Or you can buy some Bitcoin on MEXC with no KYC and transfer it to a new wallet.

But you do you.

You can also light yourself on fire in front of the US treasury, to prove your lack of cuck mentality.

Oooohh.....Big Man Dogmatic in the house.

Literally your only job when it comes to regulators is to make sure they don't notice or care about you.

But go ahead and raise your hand: "over here, over here, I'm not a cuck"

My unsolicited opinion, offered in the spirit of friendly cooperation:

After having extensively studied the history of US financial crackdowns and repression, my conclusion is Coinjoins of any kind are not worth the downstream risk.

If you coinjoin, you are putting yourself in a bucket earmarked for regulatory scrutiny. They WILL be looking at you at some point, in the same way they look at Belize bank accounts, Panama visa cards, and so on.

Better to be a nameless, faceless, clueless bitcoin speculator who lost everything along the way. They understand that, and fits in with their preferred narrative.

Just offering the unsolicited advice to bring along some evidence to back up your theories.

Your feelings of dread and uncertainty about conspiring miners -- THEY ARE OUT TO MAKE MONEY OFF US! -- is not backed by evidence, other than you finding it "weird".

Discuss away. It's fun and entertaining for most people to think about cabals of evil people in shadowy conclaves when a topic is not understood. See: chemtrails.

There is no "they".

The actors who want to use the bitcoin network are different from those who are securing it.

If you are really bothered by this, it would be instructive to first establish that hash rates and fees are historically lock-step correlated. Otherwise this is just usual chemtrails -- FUD -- shitcoin bashing -- etc.

Why is it "ridiculous"?

Voluntary actors wants to send something across the bitcoin network, and are willing to pay for it.

No collusion, no weather fluctuations -- just simple economics, working as expected.

Seriously? what is it for?

That's for you to figure out........for yourself. And nobody else. I've figured it out for myself. And somehow I've refrained from proselytizing about it.

It's like you going up to your neighbor on the frontier and saying, "hey, you know what, you really should SPEND some of your 10 acres because we need....uh.....some VELOCITY with this raw land thing."

This whole argument is a false premise.

There is no convincing reason to spend bitcoin.

It's a myth that we "need to spend it" to create some future economic utopia.

So we don't "all want bitcoin to be used more" as you say. I DGAF how anybody else uses bitcoin and don't think any of you should be telling people how to use it either.

Saylor's future power is not a concern.

It's a paradox. Only underground black market bitcoin will survive the dollar collapse and transition -- all custodial white market bitcoin will be confiscated.

Michael Saylor is irrelevant.

These 140,000 bitcoin end up with the US government. Saylor and his shareholders end up with fiat dollars for that bitcoin, or maybe nothing. It's the government's whim at that point.

It's "Fiat bitcoin".

He will be lucky not to end up in prison.

He uses custodians. Not his keys and all that.

I know people love the guy, and he has insights, but literally the first quote I heard from him in an interview back when he emerged was this:

"Some people have children, I have yachts."

This guy. What a thing to say. He's not a true bitcoiner, or at least not the kind for the long term.

How many bitcoin do you think Microstrategy will have in 5 years?

My guess is ZERO.

Talk about a fat honeypot for the US government. They can have those coins overnight, whenever they want. They'll want them at >$300,000, maybe sooner.

Saylor is not really a bitcoiner, he's a statist.

2 main issues:

-- Bitcoin is not private enough. KYC is only a problem because of chain analysis.

-- if bitcoin succeeds then too much wealth will be concentrated in too few hands. This is, in my opinion, the big limiting factor for bitcoin that is not well considered.

So staking moves offshore.

Big deal.

Who cares.

Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, Swan, Strike -- all your willing KYC collaborators -- still work fine until the US bans crypto, and then they go out overnight.

Bitcoin can't be killed, but it's growth path can be derailed through a coordinated attack by State power.

If fiat morphs into a one-world Global Central Bank Digital Currency -- a clear goal for globalists -- and then bitcoin transactions are banned with that currency, bitcoin is effectively asphyxiated and marginalized.

It would take years to recover as a purely black market currency.

Difficult scenario for them to pull off, but not inconceivable.

"just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one’s house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns." Murray Rothbard

Remember, with bitcoin you are volunteering any tax payment you make. That's their only way to get tax from you. You have to voluntarily give it to them. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable, of course.

The tail emission idea is an artifact of having lived in an inflationary world for an entire lifetime, to this point. Most people, for example Peter Todd, simply can't imagine a world where there is no inflation. It makes them worried about the future.

There is every reason to think that the emergent bitcoin economy will adjust naturally to any and all circumstances, from the bottom up. Not from Peter Todd's top down management ideas.

OK then, I think pretty easy answer to this thought experiment:

We will all have to accept whatever soft changes come along, provided there is no change in the underlying 21 million BTC supply hard cap. The value as a currency and dollar replacement lies there, in this supply hard cap.

You can rage quit over some feature or idea but you'll only hurt yourself.

I get this is a theoretical but isn't it the right answer that you NEVER have to accept a change?

You can just keep running the same node and go with whomever else agrees with you and runs that same code.

And ideally (for me, and those running my same code) that's still the longest chain with the most people and value.