Energy. In the case of you getting paid for your labor capital in Bitcoin, it is your human energy, 100% paid to you with no taxes on it (tax on labor capital violates 4th, 5th Amendment individual property rights).
To be "backed", a currency must be directly tradable with whatever it is backed by. That is what "backed by" means. It is common to make the claim that Btc or crypto in general is backed by energy, yet none of those currencies can be exchanged for energy. (not counting paying your electrical bill or buying batteries) Indeed, none of them can be exchanged for anything at all unless both people believe it can be.
In the case of an actual asset, like PMs, there is no worry about whether or not your PMs can be exchanged for something else because they have intrinsic value (value having nothing to do with belief, but rather value that has been given to an asset by Natural Law or the Universe itself). This is not a complicated concept, yet because Olympic level mental gymnastics is required, and the brainwashing so well developed for the True Believers, this concept is very difficult for any Btc proponent to understand, yet the easiest thing in the world for everyone else. The problem is, those who have invested in Btc or other such useless currencies must create belief to justify their often "all in" investment, and thus must miss out on the simplicity of this concept. It is because of this contrived belief that one allows themselves to make up such nonsense as:
Btc is backed by energy
No it is not. Not even in the slightest little bit, or under the most wild contrivance of definitions. You can't trade your Btc for energy in any direct way. There is zero "energy value" there.
What is petrodollar backed by? Oil, a.k.a. ENERGY
Well, I disagree that the "petrodollar" actually existed in the sense this idea is used. It was only a useful concept for countries, not people, and even there, it was total bullshit. Regardless, even assuming that the petrodollar really was backed by oil, the key there is, the petrodollar is backed by Oil, not "energy". Oil has an intrinsic energy property (as the basis of all organic chemistry, it has a lot more value than just "energy"). This energy value, and all of its other chemical properties that make it useful chemical stock for actual physical goods (plastics, pharmaceuticals, tire rubber, etc., etc.) are properties given to it by the Universe. Those properties can't be taken away by changing belief. They are fundamental AKA intrinsic. Btc on the other hand has no properties like that, nor can it be directly exchanged for something like that ("backed by").
Do you see the difference? The petrodollar is backed byactual physical usable assets. Btc takes energy to make. That energy is lost to entropy forever. There is no backing there. You can't get it back to do future work. The mining of Btc is the work. That work is now done and lost. We had energy, which was positive, the mining happens, and the "total energy column" is now a loss. That loss is called "backed by" by Btc proponents. That is what mental gymnastics looks like, in this case a lie that a loss of a thing is a gain, or storage, of a thing.
It is utter nonsense, and yet smart people are still confused by this simple concept.
That is the power of bias; the need for black to be white because of the potential for personal loss . When you build your house on sand, you need to believe the ocean, sitting 50 feet away, will never rise high enough to take out your foundation. It doesn't matter that that's not how things actually work--eventually there will be a storm--what matters is the investment. The cost of being wrong is so high that people literally stick their head in the sand to try to protect themselves from their inevitable doom.
Most correctly it is CONVERSION from energy to a infinitely divisible, but finite quantity software (digital) asset that can be moved to any cyber or physical location with nearly zero cost. This may be as close as we ever get to actually carrying around a packet of actual energy (or energy equivalent) in our pockets for anything other than gold/silver coins (which I also advocate for). Direct conversion back to energy is possible if one uses Bitcoin to buy physical assets that have energy resources without intermediate conversion to $. BRICs is working on one of these mechanisms now.
Gabriel's horn paradox discussion and the details of how it works in sections 5.11.2 through 5.11.3 in Softwar are quite mindblowing. I am still processing and re-reading to understand the actual functional mechanisms.
I use the multiple bucket strategy of cash, land, silver, Bitcoin, and silver/bitcoin/shorted stocks. Note that you can hold MSTR, MARA, and TSLA stocks self-custody at transfer agent. These three are 1,2,4 in terms of Bitcoin held on the balance sheet. This is the current best workaround of Bitcoin exchange transfer to private wallet restrictions (KYC bullshit), IMO.
Most correctly it is CONVERSION from energy to a infinitely divisible, but finite quantity software (digital) asset that can be moved to any cyber or physical location with nearly zero cost.
This is the description of a technology, not a currency. I agree that the technology can be used as an aid to create a currency. It can be used to create all sorts of currencies. It can even be used as an accounting device (currency) to back actual assets. The confusion comes from conflating a technology with a currency. Btc is not a currency except through the beliefs created by a literal ponzi scam that convinces people that it is.
This may be as close as we ever get to actually carrying around a packet of actual energy
Completely false statement. Btc is not a storage of energy. No matter how you are carrying your crypto, you are NOT carrying energy. This statement is utter nonsense and has not one iota to do with reality.
Direct conversion back to energy is possible if one uses Bitcoin to buy physical assets that have energy resources
That is NOT "conversion back to energy," that is convincing someone who has batteries for sale to take part in your scam.
If I hold silver and I find someone who wants the physical properties that silver has (for electronics, or making jewelry, or heat conduction engineering, or they just find it pretty, etc.) I don't have to convince anyone of anything, they will just trade me for it. The value is already there.
Btc doesn't have a single drop of that type of value; it is utterly worthless. Just because you have True Believers drinking the Kool-Aid doesn't mean the Kool-Aid isn't poison. The MOMENT there exists a crypto that is backed by a real asset and it really works as a real asset exchange, with all the necessary conveniences for a currency, Btc and all of their ilk will crash as fast and hard as a 3 year old trying to drive a semi.
Btc and their ilk fulfill a need and they use a technology to do it. That tech is cool stuff. I am a proponent. But the tech can be tied to real assets. Once that happens, people won't have to lie to themselves (and everyone else) about it's value.
I feel like DC is created out of think air. Let a computer run to “mine” a currency. The people that set this currency up what are they getting out of it all? You don’t set up something complicated that a computer has to solve without pocketing part of the coins yourself to get people to buy or trade you for a product and it has no real value except what you convince someone it has. Maybe we all need to make our own currency and mine it ourselves it will just cost us some $ on our power bill
All reasonable arguements. As you are implying here: Not all of the pieces are yet in place to allow Bitcoin to fully function as a currency as easily and fluidly as standard currency like a silver coin. The key questions to consider are: Does Bitcoin represent a store of value (dollar terms), and will it continue to increase in value (dollar terms) for logical, non-speculative reasons related to how it actually functions relative to the Bitcoin network (and hashrate)?
It does have value. The value is all of the energy consumed to create the Bitcoin, but also all the energy required to try and attack or hack the nodes and algorithm. This is represented by the hashrate. Hashrate keeps growing until it cannot be reasonably attacked by a single bad actor. We are already at the point where all Bitcoin miners and users worldwide would have to work together to pooling ALL of their energy to even try to attack the Bitcoin network. It appears to have reached a critical thresh-hold now, which allows for development of the rest of the mechanisms needed to turn it into a typical currency.
Bitcoin becomes worthless (temporarily?) if all of the world's energy grids AND every node of the internet gets destroyed at the same time (this is mathematically represented by the current hashrate). Given the power of nuclear weapons, this is not impossible now, but it will be very soon. Think about that. Even deployment of all the world's nuclear weapons simultaneously to destroy the Bitcoin network and world's energy grids will soon not be enough energy to fully stop it. It is a virtual SkyNET energy weapon system when fully deployed, but being deployed to save humanity rather than to destroy us. You may not fully understand this until you read section 5.10 of Softwar.
Bitcoin is much more than a currency based on my reading of "Softwar". Many are missing some of the other aspects of how it can be "weaponized" to make typical kinetic warfare obsolete. This is likely the longer term mission of why it was created.
It is much more reasonable to expect silver/gold coins and/or silver certificates to fullfill the "replacement currency" or "currency backing" in the short to medium term, but Bitcoin is likely the next iteration after that once fully developed. Many of the potentials related to currency have yet to happen, but they are clearly sitting there ready and waiting when humanity is ready for it. This appears to be the purpose of how it was created. Foundation first. The roof comes later.
Good explanation, buy try again for us uneducated backwoods living hillbillies. I can break down the individual words but the concepts you are espousing is way over my head. Thanks.
Work, labor, effort, human energy expenditure (all labor capital) is done in exchange for something else of value. Right now that “other thing of value” it is US dollar backed by buying/selling of petroleum (exclusively done in dollars until recently) which is used to produce all things in all economies worldwide. US dollar is “energy-backed store of value” you accept in exchange for your “expenditure of human energy”.
Bitcoin (finite supply) is created worldwide on decentralized network nodes using machine labor, run by decentralized worldwide energy grid from various sources: coal, oil, nuclear, etc. The natural resources run computers to solve equations (proof-of-work), converting energy directly into “energy-backed encrypted software” instead of US dollars.
You have proof you did work to generate labor capital that you own 100% (no gov’t middleman). You “get paid” in a finite currency that cannot be duplicated or printed into oblivion because proof-of-work via energy expenditure is required for each additional unit and energy cannot just “be created at the touch of the keyboard” by Federal Reserve without doing any work.
End result is proper price for human labor (paid in energy equiv) and continuously decreasing prices for EVERYTHING as purchasing power ALWAYS increases. Inflation does not exist because Bitcoin (currency) cannot be debased because it is impossible to create fake energy or unlimited Bitcoin.
Yes Anon. I think it’s the physical part. No matter how much Bitcoin I have on the blockchain, I can never hold it in my hand. And an EMP could, “could” potentially delete it and all records.
But a physical coin, dollar, or Bond in my hand is physically able to be held, hidden, and saved or spent outside any digital/blockchain/EMP destruction control.
It’s the tangible physical ownership like a car or a house or a toy or a tree in your yard. You can tangibally trade/sell things like that or not. But Bitcoin on a computer/blockchain can NEVER become physically tangible to hide/save/spend off the range/grid, without a record of a prying eye or possibility of EMP loss.
That’s what I think is the base frustration over even the Patriots wanting a digital currency over a physical currency.
Bitcoin is not nor ever will be 100% in my control. But my Silver Dollar or quarter, $100 Bond or Bill is physical and I can take it off the grid to do as I please. That’s what is trying to be debated.
And I get it. I’m one that wants both tangible cash equal to digital cash/crypto. But I can always exchange between the two at any moment, forever. And if the power goes out or there is an EMP, I want the option to still have physical cash that is the value of what it says on its face for trade.
^^THIS is the current battle. Even Bitcoin exchanges currently using bullshit KYC "digital ID verification" method which violates 4th and 5th Amendment prohibition on placing restrictions on individual property. They are implement quid-pro-quo policy of virtual digital ID where if you want to transfer to a private wallet they try to force you into the KYC process (which is basically a digital ID) in order to tie all Bitcoin transfers to your identity and keep track of where it is going, which is unlawful.
Workarounds via alternative peer-to-peer Bitcoin buying/selling are possible until they all get shutdown. I am working these now. Note that you only need 1 Bitcoin to be in top 1% of Bitcoin holders worldwide. This is my objective, and I was very close before exchanges started blocking my purchases and transfers last year due to "noncompliance" with their unconstitutional digital ID "policy". I am giving them all hell over it now.
It is not just physical. It is anonymous (self-custody) physical. Two big hurdles that are inter-related with Bitcoin and private wallets.
The weakness on pure metals is not knowing the exact supply. It seems like the method they were able to use to get us off those standards was by both having a very significant initial amount in hand, and leveraging that + legislation/bribes/threats/assassinations to defeat price discovery in the largest markets and further consolidate control.
The advantage of having Bitcoin on top of that is being able to leverage it to validate actual available amounts. Perhaps gold and silver could be verified and coated with an NFT as part of its trade protocol in such a way that anyone could verify it and know it’s legitimate using a fairly inexpensive machine.
Bitcoin would need to have a LOT of nodes taken out and corrupted simultaneously in order to take out the whole network.
It seems like a good security measure, though as with all things, having multiple options to back work with energy is better than having one. Maximal distributed points of failure that can all fail independently without taking down the whole grid.
And if its network is hosted and backed up in space… then so long as space is protected by say.. a Space Force, it could be very, very tricky to take the whole thing down or corrupt it. It would make it harder to steal large amounts of metals, as their owner would be known. It would make it hard to corruptly spend many types (not all) of currency. You would be able to “upload” your gold to Bitcoin, and spend it in another country, without needing to carry around the weight and risk losing it in an accident.
And there are always offline cold storage Bitcoin wallets. Lots of good options presented.
Energy. In the case of you getting paid for your labor capital in Bitcoin, it is your human energy, 100% paid to you with no taxes on it (tax on labor capital violates 4th, 5th Amendment individual property rights).
See KEY Section 5.10 in “Softwar”. Power projection by the individual using Proof-of-Work energy converted to “encrypted software” that can be deployed anywhere at anytime asymmetrically on even your most powerful foe: https://greatawakening.win/p/17txMS5XJ1/amazon-has-removed-the-ability-t/c/
What is petrodollar backed by? Oil, a.k.a. ENERGY
What is gold backed by? Human/machine labor to extract/refine, a.k.a. ENERGY
What are other currencies backed by? Nation of human/machine labor to extract minerals/resources and produce products and services, a.k.a. ENERGY
To be "backed", a currency must be directly tradable with whatever it is backed by. That is what "backed by" means. It is common to make the claim that Btc or crypto in general is backed by energy, yet none of those currencies can be exchanged for energy. (not counting paying your electrical bill or buying batteries) Indeed, none of them can be exchanged for anything at all unless both people believe it can be.
In the case of an actual asset, like PMs, there is no worry about whether or not your PMs can be exchanged for something else because they have intrinsic value (value having nothing to do with belief, but rather value that has been given to an asset by Natural Law or the Universe itself). This is not a complicated concept, yet because Olympic level mental gymnastics is required, and the brainwashing so well developed for the True Believers, this concept is very difficult for any Btc proponent to understand, yet the easiest thing in the world for everyone else. The problem is, those who have invested in Btc or other such useless currencies must create belief to justify their often "all in" investment, and thus must miss out on the simplicity of this concept. It is because of this contrived belief that one allows themselves to make up such nonsense as:
No it is not. Not even in the slightest little bit, or under the most wild contrivance of definitions. You can't trade your Btc for energy in any direct way. There is zero "energy value" there.
Well, I disagree that the "petrodollar" actually existed in the sense this idea is used. It was only a useful concept for countries, not people, and even there, it was total bullshit. Regardless, even assuming that the petrodollar really was backed by oil, the key there is, the petrodollar is backed by Oil, not "energy". Oil has an intrinsic energy property (as the basis of all organic chemistry, it has a lot more value than just "energy"). This energy value, and all of its other chemical properties that make it useful chemical stock for actual physical goods (plastics, pharmaceuticals, tire rubber, etc., etc.) are properties given to it by the Universe. Those properties can't be taken away by changing belief. They are fundamental AKA intrinsic. Btc on the other hand has no properties like that, nor can it be directly exchanged for something like that ("backed by").
Do you see the difference? The petrodollar is backed by actual physical usable assets. Btc takes energy to make. That energy is lost to entropy forever. There is no backing there. You can't get it back to do future work. The mining of Btc is the work. That work is now done and lost. We had energy, which was positive, the mining happens, and the "total energy column" is now a loss. That loss is called "backed by" by Btc proponents. That is what mental gymnastics looks like, in this case a lie that a loss of a thing is a gain, or storage, of a thing.
It is utter nonsense, and yet smart people are still confused by this simple concept.
That is the power of bias; the need for black to be white because of the potential for personal loss . When you build your house on sand, you need to believe the ocean, sitting 50 feet away, will never rise high enough to take out your foundation. It doesn't matter that that's not how things actually work--eventually there will be a storm--what matters is the investment. The cost of being wrong is so high that people literally stick their head in the sand to try to protect themselves from their inevitable doom.
Most correctly it is CONVERSION from energy to a infinitely divisible, but finite quantity software (digital) asset that can be moved to any cyber or physical location with nearly zero cost. This may be as close as we ever get to actually carrying around a packet of actual energy (or energy equivalent) in our pockets for anything other than gold/silver coins (which I also advocate for). Direct conversion back to energy is possible if one uses Bitcoin to buy physical assets that have energy resources without intermediate conversion to $. BRICs is working on one of these mechanisms now.
Gabriel's horn paradox discussion and the details of how it works in sections 5.11.2 through 5.11.3 in Softwar are quite mindblowing. I am still processing and re-reading to understand the actual functional mechanisms.
I use the multiple bucket strategy of cash, land, silver, Bitcoin, and silver/bitcoin/shorted stocks. Note that you can hold MSTR, MARA, and TSLA stocks self-custody at transfer agent. These three are 1,2,4 in terms of Bitcoin held on the balance sheet. This is the current best workaround of Bitcoin exchange transfer to private wallet restrictions (KYC bullshit), IMO.
This is the description of a technology, not a currency. I agree that the technology can be used as an aid to create a currency. It can be used to create all sorts of currencies. It can even be used as an accounting device (currency) to back actual assets. The confusion comes from conflating a technology with a currency. Btc is not a currency except through the beliefs created by a literal ponzi scam that convinces people that it is.
Completely false statement. Btc is not a storage of energy. No matter how you are carrying your crypto, you are NOT carrying energy. This statement is utter nonsense and has not one iota to do with reality.
That is NOT "conversion back to energy," that is convincing someone who has batteries for sale to take part in your scam.
If I hold silver and I find someone who wants the physical properties that silver has (for electronics, or making jewelry, or heat conduction engineering, or they just find it pretty, etc.) I don't have to convince anyone of anything, they will just trade me for it. The value is already there.
Btc doesn't have a single drop of that type of value; it is utterly worthless. Just because you have True Believers drinking the Kool-Aid doesn't mean the Kool-Aid isn't poison. The MOMENT there exists a crypto that is backed by a real asset and it really works as a real asset exchange, with all the necessary conveniences for a currency, Btc and all of their ilk will crash as fast and hard as a 3 year old trying to drive a semi.
Btc and their ilk fulfill a need and they use a technology to do it. That tech is cool stuff. I am a proponent. But the tech can be tied to real assets. Once that happens, people won't have to lie to themselves (and everyone else) about it's value.
I feel like DC is created out of think air. Let a computer run to “mine” a currency. The people that set this currency up what are they getting out of it all? You don’t set up something complicated that a computer has to solve without pocketing part of the coins yourself to get people to buy or trade you for a product and it has no real value except what you convince someone it has. Maybe we all need to make our own currency and mine it ourselves it will just cost us some $ on our power bill
All reasonable arguements. As you are implying here: Not all of the pieces are yet in place to allow Bitcoin to fully function as a currency as easily and fluidly as standard currency like a silver coin. The key questions to consider are: Does Bitcoin represent a store of value (dollar terms), and will it continue to increase in value (dollar terms) for logical, non-speculative reasons related to how it actually functions relative to the Bitcoin network (and hashrate)?
It does have value. The value is all of the energy consumed to create the Bitcoin, but also all the energy required to try and attack or hack the nodes and algorithm. This is represented by the hashrate. Hashrate keeps growing until it cannot be reasonably attacked by a single bad actor. We are already at the point where all Bitcoin miners and users worldwide would have to work together to pooling ALL of their energy to even try to attack the Bitcoin network. It appears to have reached a critical thresh-hold now, which allows for development of the rest of the mechanisms needed to turn it into a typical currency.
Bitcoin becomes worthless (temporarily?) if all of the world's energy grids AND every node of the internet gets destroyed at the same time (this is mathematically represented by the current hashrate). Given the power of nuclear weapons, this is not impossible now, but it will be very soon. Think about that. Even deployment of all the world's nuclear weapons simultaneously to destroy the Bitcoin network and world's energy grids will soon not be enough energy to fully stop it. It is a virtual SkyNET energy weapon system when fully deployed, but being deployed to save humanity rather than to destroy us. You may not fully understand this until you read section 5.10 of Softwar.
Thank you u/Slyver - Beautifully and intelligently articulated - with poise and tact.
I'd say something with similar points, but it would come out "real shitty".
Thanks for using your gifts as the voice of reason.
Bitcoin is much more than a currency based on my reading of "Softwar". Many are missing some of the other aspects of how it can be "weaponized" to make typical kinetic warfare obsolete. This is likely the longer term mission of why it was created.
It is much more reasonable to expect silver/gold coins and/or silver certificates to fullfill the "replacement currency" or "currency backing" in the short to medium term, but Bitcoin is likely the next iteration after that once fully developed. Many of the potentials related to currency have yet to happen, but they are clearly sitting there ready and waiting when humanity is ready for it. This appears to be the purpose of how it was created. Foundation first. The roof comes later.
Good explanation, buy try again for us uneducated backwoods living hillbillies. I can break down the individual words but the concepts you are espousing is way over my head. Thanks.
Work, labor, effort, human energy expenditure (all labor capital) is done in exchange for something else of value. Right now that “other thing of value” it is US dollar backed by buying/selling of petroleum (exclusively done in dollars until recently) which is used to produce all things in all economies worldwide. US dollar is “energy-backed store of value” you accept in exchange for your “expenditure of human energy”.
Bitcoin (finite supply) is created worldwide on decentralized network nodes using machine labor, run by decentralized worldwide energy grid from various sources: coal, oil, nuclear, etc. The natural resources run computers to solve equations (proof-of-work), converting energy directly into “energy-backed encrypted software” instead of US dollars.
You have proof you did work to generate labor capital that you own 100% (no gov’t middleman). You “get paid” in a finite currency that cannot be duplicated or printed into oblivion because proof-of-work via energy expenditure is required for each additional unit and energy cannot just “be created at the touch of the keyboard” by Federal Reserve without doing any work.
End result is proper price for human labor (paid in energy equiv) and continuously decreasing prices for EVERYTHING as purchasing power ALWAYS increases. Inflation does not exist because Bitcoin (currency) cannot be debased because it is impossible to create fake energy or unlimited Bitcoin.
Yes Anon. I think it’s the physical part. No matter how much Bitcoin I have on the blockchain, I can never hold it in my hand. And an EMP could, “could” potentially delete it and all records.
But a physical coin, dollar, or Bond in my hand is physically able to be held, hidden, and saved or spent outside any digital/blockchain/EMP destruction control.
It’s the tangible physical ownership like a car or a house or a toy or a tree in your yard. You can tangibally trade/sell things like that or not. But Bitcoin on a computer/blockchain can NEVER become physically tangible to hide/save/spend off the range/grid, without a record of a prying eye or possibility of EMP loss.
That’s what I think is the base frustration over even the Patriots wanting a digital currency over a physical currency.
Bitcoin is not nor ever will be 100% in my control. But my Silver Dollar or quarter, $100 Bond or Bill is physical and I can take it off the grid to do as I please. That’s what is trying to be debated.
And I get it. I’m one that wants both tangible cash equal to digital cash/crypto. But I can always exchange between the two at any moment, forever. And if the power goes out or there is an EMP, I want the option to still have physical cash that is the value of what it says on its face for trade.
^^THIS is the current battle. Even Bitcoin exchanges currently using bullshit KYC "digital ID verification" method which violates 4th and 5th Amendment prohibition on placing restrictions on individual property. They are implement quid-pro-quo policy of virtual digital ID where if you want to transfer to a private wallet they try to force you into the KYC process (which is basically a digital ID) in order to tie all Bitcoin transfers to your identity and keep track of where it is going, which is unlawful.
Workarounds via alternative peer-to-peer Bitcoin buying/selling are possible until they all get shutdown. I am working these now. Note that you only need 1 Bitcoin to be in top 1% of Bitcoin holders worldwide. This is my objective, and I was very close before exchanges started blocking my purchases and transfers last year due to "noncompliance" with their unconstitutional digital ID "policy". I am giving them all hell over it now.
It is not just physical. It is anonymous (self-custody) physical. Two big hurdles that are inter-related with Bitcoin and private wallets.
The weakness on pure metals is not knowing the exact supply. It seems like the method they were able to use to get us off those standards was by both having a very significant initial amount in hand, and leveraging that + legislation/bribes/threats/assassinations to defeat price discovery in the largest markets and further consolidate control.
The advantage of having Bitcoin on top of that is being able to leverage it to validate actual available amounts. Perhaps gold and silver could be verified and coated with an NFT as part of its trade protocol in such a way that anyone could verify it and know it’s legitimate using a fairly inexpensive machine.
Bitcoin would need to have a LOT of nodes taken out and corrupted simultaneously in order to take out the whole network.
It seems like a good security measure, though as with all things, having multiple options to back work with energy is better than having one. Maximal distributed points of failure that can all fail independently without taking down the whole grid.
And if its network is hosted and backed up in space… then so long as space is protected by say.. a Space Force, it could be very, very tricky to take the whole thing down or corrupt it. It would make it harder to steal large amounts of metals, as their owner would be known. It would make it hard to corruptly spend many types (not all) of currency. You would be able to “upload” your gold to Bitcoin, and spend it in another country, without needing to carry around the weight and risk losing it in an accident.
And there are always offline cold storage Bitcoin wallets. Lots of good options presented.