I am not going to claim to know how to identify the difference between some project that might be good or not so good, and surely since I have already been for years accepting of a framework that building on or related to bitcoin is best, yet maybe there are competing pulls of potential developers who are working on shitcoin variations, instead of pegging their project to bitcoin. So I am not sure if potential developers have been lured into shitcoins based on their own personal monetization concerns, and surely we have been hearing that it is harder to build on bitcoin as compared with building on bitcoin, so I would not know even if there might be ways that some shitcoins might end up getting pegged to bitcoin as second layers, and I know that there have been proposals and suggestions in regards to various ways that shitcoins could get pegged to bitcoin, yet understandably those kinds of proposals have not been gaining too much traction.

Another dynamic is surely a lot of various shit projects (referring to ordinals, inscriptions, runes) had been being built on bitcoin in the last couple of years and really raising bitcoin fees a lot (or at least causing a decent amount of fee unpredictability), yet in recent times the bitcoin transaction fees have been greatly coming down, and surely an additional explanation for bitcoin transaction fees coming down seems to relate to so many large players sucking up BTC supply and then not further transacting (or moving around their coins), so then the number of on chain transactions (and fees) seem to have been coming down a lot - and surely who knows if that is the death of bitcoin, since bitcoin needs onchain fees and transactions in the future, even though currently the block rewards subsidy can still incentivize miners to continue to pump out blocks every 10 minutes.

We can see transaction fees from the last year.. coming down quite a lot...

For sure I would not deny any characterization that bitcoin's value proposition requires on chain transactions, so I would not really know if any attack might be happening or if we are merely in  some temporary phase, and surely there are ways that governments have been disincentivizing peer to peer transaction (taxes, attempts to capture transaction data, and attempts to discourage and/or vilify self-custody), and they have been pursuing developers and businesses that facilitate privacy and various non-KYC modes of transacting, so surely bitcoin's power and value comes from abilities to directly transact, so surely there could be some understanding of the peer to peer transacting kinds of mechanisms, yet even the shutting down of services like local bitcoins seems to contributing to the stifling of peer to peer transactions when folks might also feel challenges to get in touch with each other, even though surely peer to peer circular economies could grow in some communities, but it might be difficult to achieve, even merchants might get scared about how to report  transactions, too...oh and by the way there can be various governmental announcements about various rights of self-custody and things like that, but if there are ongoing stifling of some of the development or abilities of normies to engage in direct peer to peer transaction, then some of the talk is conflicting, since some governments are maybe remaining hostile to bitcoin being transacted directly between folks and without any KYC.


That has been my point for years, which includes nobody should be selling any bitcoin with expectations to buy back cheaper, which largely means that you have to reach a status of overaccumulation first.

If you cannot figure out whether you have over-accumulated bitcoin or not, then you probably have not reached such status.  There are a lot of guys who sell thinking that they can buy back cheaper and/or fail/refuse to appreciate that they have not yet even gotten close to a state of overaccumulation, yet they still sell decent portions of their BTC stash.

By the way, on a related note, I find it difficult to believe that we are not going to end up having another blow off top, because each run seems to advance into states of overexuberance, and why would this time be any different?   I still don't believe in selling with an expectation of buying back lower.. but sure people are going to end up doing  it.


Perhaps stating the obvious, what I find a little disturbing is that a US president engages in such ongoing and incessant peddling behaviors.. .. yet of course, a lot of folks are likely bothered by his persistent gawdiness, which is part of the reason he was elected, since he is notoriously and ongoingly outrageous...Of course, proceeds are going to a good cause..