Comments by FTS (page 4)

"this is an uninvestable asset class" -An "uninvestable" asset class that reached over 1 trillion USD market cap, legal tender in two sovereign nations, significantly owned by one of the largest corporations in history (TSLA), and owned by the likes of Tim Cook, Mark Cuban, Bill Miller, Gary Gensler (chief of SEC), Paul Tudor Jones, Elon Musk, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. etc. etc., along with 46 million Americans, and well over 100 million people around the globe. An "uninvestable" asset class that has basically replaced fiat currency in Nigeria. An "uninvestable" asset class that is backed by the Human Rights Foundation because of the economic freedom that it provides to people under authoritarian regimes. An "uninvestable" asset class that is serving to balance the electrical grid in Texas to prevent blackouts. An "uninvestable" asset class that is the hardest form of money that humanity has ever discovered. "BuT iT's NoT aN iNvEsTaBlE aSsEt ClAsS hur de dur" lol

“ I've done approaching hundreds of hours of research into bitcoin and crypto, my opinion on it os very well informed.” -Then explain how it works, in your own words, under the hood. You still haven’t done that. ReasonTV episode: “America Would Be Better Off If Bitcoin Became the World’s Reserve Currency” https://youtu.be/Y0rtBji_yX4

@BitCoinHodler, your argumentum ad hominem is no match for the truth. Cry harder. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUB0tPKWUAM1Sb2?format=jpg&name=900x900

Happy Memorial Day, y'all. Here's some resources to help you learn something (I'm looking at you, BitCoinHodler, ya ignorant fuck). https://assets.website-files.com/614e11526f6630959fc98679/616df63a27a7ec339f5e6a80_NYDIG-BitcoinNetZero_SML.pdf https://global-uploads.webflow.com/61d2416d1d63f07ecbfd010c/627d3c3f5d3ad815883e8036_BPI%20OSTP%20CommentV3.pdf https://batcoinz.com/quantifying-the-potential-impact-of-bitcoin-mining-on-global-methane-emissions-4/ tl;dr-- "Bitcoin mining can eliminate 0.94 + 4.38 = 5.32% of all global emissions. This represents 23% of all global methane emissions: more than half the UNEP’s methane reduction target. Incredibly, discussing the IPCC’s target to limit global warming to under 1.5°C, UNEP recently stated 'The 1.5°C target cannot be achieved without reducing methane emissions by 40-45% by 2030. Reduction of this magnitude would avoid nearly 0.3°C of warming by 2045 and complement long-term climate change mitigation efforts.' That means Bitcoin mining has the potential to achieve half our methane reduction target. That also means that Bitcoin mining has the realistic potential to help humanity avoid nearly 0.15% of warming by 2045. To our knowledge, this can be legitimately claimed by no other technology." "When thinking about bitcoin and the environment we must weigh bitcoin’s own value, its negative environmental effects, and its positive environmental effects. Bitcoin is a $600 billion digital asset, an embodiment and extension of deeply-held American values, and a means of advancing American interests. Proof of work, we have argued, is essential to bitcoin’s value along all three of these dimensions, but like any industry, has environmental impacts. These, we have argued, are often exaggerated due to basic misunderstandings of bitcoin’s protocol. Finally, we have explored the many ways in which bitcoin mining promises to help us confront the challenge of climate change. Mining reduces investment risk in renewables—particularly in advance of grid connection—and acts as a uniquely flexible controlled load resource. Mining has other environmental benefits, including innovative uses of waste heat, safe disposal of used tires, remediation of waste coal, and most of all, methane cleanup on wellsites, farms, and landfills, at scale. Especially in this nascent phase of its development, regulators must be mindful both of bitcoin’s value and of bitcoin mining’s unique and positive contributions to sustainability."

@desertscrub you racist? What’s your problem with dark money? You only like light money? Geez, and they call Bitcoiners white supremacists. Get a load of this guy. P.S. not selling… but I might buy some pizza over Lightning network.

Good job. I thought for a minute that using an encryption key might be slightly too advanced for you. Glad you figured it out.

A special message to Tetradon this Sunday: https://mega.nz/file/JlgQ3CrQ

“ Shit like what FTS just posted is why so many people think crypto is a cult.” -What cult do you know of (besides, in your view, Bitcoin) that has over 100 million members? Using hard, sound money is not a cult, dumbass. Of course, that doesn’t stop some people from acting cult-ish. Of course, the same could be said of other normal activities that some people take to extreme levels. Hell, the US dollar has a pyramid with the Eye of Providence at the top.

“ Microstrategy (noted way up in this thread) stock is down now almost 75% and their margin will be called at the $22,500 level…” -Check your math, or your sources: https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1523996525151539203?s=21&t=iXbyqUAX09xyiXwHB4slCA

The storm has arrived, and I'm going down with this ship. It's been nice arguing with y'all. https://youtu.be/EF1iZH1F40s

Yea, apparently ASCII art doesn't work on this forum. Oh well. Also, it takes a lot of balls to insult people... on the internet. lol. Try to be a little more sophisticated, okay? Just takes a little practice.

"I've never seen someone type so much yet say so little. Bitcoin is terrible for the environment, look up the horror stories of towns letting bitcoin miners into their towns" -You must not read very much. I guess that's why you believe mainstream media headlines... cuz that's all you ever read! LOL $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$' `$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$' `$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$'`$$$$$$$$$$$$$'`$$$$$$! !$$$$$$'`$$$$$$$$$$$$$'`$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$. `$' \' \$` $$$$$$$! !$$$$$$$ '$/ `/ `$' .$$$$ $$$$$. !\ i i .$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$. i i /! .$$$$$ $$$$$$ `--`--.$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$.--'--' $$$$$$ $$$$$$L `$$$$$^^$$ $$^^$$$$$' J$$$$$$ $$$$$$$. .' ""~ $$$ $. .$ $$$ ~"" `. .$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$. ; .e$$$$$! $$. .$$ !$$$$$e, ; .$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ `.$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$. .$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$.' $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ .$$$$$$$$$$$$$! $$`$$$$$$$$'$$ !$$$$$$$$$$$$$. $$$$$$$$ $JT&yd$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. $ $$ $ .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $by&TL$ $ $$ $ $. $$ .$ `$ $' `$$$$$$$$'

"YOU HAVE 3 KEY SUPPORT LEVELS: 1. If it falls below 32,000 2. then it will fall to 17,000 if it goes below 17,000.... watch out for 5000 per coin and return to pre-pandemic levels" -What technical analysis school did you go to? Volume profiler shows support levels at 29300, 27000, 23800, THEN 17000, then a massive support at 12000, then 10000. Perhaps you should show your work.

It brings me much satisfaction to know that I'm living, rent free, in all your heads.

"The very article you posted says bitcoin is very energy intensive. Energy intensive means bad for the environment. This contradicts you saying bitcoin isn't bad." -Okay. I'm going to exercise some patience. Here we go... "The very article you posted says bitcoin is very energy intensive." -Are journalists like the Pope? Are they infallible? Before you start objecting in your mind, note that I'm not arguing, here, that Bitcoin isn't energy intensive; whether it is or it isn't depends on how that term is defined. But let's not be hasty. Please tell me how many journalists you know that have an expert understanding of physics, power grid engineering, economics, game theory, and computer science. How many do you know? I'm guessing zero. The point is that this subject is not so simple and commonplace that one could use an elementary school level of understanding and critical thinking, in the manner that you have (sorry, but it's true), to justifiably come to such a unnuanced conclusion as "Bitcoin is bad for the environment." My point is that you're being kind of an idiot, and you should stop being an idiot because you're better than that. Imagine writing a research paper that only had three sentences--"A journalist wrote that Bitcoin is energy intensive. Energy intensive means bad for the environment. Therefore Bitcoin is bad for the environment." Sometimes journalists write stupid things. More importantly, journalists usually don't have an expert level of understanding of some of the things they write about. Take a look: https://www.demilked.com/stupid-newspaper-headlines/ In particular, take a look at this article from 2017: https://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mining-track-consume-worlds-energy-2020-744036 How'd that prediction turn out? Does Bitcoin mining require energy? Yes, that much is obvious. Does mining use "a lot" or "too much" energy? That depends on one's perspective, as those are relative terms. "Energy intensive means bad for the environment." -Okay, this is where you've demonstrated some obvious laziness. No; "energy intensive" means energy intensive, and "bad for the environment" means bad for the environment. How exactly does one delineate things that are "bad" for the environment from those that are "good" for the environment, anyway? If you stop to think about it, the argument could very easily be made that the worst thing for the environment is humanity itself! After all, if H. s. sapiens never evolved 100,000 years ago, then there wouldn't be any oil rigs polluting the oceans, metropolises that replace vast regions of natural forest and animal habitats, garbage landfills, coal mining, gold mining, global warming, and nuclear bombs! etc. etc. So, if the line of reasoning is "energy intensive means bad for the environment, so we should get rid of it," then you should probably just kill yourself (rhetorical statement; I'm not suggesting that you actually kill yourself), because you yourself are causing far more ecological damage than anything else that occurs in the wild. When is the last time you saw a beaver produce e-waste? But, for the sake of argument, let's set aside the idea of "good" vs "bad". Let's just look at the term "energy intensive." In order to get a feel for what that term means, we could ask the question, "what other industries are 'energy intensive?'" A quick google search could very probably lead you to this pdf from the US Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/industrial.pdf. The very first industry that the EIA characterizes as "energy-intensive" in this report is the food industry. Other energy-intensive industries include pulp and paper, chemicals, refining, etc. So, despite the fact that we set aside the idea of "good" vs "bad," it seems the most important civilization-sustaining industries are energy-intensive and therefore, according to your logic, "bad for the environment," and now we're right back to where we started--that humanity itself is "bad for the environment." One final point that I'll make: how are energy intensive processes that occur in space, outside of Earth's atmosphere, bad for the Earth's environment? What if the inevitable destination of ultra-efficient Bitcoin mining is to use solar power to mine Bitcoin in space? I'm not suggesting that this is going to happen, I'm just pointing out the laziness of your thinking--it is not logically valid to conclude that energy intensive processes are bad for the environment. I suggest you read a little about logic: https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ "This contradicts you saying bitcoin isn't bad." -More elementary school-level critical thinking. Here I will quote what I wrote earlier: "Bitcoin, itself, is neither good nor bad, just like the alphabet is neither good nor bad; it simply is." Bitcoin is just information--a protocol. If anything, you should have written "Bitcoin mining is energy intensive, which is bad for the environment, therefore Bitcoin mining is bad." If you want to think like this, then go ahead, but just because you think it doesn't mean that thought is logical or correct. You might as well try to argue, also, that "fish have gills, gills look like the vents in my air-conditioner, therefore my grandmother's name is Mary." While you're at it, try preaching to the rest of TUSCL that the food industry, metal mining and refining industries, and chemical industries, are all bad, and we should go back to a hunter-gatherer way of life in which our language is merely grunts and hand gestures, and we chase down bison with hand-made spears in order to feed ourselves.

Also, FYI, Bitcoin is now being mined by Fort Worth, Texas, city hall. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/26/fort-worth-tx-the-first-city-in-the-us-to-mine-bitcoin.html “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain

"Its pretty funny because I can say the same thing about you not understanding the tech." -You can write whatever you want, doesn't make it true. The truth is I've spent hundreds of hours studying this stuff from every angle, and I'm a highly technicaly person with a background in computer science, mathematics, and physics. Let's just see how good your understanding is, shall we? "I will elaborate on why I don't think you understand and it is up to you if you'd like to elaborate on why you believe I don't understand it." -Sure thing, see the following comments. "You think bitcoin is good for the environment. It is not." -No, technically and strictly speaking, it is not my opinion that “Bitcoin is good for the environment.” You should try communicating more accurately. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many people who have actually done the research, that the utilization of Bitcoin, by humans, has a net indirect effect of reducing waste, increasing efficiency, and increasing the ROI of renewable energy generating facilities. Bitcoin, itself, is neither good nor bad, just like the alphabet is neither good nor bad; it simply is. "Due to proof of work many different miners have to verify a transaction." -Technically, this is wrong. There is nothing about the proof of work algorithm that requires "many different miners" to verify a transaction. What would have been right, and what you may have meant to write, is “Bitcoin mining is a highly competitive market, and there are many different miners around the world that all compete to create the next valid block of transactions in the Bitcoin ledger.” But, just because many miners work to be the one to verify the next block does not mean that the proof-of-work algorithm requires cooperation of many different miners. Anybody can figure this out if they think for just a minute—who mined the first Bitcoin block? Bitcoin started as a project on a solitary computer. "This means that in order for a transaction to occur, 'a small but not insignificant' amount of energy needs to be be used by computers to verify the transaction. This is different from a Credit card transaction because there is only two servers verifying the transaction(the vendor and your card holder)." -As I explained earlier in this thread, this is not correct because it conflates final settlement with non-final transactions. Comparing credit card transactions to the final settlement that occurs when transactions are recorded in the blockchain is totally inappropriate and inaccurate. The fact is that an arbitrary number of transactions can occur over Lightning, and all those transactions can have final settlement in a single settlement transaction within one block of the blockchain. Consequently, there is no “cost-per-transaction” metric that could reasonably be computed. Also, claiming that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow unique, and that the traditional financial system doesn’t use energy, is laughable. The legacy financial system employs millions of people, who all have to be paid salaries. The legacy financial system requires a tremendous amount of real estate, and computer equipment of its own, all of which needs to be maintained and powered. And, on top of that, the legacy financial system requires the US army to maintain the petrodollar system. “This also makes it so bitcoin's transactions are secure and irreversible. If you ever send bitcoin to the wrong address you are shit out of luck.” -Bitcoin addresses have built-in checksums that makes it astronomically unlikely that a typo would correspond with a valid Bitcoin address. Also, nobody types out the Bitcoin addresses; we copy-paste, or use QR codes. When is the last time you saw a computer make a mistake during a copy-paste of a string of characters? This issue of sending to the wrong address is really a non-issue. “Anyone who has worked in finance knows errors happen. This alone makes bitcoin useless in any serious applications-but I'll continue.” -I guess you don’t really know what you’re talking about, huh? “As a side note- since the verification of the transaction is decentralized (the miners) no central authority (the US govt) can block transactions that they deem to be unacceptable (child porn, animal torture videos, donations to terrorists....etc.)” -That’s correct, just like how they can’t stop in-person cash transactions, they can’t stop money-launding performed by the big banks, and they can’t stop the child porn and animal torture from happening in the first place. If you want a 1984-esque financial system, then go fuck yourself. “This entire topic that FTS created was about how there is a new lightning network which completely by passes these miners verifications. BUT this completely defeats the original purpose of bitcoin.” -Not really, no. Just like how credit cards don’t “bypass” final settlement by the international banks, lightning network transactions don’t “bypass miner verification.” ‘Bypass’ is a poor word choice. Yes, there is no mining involved in the process of conducting a lightning transaction, but to say that the Lightning network completely defeats the purpose of Bitcoin is nonsense. Lightning is a protocol that extends Bitcoin itself; like a branch that extends from the trunk of a tree. Do the branches “bypass” or “defeat the purpose” of the tree’s trunk? “A centralized authority would run the network and transactions would be done off ledger! This is pretty much just regular finance world with extra steps.” -More demonstration that you don’t understand the tech. What is this authority that you’re referring to? Haven’t you heard that Bitcoin and Lightning are permissionless protocols? Anybody can mine Bitcoin, and anybody can spin up a Lightning node, provided they have the computer equipment (which, in the case of a Lightning node, is extremely cheap). No, it’s fundamentally different than “regular finance world.” Anybody can program a Lightning wallet, and anybody can be their own bank, with Bitcoin. Once again, BitcoinHodler/CTLennay has failed to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the Bitcoin tech. In fact, he’s demonstrated the opposite—a misunderstanding. No mention of cryptography, no mention of nodes vs miners, no mention of consensus, no mention of how the miners verify transactions, etc. etc.

Satoshi launches Bitcoin, “Bitcoin is just a neat project on the internet” People use Bitcoin, successfully, on the black market, “Bitcoin is only used by criminals to buy drugs online” Millions of people buy Bitcoin as an investment “Bitcoin is fool’s gold, hardly anybody uses it, it’s not a real currency.” MicroStrategy adopts Bitcoin as its sole treasury reserve asset “Bitcoin was only adopted by one public company.” El Salvador adopts Bitcoin as legal tender “It’s just one country” Central African Republic adopts Bitcoin as legal tender “Central African Republic? Well, that settles it!” . . . 5 more countries adopt Bitcoin as legal tender “Hardly any countries have adopted it as legal tender.” . . . 30 more countries adopt Bitcoin as legal tender “The US still hasn’t made it legal tender, so I’m not gonna use it.” . . . In the year 2040, Bitcoin is the de facto preferred currency in the USA and all developed nations, excluding China “Everybody around me is using Bitcoin, but that authoritarian superpower still doesn’t recognize Bitcoin as legal tender.” Tetradon… short Bitcoin! :-)

@BitcoinHodler, I’ll respond to you in full, shortly. I just wanted to quickly come on here and share some more good news—Bitcoin was adopted by another sovereign nation this week: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/the-central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-as-legal-tender https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20220427-central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-as-legal-currency https://news.yahoo.com/central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-104407031.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-61248809

"I look at bitcoin from an audit/compliance/fraud stand point." -So, your opinion is based on a very narrow point of view, and not formed from first principles. Got it. "It being uncensorable isn't as appealing as crypto cultists think." -Yes, it is. "The currency being deflationary isn't good either." -Bitcoin isn't a national currency, like the Yen, Yuan, and US dollar. Having a deflationary money is good, hence the natural demand for hard money like Bitcoin. If it wasn't good, nobody would buy it. "The best way for people to learn this is to use it and slowly realize it is fools godl." -The reality is the complete opposite. I have used it and it just makes me want more of it. "... my opinion on bitcoin is purely from the technology. The price is irrelevant to me because the technology is just so bad." -This, coming from somebody who doesn't understand the tech--or, at least, hasn't demonstrated such an understanding.

The qualification--that there is no significant liability as a consequence of ownership--was implied. Asshole.

“I would've given the same answer and I have a graduate degree in finance related field.” -This is the saddest comment on this entire website, and it’s comments like these that reduce my faith in humanity. I don’t give a shit what it is—a share of a company, a bond, a tulip, a dandelion, a bitcoin, a standard weight of a precious metal, a car, a diamond, or an IOU to any one of those things—if there is a highly liquid market for that thing, and that thing is consistently trading at $40,000 for months on end, day after day after day… … preferring a price of linen with $100 inked on it, rather than that thing that’s worth $40,000, is basically the same as turning down a $39,900 gift. In my estimation, BitcoinHodler/CTLennay is either an idiot, a liar, or a fraud… or all three. SMH

"I don't get why you care what anyone else thinks of your investments SMH" -Haven't I explained this already? I don't care about your opinions of Bitcoin, I care about spreading misinformation. If there were people on here who honestly believed that the Earth was flat, and was making the arguments for that position on TUSCL, I would be doing the exact same thing that I'm doing here, which is combating misinformation with truth. If you want to privately believe that Bitcoin is a creation of Beelzebub and spreads the herpes virus to all Bitcoin hodlers, then go ahead, more power to you and more Bitcoin for me! Where I draw the line is when you spread lies and deception. "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (<--- There's your religious reference, CTLennay) "FTS cares because he knows he needs more people buying into it for him to make money. If no new suckers are recruited it'll be tough for him to cash in." -I've been waiting for somebody to make this claim. I'm curious, how much richer do you think I will become as a result of a random person on the internet buying $100 worth of Bitcoin? Are you aware of the daily volume that occurs on the Bitcoin exchanges? Do you have any idea how many $billions are traded on a weekly basis? Even if Tetradon or twentyfive were to pour their entire life savings into Bitcoin, it would hardly budge the 5-minute candle on the BTCUSD chart. So, am I really benefiting from spending all this time writing these things on TUSCL? How much do I have to gain by writing all of this? I don't gain any Bitcoins by writing all of this, and the USD-value of my BTC would hardly change as a result of y'all buying any, so that can't possibly be my true motivation. "I get that but he's not making any sales here, he's just hurting his cause" -What is my cause, exactly? Do you think that writing true statements, and identifying false statements, hinders your ability to recognize and believe true statements? If I repeatedly wrote "The Earth is round," would you start to believe that the Earth is actually flat? When I repeatedly write that Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme, do you actually start to believe that Bitcoin IS a Ponzi scheme? If that is what's going on in this thread, then who is really getting hurt by what I'm writing? If all that I write about Bitcoin is true, and you choose to believe the opposite of what I write, then the result is that you end up believing that which is false. Who does that hurt, me or you? Personally, I want to have as few false beliefs, and as many true beliefs, as possible.

Yea, yea. Be patient. I’ve been busy using that degree to earn a living.

"Sorry your fascination with Internet fantasies cannot overcome the light of truth. I don't care what you do little boy, but I can still call it silly and meaningless. It's life experience and you can't buy it." ^^Derogatory word salad.