Through bitcoin's history, there have been a lot of different kinds of attacks, and some of the attacks have gotten more sophisticated, so so there is no doubt that various kinds of attacks won't continue including if any players might identify some loopholes that they believe that they are able to take advantage.  They will continue to try, and they might be successful and they might not.

Surely by definition, many longer term HODLers have not been scared off by past efforts, yet it does not even mean that longer term HODLers might either not be scared in the future, or maybe some longer term HODLers might sell a decent stake of their BTC, yet even if some one might be a longer term HODLer and maybe had accumulated more than 100 BTC over 10 years or more (and maybe his cost per BTC is around $1k or less), so then the longer term HODLer decides to sell 25 BTC so that he will feel more comfortable.. so then right now 25 BTC will give him $2.5 million.. or maybe he decides to ONLY sell 5 BTC right now, and then to sell 5 BTC every time the BTC price goes up $100k, and so then the longer term HODLer feels better, but the whole selling of part of the BTC stash might be a BIG SO WHAT? in the whole scheme of things.

Someone who is newer to bitcoin, perhaps in his first one or two cycles, may well give less than two shits if the long term BTC HODLer is deciding to sell some of his BTC stash over certain kinds of BTC price movements, and surely it would seem that the newer person to bitcoin has to consider it to better in his position to just keep buying BTC for at least one or two cycles and to analyze what he is going to do further after getting through a cycle or two.

In other words, there have always been certain kinds of potential attacks and even known attacks, and unknown attacks and a variety of possibilities, yet bitcoin still has remained amongst the strongest of investments, so surely any kinds of scares about possible attack vectors could help to inform some one about how much to invest (what position size to take), yet it seems quite short-sighted if newbie no coiners or low coiners are choosing completely against investing into bitcoin merely because there could be various weaknesses that might be exploited, and perhaps some of the weaknesses are not currently known.

A lot of folks are going to continue to have fun staying poor because they fail/refuse to take a bitcoin position, and like I mentioned the question about uncertainties should be answered by potentially taking a smaller [position size rather than failing/refusing to take any BTC position, which has tended to be what an overwhelmingly large percentage of the world's population has committed such error and seems to be continuing to commit such error while governments, institutions and status quo rich people are ongoingly buying bitcoin and continuing to cause the BTC price to go up, which causes normies to continue to fail/refuse to take a sufficient and/or adequate bitcoin position.. which like many of us likely realize that it can take 1-2 cycles or more to actually establish a sufficient/adequate bitcoin position, especialy for normies.. many of whom do not have a lot of discretionary income with which to work.


Why would there be any kind of requirement for a beginner to have a lot of cash to start investing into bitcoin?  Why couldn't a beginner start with investing $10 into bitcoin?  And why would they need to be serious?  Surely a person could start to invest into bitcoin with a small amount and build up his seriousness level later and also to build up his amount to invest later too..


Sure.  Both Blackrock and various governments have been and will likely continue to engage in conduct to try to control bitcoin in whatever various ways that they are able to gain some success, yet the mere fact that they are trying to control it does not mean that they are going to be successful, even if they have a lot of tricks up their sleeve, and even historical ways that they have been able to control various other assets.  Bitcoin remains quite unique in the way that it was designed to be difficult to control (don't we refer to that as censorship resistant?), and sure there can be a variety of ways that both governments and/or BIG companies might be able to get their tentacles into bitcoin, yet their achieving some variations of temporary control might not allow them to retain such control, even if we might assume that various aspects of temporary might be achievable in some regions or some types of bitcoin users.

I think that Blackrock itself (and even Larry Fink) is so enamored with bitcoin based on his recognition that bitcoin is a paradigm shifting asset in which some of the old tricks are not going to work, so they have to try to figure out new tricks, and in the meantime, while they are trying to figure out new tricks to try to control it and to manipulate it, they are making a shit-ton of money, so Fink might not even end up giving too many shits if he ended up not being able to control and/or manipulate bitcoin as long as he continued to make a shit-ton of money from his own abilities to both see and to get involved with the power of bitcoin, including that he has been marketing the shit out of both bitcoin and his ETF. .which has been quite financially lucrative for him and his company up until this point.

Another thing that many of us know (including Larry himself) is that a lot of the power of bitcoin comes from the power of self-custody and to transact without anyone being able to stop you.  Sure, he and his company would like to put some limitations on those kinds of things, yet at the same time, he likely realizes that the power (and the value) of bitcoin will be undermined if there were abilities to completely undermine abilities for individuals to be able to transact on bitcoin without having to receive prior permission.

If Blackrock and/or Larry has some opportunity to kill the golden goose, is he going to do it?  Perhaps? perhaps?  The answer is not obvious and also bitcoin is for friends and enemies, the rich and the poor, the privileged and the unprivileged, insiders and outsiders, so I am not going to proclaim that some insiders might be able to see and identify vulnerabilities that normies might not be able to identify, and yet the question still is not clear that they would exploit such vulnerabilities even if they were to see them, even though they might try to manipulate the price in one direction or another based on identifying such vulnerabilities, but they might not even execute any kind of a death knell, even if they were to happen to get themselves into a position of being able to execute such death knell.


I think that most of us, including Larry Fink, recognizes that the power and value of bitcoin comes from individual abilities to transact and to control their own keys, even if smaller and smaller numbers of bitcoin end up being held by individuals (on a percentage basis), and so it can sometimes be difficult to measure exactly how many coins are still controlled by individuals and if they can still move their coins, in the event that the coins had not been moved ever or for a long time (such as more than 10 years).