Short for Mayanaise? :p:p

Enabling drug dealers has always been bitcoins primary use case

‘You’re 100% right about this and I accept full responsibility.’

That’s true but long term hodlers also age out of their bodies, or lose their keys. So the percentage of longterm holders that are both interested and able to sell could be going up despite the percentage amount of sats moved falling.

Fair point, it can’t. But it can make any movement of sats reportable, and require all held bitcoin to be kyc’d, and impose criminal penalties for non compliance, as it has done. Bitcoin can exist but can’t be used legally. See China for example.

That’s just using words to try to argue against a reality that is what you’re saying can’t happen. If US regulators can control access, preference, stamp coins, coerce miners and exchanges it is a cbdc in all but name. And if they go really far, they can effectively issue more coins through a hard fork or potential control of pools/ hash power. The onus would be on the forked/ outhashed minority to establish their version of bitcoin as the real one, when the exchanges, miners, pools, treasuries and regulators are all against them. This wouldn’t be an easy fight and you could argue it would be an unwinnable one.

Every mode of transport can fly if you put enough explosives under it

That’s a good writeup. Which way do you think you lean? And then if you say overanalysis, what tribes would you be okay with offloading a bit of your cognitive load to sometimes?

Thought nobody wanted to hear of the evening: bitcoin isn’t about money. It’s about mortal people tying their identities so closely to something that might last a very long time and feeling a little bit less mortal.

The sycophant clickbait has arrived