jraedisch

Wanted to basically write the same thing. It is also the reason, why I (and many others) write less sophisticated one-liners and more really dumb code, than I did 5-10 years ago.

"Frankly, if there were a 'global currency' it would be de-facto something like a massive, well managed ETF fund whereby 'credits' would map to a portion of said assets. It could be anonymous, and maybe transactions could be decentralized - but - there's no getting around mapping the value of the currency or asset to some part of the system, they cannot be independent. And frankly it would need to be 'so huge' that it would imply a kind of Global Central Bank of some kind, which we would never agree upon."

If everyone agrees on putting their wealth into Bitcoin, and then invests them into others, wouldn't that be kind of what you are describing?

Not being able to? Maybe there are cases, where managers cannot buy Bitcoin but can buy stocks.

Ad hominem was not my intent, rather stating, that people try improving Bitcoin every day. It is just the state of the art which does not mean, that things cannot be improved, e.g. by you.

Bitcoin is being actively developed. Maybe you would have good ideas on how to improve the things you critizise if you allowed yourself to think about them.

Bitcoin could be seen as an attempt to introduce a new non-inflationary base currency.

So land it is, since we can both agree on it.

My thesis remains, that "real production value" does not exist, or at least is dwarfed by people "electing" a store of value. Like Tesla, gold or land.

Bitcoin seems to me uniquely suited to become the next store of value elected by the most.

If it does, even land might lose value compared to it.

Volatility might lessen over time, in any case is only a real problem if there is a long-term down trend. Else, just DCA in and out.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, no guarantees.

Yeah, no big players here. /s

Would be interesting to see distributions compared. I imagine it to be similar everywhere: most stuff is owned by not that many people. Only difference: in Bitcoin, they might be different people, thus adding to a better distribution overall.

Also I do not consider ETFs safe at all. If you dislike Bitcoin (which is totally fine), maybe buy gold or land, since ETF composition might change, land and gold might not.

And also Web Assembly with the chance of sharing code between backend and frontend in other languages than JS.

I did not play the original Master of Orion, but absolutely loved the second part.

I started focussing on science (namely Psilons) and only later developed a taste for trying out other strategies/races. I often played multiplayer with friends too, and really liked the laid back atmosphere enabled by turn based strategy.

Spectacle for Window Management on macOS https://www.spectacleapp.com/

Works perfectly and has not changed for a while.

It seems to be superseeded by https://rectangleapp.com/

Just wanted to mention https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/ in case someone did not know it. No 3rd party, no trends, tweets in order, etc..

It does not encompass Bitcoin's feature of being Bitcoin. Should majority of digital wealth ever be transferred to another Technology, I think it is most probable that this transfer is going to be discussed a lot even before it happens in orderly fashion, e.g. by forking or airdropping. Else, most Bitcoin holders probably won't move on.

The last two params are why I like the proposal of Twitter becoming a "dumb" protocol leaving all filtering to the client.

What about Soundcloud and Spotify? Were there more people actively listening to music before the internet? Maybe more that actively listened to full albums, but I find the music community to be pretty vibrant and diverse, albeit in a very stressful situation right now.

I tend to like movies/shows on Rotten Tomatoes, where the critics like the movie less than the other users, e.g. The Orville https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville

P.S.: And audience score should roughly be above 70.

A lot of the goods to be exchanged for bitcoins might be in the "wrong" hands at this moment or will yet have to be produced.

The already existing mining hardware would make attacks easier and more probable, especially considering actors able and willing to operate at a loss.

Both are scarce and easy to pass on.

Hypothetical indeed. Hypothetically, ownership value should be close to sale value.

At the moment I rather see people buying stuff that they think other people might deem valuable in the future, e.g. motivation behind buying TSLA is similar to buying BTC.

Same with every asset, I would think.

HAHAHA, great scam! Flagged.

Exactly.

Public budget is a big part of private companies earnings.

Pretty sure that Bitcoin is the one exception, simply by being first. Thus, it is the single most suited experiment to determine, whether a digital store of value is possible at all, (the argument being that if it cannot be a SoV or can easily be replaced, so can the next, thus none should be entrusted with significant savings).

What's bad about speculation? Or do you mean short term speculation? There are many bitcoins that did not move for many years. I do not get why speculation in ETFs, land/housing and other assets is accepted as normal, and with Bitcoin it is somehow bad.

Whether or not Bitcoin should be worth anything.

What about the Bitcoin ecosystem? Same recommendation?

Keeping cash does not mean one has to keep it at home. You can actually leave it in a safe at the bank and just use the bank as a warehouse.

In this case you have to pay a small fee, but you decrease the amount of cash that can be used for loans, and thus make loans more expensive, leading to better rates for lenders in the future. (At least this is my understanding at the moment - still getting into the topic, so please excuse if I am oversimplifiying.)