They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
I have a different take on bitcoin, tether, and dollars
Can also speak with authority on nation state violence
"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"
After much investigation and conversations with people on here, I\u2019ve formed a relatively robust theory of what may be happening with Tether.
— Travis Kimmel (@coloradotravis) January 18, 2021
This thread will attempt to lay it out with neutral language for the purpose of discussion.
1/
They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work
For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken
Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,
"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
Piece I wrote is here, but lets stay focused on tether, bitcoin, and dollar for now
https://t.co/nT6gw6Xw6v
They are doing what the CCP does best
Using the US's 70 years of geopolitical power, 10 aircraft carrier battle groups, and GDP strength without having to pay for it
Would be a wasted opportunity by the CCP
CCP doesn't want fair anything, they want to undo the shame of the Opium Wars and treat the West the way we treated them in the 19th century
But don't care, bitcoin could drop to $1k, would just buy more
Privateers running an unlicensed federal reserve branch printing free dollars with the protection of the CCP and fear their displeasure much more than SDNY AUSAs
Tether and bitcoin are nothing
China kills Indians in the Himalayas to keep India engaged there so its navy does not have funds for defenses at the Strait of Malacca
You would too if you graduated in 2007 for the GFC, spent a decade overseas at war while fed and boomers had a party, came back for a pandemic, everything is expensive, and it all feels fake
Then I look at https://t.co/j0Jxx4Xsjs, see my cost of living going up 12% a year, and it is frustrating
Makes the whole traditional financial system feel dirty
But I don't, so I just stay long bitcoin, and will go into other investments when I find ones I think are good value and make sense to me
None of us should because the only thing that protects global trade is violence and that requires dudes like me
Think people get confused about security
Bitcoin being secure isn't the same as shipments being secured
More from Bitcoin
Agree mate. Well done @ttmygh @profplum99 and @nic__carter on a ripping show. Im obviously in the "gold is superior" camp, though I am long #BTC (tiny position). I thought the best/most interesting point of whole debate was raised by @profplum99 regarding the fact that a 1/n
#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n
security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n
made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n
centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
Exceptional listen on #Bitcoin.
— Joseph Skewes (@josephskewes) January 26, 2021
In particular Nic's responses to Mike's aggressive anti-BTC stance.
One dispute with Nic: Even if crypto mail list was best place to announce BTC, if Satoshi wanted fair distribution, surely creating 50% of the supply by Nov 2012 was too fast? https://t.co/e1Hpx4wWOu
#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n
security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n
made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n
centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
