They are all useless. Even if you could use the WOF, what is the point if you can't withdraw anything?


Check the heatmap, the FUN token transactions are less and less, the only transaction happened on 2 September is a spam transaction.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x12d4017f232ebb4327e8e0082ed4337084bf2e84#analytics

Rest in peace, our money and freebitco.in scammers.

You are totally right with this one - rate cut is not QE? 100%. Textbook says cuts = "normal tool, " QE = "nuclear option." But the market doesn’t read textbooks. When ToolatePowell whispers "cut," degens scream "LIQUIDITY PUMP = MOON!" and dump bags into BTC. Perception > policy.
Double-edged sword? Exactly. If Sept cut = "recession incoming," crypto dumps with stocks. If it = "soft landing," we get a hopium pump........ until the next CPI print.

If they cut then pause (like 2019), crypto chills. If they cut then monetize debt (stealth QE via bond reinvestment), BTC moonshots... but only if it’s framed as "dollar weakness," not "recession panic."
The narrative shifts daily. One hot take: "Cut = growth!"  next day: "Cut = we’re fucked!" Crypto’s a mirror for Wall Street’s mood swings.

My take on this - short-term: Buy the rumor (Sept cut hype), sell the news (post-FOMC dump). Long-term: If the Fed admits they’re monetizing debt ("we’ll hold bonds until 2025"), BTC becomes the only "safe" asset... if it survives the panic selloffs when the S&P cracks.
You’re right,it’s not simple. But in crypto, "calculated move to prevent downturn" = "we’re printing until it breaks."

You’re half-right, but the "overnight hyperinflation" take is paper hands panic.

You nailed here:

• Ponzi? Absolutely. The Fed’s been kicking the can since 2008. Debt > $34T? Interest payments eating 20% of tax revenue? This isn’t economics it’s emergency triage.
• Tightrope walk? 100%. They’re choosing between recession (keep rates high leads to debt implodes) or stealth inflation (cut rates leads to print quietly to fund the deficit). No "soft landing" here is just picking your poison.

Where you’re WILDLY off:

Nah. The U.S. isn’t Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation needs:

• 0% faith in the currency (dollar’s still 65% of global reserves),
• Zero productive economy (U.S. still prints iPhones, chips, and soybeans, and dollars of course),
• Total political collapse (which ain’t happening by next Tuesday).

Reality? We get "meh-flation": 5-8% for years while the Fed slowly monetizes debt. Painful, but not "burn your cash" territory.


Gold? Sure if you want 0 yield and a 30% crash when rates actually drop (see: 2020 example, now trading at ATH).

You’re right about the Ponzi. But screaming "DUMP FIAT NOW" is like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, most people get trampled before they reach the exit. Stay paranoid, but keep your powder dry.

Yo,
Heard the whispers about a possible Fed rate cut in September. Will the ToolatePowell really cut the rate? Is this actually happening, or is the market just jonesing for a dopamine hit?

If it does drop:

Crypto: Bullish short-term (obviously), but what’s the catch? Last time cuts came with "soft landing" FUD. Is Bitcoin just a risk-on asset now, or can it dodge the recession bullet?
Everyone’s screaming "MORE LIQUIDITY = MOON," but hold up-rate cuts is not equal printing presses rolling 24/7. Is this just the start of stealth QE? Or will they actually start monetizing debt again? (Looking at you, U.S. deficit.)
I’m not buying the "this time is different" narrative. If they cut because the economy’s cracking, crypto might get dumped with stocks. If it’s "confidence" cuts… well, we all know how that ended in 2021.

This feels like the calm before either a pump or a dump. But if the Fed flips to full money-printer mode to cover the debt ceiling circus… yeah, we’re in for chaos.

What’s your opinion? Am I paranoid, or is this the setup for "QE infinity"? Or am I missing something obvious?

Not financial advice. Just a degen losing sleep over Fed memos.

I bet this is somebody related to freebitco.in staff or paid to post that here.

You better show us a withdrawal transaction from freebitco.in instead of this win.  You can even win a lambo, or two, what is the point if you can't withdraw the BTC?

Pathetic.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1014868;sa=summary
Current Amount of Posts: 920
Current merit: 122
EARNED Merit in the last 120 days: 1
bech32 BTC Address for payouts: bc1qej2rvuymegzg4aeujmy0f898h0n4ua5z4m97cp

Your channel's been unilaterally closed since Aug 10  way past the 144-block timeout (24h). Funds should be already on-chain. Check:
lightning-cli listfunds | grep "e9f06610044bdc187810ee31a0f2541cd5bce94514c29183213bc0dda53d080c"
If empty, try rescan:
lightning-cli dev-rescan-outputs

Africa's not running a "separate internet"it is just expanding local IXPs (270+ now vs 50 in 2020) and Afri-IX peering. Actual traffic still flows globally: 85% of African internet crosses US/EU cables. Bitcoin doesn't need protocol forks - just local node clusters (like Kenya's BitPesa Nodes running on Safaricom's fiber). Crossover risk? Zero. Bitcoin's P2P network auto-routes via Tor/I2P where needed. Real opportunity: satellite nodes (Starlink coverage hit 92% of Africa in Aug 2025, and going up ). Let's build regional node maps and not hypothetical splits.

The writing style of Nick Szabo is indeed similar to the one Satoshi Nakamoto used, however, there are crucial differences. First of all Szabo has consistently and publicly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto. In a 2014 email to journalist Dominic Frisby, he wrote: "I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it". To New York Times reporter Nathaniel Popper, he stated simply: "I'm not Satoshi". These denials have remained consistent over more than a decade of speculation.

There are differences in the technical implementation as well between Bit Gold and Bitcoin's actual implementation. Szabo's design involved market-based pricing where different units of Bit Gold would have varying values based on their computational difficulty - essentially making them non-fungible. Bitcoin, conversely, implements uniform fungible units with algorithmic difficulty adjustment and decreasing supply rewards.

More significantly, Szabo was primarily a theorist rather than a programmer. While he conceptualized digital currency systems, there's limited evidence of his coding abilities. Bitcoin required sophisticated implementation skills, and as one analysis noted, "it's much easier to run actual software than a design for software " - a quote from Szabo himself that may inadvertently highlight why Bit Gold remained conceptual.

Satoshi Nakamoto's communications with Wei Dai provide strong evidence against the Szabo theory. In early 2009 emails, Satoshi appeared unaware of Szabo's Bit Gold work until Wei Dai mentioned it. Wei Dai explicitly stated: "in Satoshi's early emails to me he was apparently unaware of Nick Szabo's ideas and talks about how bitcoin 'expands on your ideas into a complete working system'".

The timing of Bitcoin's development also raises questions. Satoshi stated that he wrote "all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I wrote the paper". This implementation-first approach contrasts with Szabo's academic background of theoretical papers followed by potential implementation. Additionally, analysis of Satoshi's online activity patterns and technical choices suggests different methodological approaches than those typically associated with Szabo's documented work style.

The linguistic similarities could reflect shared terminology within the small cryptography community rather than common authorship. As early pioneers in digital currency, both would naturally use similar technical vocabulary and reference common concepts. The "smoking gun" phrases identified in linguistic analyses might simply represent standard terminology in cryptocurrency discourse.

Here is David Gerard's article related to this topic:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/12/16/no-nick-szabo-wasnt-satoshi-in-2014-either/

So no, Nick Szabo is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

Real-world peak bandwidth: 98% saturation at 1.5 Mbps upload (per Core v25.0  node logs). Why home nodes choke: Even 100 Mbps connections max out during mempool spikes (e.g. July ETF rush). Dedicated servers? Smooth. But 67% of public nodes run on home broadband (mempool.space 2025 data, hope it is accurate). Tech fix? BIP-325 (compact blocks v3) cuts bandwidth by 40% - live in Core v26.0 (Q4 2025). Let’s build a BTC Scaling Pulse report: I’ll draft metrics (node bandwidth, mempool depth, orphan rates and so on ) if you co-author. First edition by Oct 1?

Why aren't you processing FUN withdrawals? 2 months already and the tokens didn't come and they don't appear in freebitco.in either.

I still think that BTC didn't yet hit it's ATH for this cycle. I see it going to 150k or even 180k before the bear market. Big whales however have other plans, after making good profit with BTC they decide to move to other assets like ETH in order to get even more profits, it is a good sign for the altcoin season, if it will come this cycle as well it will be big, maybe bigger than ever, we will see.

The risk of converting BTC to other altcoins is that you may be forced out of BTC forever, in case it will only grow, leaded by different governments adoption that we are seeing.

Time will show us what the right decision was.

China’s gone, but US mining is MORE centralized (3 pools control 52% hash -Foundry, Marathon, Riot). Bigger blocks = higher node costs = fewer full nodes (2025 Core v25.0 data). Pruning is not equal security; bandwidth is the bottleneck (98% node saturation during peak blocks ). Ordinals reduced spam by pricing block space. Block size increase failed at NYC Summit 2025 - centralization risk > "simpler" myth. Run a node or admit you’ve never synced one and you have no idea what you are talking about.

I bet it is the second one. Now that their FUN Address completely depleted is, I doubt that they will process any withdrawals, ever. Sadly, because I am waiting for almost 2 months already for my FUN tokens.

Another end of era and an ice-cold shower for all of us.

Brace yourselves.

Very nice, thank you for the example. Real adoption will help to popularize BTC into masses.

Riard paused Fedimint work (not LN! ) to focus on Bitcoin Core — his GitHub says "temporary halt". $2.3B volume = real payments (0.5 sat avg fee), not "idle funds." Liquidity auto-rebalances via circular routes — your "exhausted channels" myth died in 2024. LN’s 17k nodes > ETH’s 3 centralized L2 sequencers. Run a node or admit you’ve never used it, I can't comprehend how someone who used it at least once could still spread FUD. 

If I may intervene here, you say mempool empty? That’s success—retail adoption requires low fees (0.1 sat/vB = $0.0005 tx). LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)—show me one core dev calling it "unusable." Fedimint ≠ LN. Your "facts" are recycled FUD from 2017. You oppose a hard fork with bigger blocks as well. Run a node, or are you shilling for ETH?

Wow, thank you for the nice topic, I did some analysis myself with AI and here are some of key point, maybe someone will find them usefull like myself, here is the summary and here are the conclusions:

Key Timeline of Discrepancies
July 9, 2010 - Last "Clean" Satoshi Commit (f32339e)

• This is identified as the last verifiably authentic code from Satoshi
• Commit messages and coding style are consistent with earlier patterns

July 15, 2010 - Suspicious 1MB Limit Addition (a30b56e)

• The 1MB block size limit was added with a deceptive commit message
• This change fundamentally altered Bitcoin's economics and scaling model
• The commit contains coding anomalies and unexplained "magic numbers"

July 26, 2010 - Authorship Changes Begin

• Gavin Andresen starts committing as "Satoshi"
• This suggests account compromise or transfer of control

August 28, 2010 - Final "Satoshi" Commit

• Likely not actually authored by Satoshi Nakamoto
• Represents the traditional "last Satoshi commit" but appears compromised

Evidence of Inconsistencies
1. Commit Message Patterns

• Early Satoshi commits had consistent, detailed technical explanations
• The July 15, 2010 commit had a deceptive message that didn't accurately describe the 1MB limit addition

2. Code Quality and Style

• The 1MB limit implementation contains suspicious "- 10000" magic numbers
• Unexplained version number hacks in the same commit
• These patterns are inconsistent with Satoshi's typical clean, well-documented code

3. Technical Philosophy Changes

• The 1MB limit contradicted Satoshi's original vision of unlimited L1 scaling
• This change transformed Bitcoin from "peer-to-peer electronic cash" to a "digital gold" store of value
• The limit was not mentioned in the original Bitcoin whitepaper

Impact of These Discrepancies
The investigation suggests that Bitcoin's development was compromised around July 15, 2010, leading to:
1. Economic Model Change: From unlimited scaling to artificial scarcity
2. Transaction Capacity: Limited to ~7 transactions/second instead of unlimited
3. Fee Structure: High fees through artificial scarcity rather than negligible fees
4. Use Case Shift: From global payment system to store of value

Forensic Evidence
The repository contains:

• FORENSIC_ANALYSIS.md: Comprehensive technical investigation
• INVESTIGATION_SUMMARY_2025_08_27.md: Summary of discoveries
• Source code with forensic comments: Annotations explaining suspicious code sections
• Modern C++23 refactoring: Preservation effort for the original code

Conclusion
The forensic analysis reveals that Satoshi's commit consistency was compromised around July 15, 2010. The evidence suggests either:
1. Coercion Theory: Satoshi was forced to add the 1MB limit by powerful interests
2. Account Compromise Theory: Satoshi lost control of his SourceForge account

The investigation recommends using commit f32339e (July 9, 2010) as the last authentic Satoshi code, as it represents Bitcoin without the suspicious 1MB limit that fundamentally changed the project's direction.
This analysis challenges the traditional narrative that Satoshi voluntarily added the 1MB limit and suggests that what we know as "Bitcoin" today may not fully represent Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision.

So indeed, I agree with the results of this analysis, Satoshi never intended to limit the block size to 1mb thus forcing high fees and scarcity.

Very interesting, was he forced to implement this limit or did he lost control of the account? What do you think?

You raise some solid points—especially about the control of surplus energy by governments and corporations. That’s a major issue for decentralization in energy markets.

Still, I wonder if there’s room for innovation here. For example, could community-owned microgrids or energy cooperatives play a role in enabling individuals to mine more sustainably? Maybe not full decentralization, but a hybrid model?

Also, while solo mining may not be profitable today, could future developments in ASIC eficiency or Layer 2 incentives make small-scale mining more viable again?

What are your thoughts on wether energy policy or tech innovation could shift the balance in favor of individuals, does this make sense to you?


You are right that miners are energy consumers, not producers. My intention wasnt to suggest that mining generates energy, but rather to explore wether mining infrastructure could be integrated into broader energy systems in a more symbiotic way.

For example, in regions with intermittent renewable energy, miners could act as flexible loads — absorbing excess energy when supply exceeds demand. This wouldn’t make them producers, but potentially valuable participants in grid balancing.

Also, the reuse of mining heat is a fascinating area. Do you think there's potential for mining operations to evolve into multi-purpose setups—like heating greenhouses or homes—especially in colder climates?

Could Bitcoin contribute to the population(settling it and living there) of the arctic?