getting further behindmay need to pick it up later.