pull down to refresh
53 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 28 Oct \ parent \ on: There Is No Paper Bitcoin bitcoin
sincerely FUCK'EM'ALL, for me they are not different than any bankster.
Think about this: more sats for you siggy.... let them eat shit if they want to play with shit.
Why would I teach those motherfuckers how to self-custody? They deserve to stay in darkness and ignorance.
Bitcoin self-custody is only for the brave!
Always remember my warning:
unfortunately this warning always became true
100% agree with you @DarthCoin
I've followed Fred (unfortunately) since earlier this year when he was telling people he would sell over 50% of his bitcoin in order to buy ETF products instead because of how much he trusted it.
It is a disservice to the bitcoin mission to have people like this advocating for owning pieces of paper IOUs from the corrupt fiat system that bitcoin was made to save us from.
I also watched his video (linked by OP). He makes no argument for there not being paper bitcoin other than, trust me bro. That is it. His entire video is that people like blackrock are too big and too reputable to play games and since they are regulated, of course they will do what they are supposed to.
Search online for how many times blackrock and other wall st banks have been fined by regulators for not doing what they were supposed to do. Now multiply that by 100 because 99/100 times they don't get caught criming.
I have no proof that there is paper bitcoin. But to state there is no paper bitcoin without something like proof of reserves at a minimum (which also doesn't necessarily prove no paper as it doesn't account for liabilities) is simply bullshit.
reply
I see your point, but I think left unchecked guys like Saylor become heroes, and then he starts mocking self custody. The NGUers just want Lambos until they hang around for a while.
reply
They became heroes because too many damn people are giving them attention.
Too many damn influecenrs and podcasters inviting them to talk. Why?
Let them die in their ignorance, make them insignificant.
reply