How so?  That wasn't my intent, I couldn't know that.  But I've also known some that have.

Can you?  I'm drawing a blank on any significant contributor that has (e.g. more than a couple bug fixes or doc changes), it's possible that I'm missing someone but generally no because it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

I didn't say only, but you said they had the smallest.  And that is something you just don't know. I find it doubtful, even just outright false at least for specific examples (knowing of specific parties behind mining operations and exchanges that have had far less relative exposure than specific developers, just as a product of discussing the subject of vol sensitivity, engaging in options trades, etc.)

You can immediately sell your hardware *right now* quite possibly for more than you paid for it.  And power costs dwarf those hardware costs after what... three months of operation?  And plenty of Bitcoin failure modes also leave it perfectly usable-- see also BCash's attempt to take Bitcoin's market position.

You really just have no idea nor any basis to guess.  It's just a unsubstantiated prejudicial assumption.  And for those who do have a substantial interest, it's just plain insulting.  (Just as you seemed to be insulted when you understood my comment as suggesting you didn't-- which I wasn't attempting to suggest).

As an aside, if you're over exposed to the point where you feel fear about it you should perhaps work on balancing it out.  Fear results in poor decisions.

The reality is that lots of people have lots of reason to care about Bitcoin.  Without deeply knowing someone's personal finances you really can't tell what their exposure is-- it's easily the opposite of what it seems.


I can assure you that I've read the entire thread here-- even bits that were tiresome llm spew.  I'd be happy to dig up a clarification or admit my own error if you'd provide more than a self-confident handwave.

Name a party, admit your error, clarify your position, or enjoy a ban from thus subforum.  I don't take kindly to rude gaslighters.

It may well be that you believe there is someone banned from the discussion but have you considered the possibility that you've been lied to by dishonest actors paid to disrupt Bitcoin?  If so, you have my sympathy, but if even if you become a weapon unwittingly you're a weapon none the less.  A sincere participant should want to be informed if they're mistaken.  If you insist on acting like a paid disruption, I'm going to treat you like one.

How so?  That wasn't my intent, I couldn't know that.  But I've also known some that have.

Can you?  I'm drawing a blank on any significant contributor that has (e.g. more than a couple bug fixes or doc changes), it's possible that I'm missing someone but generally no because it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

I didn't say only, but you said they had the smallest.  And that is something you just don't know. I find it doubtful, even just outright false at least for specific examples (knowing of specific parties behind mining operations and exchanges that have had far less relative exposure than specific developers, just as a product of discussing the subject of vol sensitivity, engaging in options trades, etc.)

You can immediately sell your hardware *right now* quite possibly for more than you paid for it.  And power costs dwarf those hardware costs after what... three months of operation?  And plenty of Bitcoin failure modes also leave it perfectly usable-- see also BCash's attempt to take Bitcoin's market position.

You really just have no idea nor any basis to guess.  It's just a unsubstantiated prejudicial assumption.

As an aside, if you're over exposed to the point where you feel fear about it you should perhaps work on balancing it out.  Fear results in poor decisions.

The reality is that lots of people have lots of reason to care about Bitcoin.  Without deeply knowing someone's personal finances you really can't tell what their exposure is-- it's easily the opposite of what it seems.


I can assure you that I've read the entire thread here-- even bits that were tiresome llm spew.   NameI'd be happy to dig up a party,clarification or admit yourmy own error, or enjoy if you'd provide more than a ban from thus subforumself-confident handwave.  I don't take kindly to rude gaslighters.

Name a party, admit your error, clarify your position, or enjoy a ban from thus subforum.  I don't take kindly to rude gaslighters.

It may well be that you believe there is someone banned from the discussion but have you considered the possibility that you've been lied to by dishonest actors paid to disrupt Bitcoin?  If so, you have my sympathy, but if even if you become a weapon unwittingly you're a weapon none the less.  A sincere participant should want to be informed if they're mistaken.  If you insist on acting like a paid disruption, I'm going to treat you like one.

How so?

How so?