"increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 5,000,000 shares to 1,005,000,000 shares"

Is there ANY precedent?

Air-gapped hardware wallet with a passphrase mitigates all attack vectors you mentioned.

The Store of Value issue is interesting. You didn't bring it up, but I think the reason no crypto is widely used for transactions is simply that it's easier and more beneficial to the consumer to use a credit card. Zero risk, liability, or interest, works instantly with a tap of a card with no phone/computer needed. Most people, by far, care more about convenience than privacy or sovereignty.

Bitcoin may be "stuck" as a store of value--maybe-- but it is excellent at that, and that is what is most needed today, in most places. Why not spend fiat and save in Bitcoin?

One argument that I've been compelled by, is that Bitcoin is not obligatory for everyone, but it is available to everyone. Not everyone needs to run a node, but anyone can run a node. Likewise if you are using fiat primarily, but save in Bitcoin, you can transact in Bitcoin if you need to, not that you would necessarily choose to for every transaction.

Yes there are attack vectors, but that doesn't mean they will in fact be exploited, or effectively so. I just see it as one possibility, without being an inevitability.

I think we don't really know how the game theory would play out, because even under your hypothetical 6102, you don't know how countries besides the United States would act. We are moving away from a world where the US can dictate such things.

Furthermore a 6102 may just create a black market for Bitcoin. This can make a product more expensive, as the available supply is constrained. Development would move out of the United States, and focus on privacy features.

There are infinite possible futures we could imagine, but I find I have been least successful when I get paranoid about negative potentialities, and most successful when I assume everything will be fine. Living in a bunker is no way to live.

"Number Go Up" (just in it for the fiat).

There is a theory that money must first be a store of value before it can be a medium of exchange. If so, and it is permissionless and decentralized, it stands to reason that more people will accumulate it. However, its value is dependent on it not being co-opted. If it loses decentralization and becomes permissioned, it is essentially worthless. So there is a catch-22 for a sovereign nation who wants to unilaterally control it: they have to pay an exorbitant amount to do so, and then it becomes worthless.

Furthermore, simply owning the money doesn't give one any special rights or privileges to the code (it does allow price manipulation, however). So I'm curious what capture and control mechanisms are you referring to?

Are you perhaps into Monero or, by your tone I would guess BCH?

6102 may be a real threat; it's really hard to say. I'm not worried so much about direct confiscation, as it would be entirely the obligation of the government to prove that you own (and control) any. It could however be made much more illegal to accept it or transact generally.

The common argument, among others, is that this would put the United States at a disadvantage as other countries would shift to using it and de-dollarize.

I don't think you'll find a lot of NGU peeps here. The range is pretty much libertarian to anarchist, or at least those are the outspoken ones. I think most people here want to own Bitcoin, own assets, or spend Bitcoin to get assets.

Off topic-- Do you know people there who use LoRA or other low-power, long-range technologies? What about Starlink?

People who don't have any questions, aren't interested. Giving people answers to questions they don't have, is meaningless.

For me, the main issue with gold is how the fuck do you know it's real? If people could make even a few percent profit by melting it and mixing in some impurity you can't easily detect, they will do so. So to accept a small amount requires sophisticated technology, and to accept a large amount requires all that technology use multiplied by the extraordinary amount of time it would take to test every last gram.

Years ago I thought El Salvador would be a Bitcoin utopia by now; it's clearly not-- if anything Bitcoin may have less acceptance and interest than two years ago.

Bhutan and US States creating Bitcoin reserves is much more interesting to me now. Apparently the world really does need to go through Store of Value phase before Medium of Exchange.

For someone to be harmful, they have to have credibility in the first place. If they don't, it's just "any publicity is good publicity".

And the question is ambiguous. "Worst critic" as in "not good at being a critic"? or "Bitcoin critic who is annoying as fuck"?

Paul is disingenuous. He's so angry the rest of us don't believe his proposal carries "zero risk".

Drivetrains are a convoluted mechanistic circus with delusional optimism. No one wants "Monero on Bitcoin" and no one thinks it's riskless to allow miners to determine which drivechains get to succeed.

Love your show dude! So glad you're here! You have a great quirky show, ask good questions, let people talk a lot, and keep it at a level us plebs can understand.

Honestly I listen to most of the more technical podcasts too, but yours and Bitcoin Audible I think are the two best for trying to help normies and maxis understand what the hell is going on in Bitcoin dev space, and why it's important.

It is not possible to own land or a house. The government you live under is the final "decider" of who controls that property at any given time. They can take it away from you, by force, for any reason. There might not be a law that allows them to now, but there may be in 10 years.

And if you didn't have the government to protect your virtual and temporary ownership of the property, you would have to defend it yourself. Which, while many may fantasize or even act to prepare for this, it is a very stressful way to live.

Bitcoin you can own. Knowledge and skills you can own. Relationships you can "own". But not property, not really.

It will be a long time before any individual pension funds etc has significant MSTR exposure-- probably never. What board is going to put even 5% into what is known to be a high-risk Bitcoin proxy?

You keep talking about non-custodial and self-custody but what you have non-custodially is not Bitcoin.

The fact that you need an essay to explain all of this is telling-- It's too complicated.

I really get where you're coming from, and I have nothing against Liquid per se-- it's a decent way to get some privacy. But teaching someone Liquid before teaching them Bitcoin is very much putting the cart before the horse.

I know you want to give them some sats but Bitcoin is complex enough already. Even if it takes 10 minutes and a dollar to settle, I would much rather send on-chain to a noob. They need to understand the foundations before learning about side chains or even lightning.

Come on dude, they're not morons. I don't use liquid myself but what happened to "everything is good for Bitcoin?"

Only 17969 to go

Biden doesn't get on TV every day and brag about his tariffs.

Trump drives the narratives. That's how he wins.

That's interesting. I thought Goa was full of white tourists and expats, which would drive UP the prices on non-essentials...

Some of these companies accept Bitcoin. If you get a discount and spend Bitcoin for something you need, that's a win. You don't have to save every goddamn sat. Bitcoin is money; if money isn't for spending then it isn't money.

Even if you spend in fiat on something you need, the discount can be applied to buying sats.

Where people lose is by buying things they don't need. That applies ALL YEAR LONG.

LOVE this movie!