Bessent Red pill wallet coms...
(twitter.com)
Comments (54)
sorted by:
If this is possible how is crypto any better than FIAT?
The crypto was on a public exchange which is like having your money in a bank and not your own safe.
Not your keys, not your crypto.
Super simple stuff.
For some people maybe. You can tell it isn't simple to most, because if it were, then there probably wouldn't be so many anons that find it anywhere from challenging to impossible to understand.
The same can be said for people that have never used a smartphone or multiple other categories of tech.
The issue is that the people that have no experience or idea of what they are talking about tend to be the people offering up opinions on those things based on their misconceptions.
Then there's the fact that anyone could watch a 10 min YT video and get a better understanding of crypto than 90% of people that have never used it... BEFORE offering an opinion on it.... But most people don't.
There will always be idiots that try to speak on subjects they don't understand in any are of life. That's the real problem.
Let me tell you what it means to be simple:
If I have silver, and you have land, or bread, or a car, etc., I can trade my silver for your real asset if we agree on the amounts. Similarly for gold and any other real asset. That's because these assets have intrinsic value. It's value is not ambiguous, it is as clear as a fucking golden bell.
For anything that doesn't have real value, like FRNs, or BTC, or any other nonsense where you have to explain HOW it has value, it's nothing but a FUCKING PSYOP.
It's really THAT SIMPLE.
That actually is simple, and so am I. It's why I own no crypto even though Trump loves it and two of his sons have a crypto company of some sort.
The argument that "crypto is not a viable asset because it isn't backed by anything" is one of those claims that sounds profound right up until you ask what exactly backs the U.S. dollar.
The answer used to be gold. Now the answer is essentially, "trust us." The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of a government that is $30+ trillion in debt and creating new currency units faster than rabbits produce offspring. If "backed by something" is the standard, fiat currency is standing on thinner ice than its critics would like to admit.
A good currency has traditionally been judged by six core characteristics:
Crypto performs remarkably well on all six.
Durability? Bitcoin does not rust, burn, rot, or wear out.
Portability? You can move millions of dollars across the world in minutes without armored trucks, bank holidays, or permission slips from bureaucrats.
Divisibility? A single Bitcoin can be divided into 100 million satoshis.
Uniformity? Every Bitcoin is identical to every other Bitcoin, just as every dollar is supposed to be.
Scarcity? This is where Bitcoin particularly shines. There will only ever be 21 million. Nobody can wake up one morning and decide to print another few trillion because Congress has expensive hobbies.
Acceptability? Millions of individuals, businesses, institutions, and even governments now recognize and use crypto. Acceptability grows wherever people voluntarily choose it.
Notice the irony. The one characteristic fiat currency struggles with most is scarcity. Governments are structurally incentivized to create more currency. Bitcoin is structurally designed to prevent it.
Critics often say crypto is too volatile to be money. Fair enough. New technologies frequently experience volatility during adoption. The internet stocks of the 1990s were volatile. Railroads were volatile. Oil companies were volatile. Volatility does not determine whether an asset has value. It often reflects a market discovering that value.
The deeper issue is that crypto is not merely competing with dollars. It is competing with central control. A currency that cannot be inflated at will, censored easily, or transferred only with institutional approval represents a fundamental challenge to the existing financial order.
Now, crypto may succeed or fail depending on the project, technology, and adoption. Plenty of crypto projects deserve to fail. But the blanket claim that crypto is not a viable asset because it is not backed by anything is rather like a man living in a glass house mocking his neighbor's windows.
The dollar is backed by confidence.
Bitcoin is backed by mathematics, cryptography, decentralization, and an immutable supply schedule.
Whether one prefers the latter to the former is a legitimate debate. Pretending only one side relies on belief is not.
Your gold and silver intrinsic value collapses the moment we start mining asteroids.
I'm guessing this is a canned response since it has exactly nothing to do with my statement except the last sentence, which was completely disconnected by the rest of your "response."
That is a false argument, suggesting that any inflation automatically and instantly "collapses" the economy. For example, if we had a gold based free market economy (we'll call that "best case scenario" for now) and we had an immediate tripling of all gold influx, that would be (by your contrivance) a tripling of inflation. That is a contrivance, and an impossibility, but I'll play.
Your contrivance would not "collapse" the economy. Instead, it would just cause inflation. We can work with inflation, and indeed, history shows that with real assets (gold, silver, copper, and bronze specifically), the increase of PMs tends to adjust well into the system (for various reasons, not the least of which that they are useful regardless of their use as a currency, because they are real assets), stabilizing (to an extent) the economy and eventually reducing the inflation (through deflation through other uses), despite the total increase.
Yes, it is conceivable that at some point in the future (which at the moment doesn't actually exist and is thus a red herring argument) a substantial increase in gold and/or silver will, within a free market (which too doesn't actually exist and never has in over 5000 years of evidence) will cause inflation commensurate with the total value v. the demand (which also changes based on the population, technological uses, etc.).
But the truth is, according to the evidence, the value of both gold and silver has been incredibly stable (with some caveats that I won't elaborate here) for the entirety of human history. That's despite massive mining efforts and massive population swings. Yes, it has changed, yet those changes in the PMs has remained more constant than any other assets throughout all of all time (not counting the specific and world wide coordinated fuckery occurring during the past ~150 years to change things which has been designed to destroy the world for their "Utopia").
And that is the BEST argument presented here by you.
All other arguments are nil (with a couple caveats of the usefulness of some of the qualities of crypto in general (not as a currency, but as a technology), which I will get to later).
Let's look at just a couple of your other arguments, so we can look at how bad they really are. And note, none of them are relevant, because they are based on the opposite of my statements, nevertheless, I'll play.
Actually, it falls apart immediately and it never makes a lick of sense. The U.S. Dollar hasn't existed in any meaningful amount since 1913. The Federal Reserve Note (FRN) on the other hand is based on the future labor of all citizens of America. That "future labor" doesn't actually exist, thus it too is a red herring. But it gets much worse than that. A FRN is a debt instrument. It comes into being in a negative, balanced by a zero value ("future" labor) pretending to be a "positive."
To be more meaningful, the way it actually works is; Money = Debt, or rather, Money + Debt = 0. Which means if the US were to pay off their debts, all their "money" would be exactly 0. The entire economy would cease to exist.
But that's really a false statement, because "money" isn't equal to debt, it's equal to debt + interest. So "money" = debt + interest. That means that the future labor of all US citizens (through the 14th amendment) + the USURY ON THAT DEBT is owned by the people who create "money" (as it turns out, from nothing).
In other words, we are forever enslaved by the people who take out loans ("debts") from the Federal Reserve (a private bank), which is to say...
...the US Govt (AKA We The People, through coercion and fraud) must legally use FRNs to buy anything (infrastructure, medicare, transexual assistance for people in Pakistan, etc.).
What does it mean that the people who create the FRNs got "interest" (usury) on our future labor? It means you are legally completely owned, body and soul, by "law" for all of time.
So any ideas that the "US Dollar" is:
shows that you have NO FUCKING CLUE what is really going on. Thus any argument based on that premise is instantly invalidated.
So what's the solution?
Well, it is well known that no matter what is used as a currency, as long as a real asset can be used, any non-backed currency would immediately be eliminated as a currency, because no one would use a non-backed currency if a real asset could be used instead. E.g., would you sell your car for someone's non-backed crypto if you could get gold instead? Maybe you would, as a true believer, but most wouldn't, not assuming the option existed. That's the difference between "faith" and in your hand reality.
You noted a couple "pluses" for crypto. Those pluses (and more) do exist. But you can tie real assets to crypto and get the best of both worlds. It is trivial to do so, and such things already exist (NFTs e.g., which can be tied directly to stocks, art (real and virtual), all precious metals, land, etc.).
The concept of using a non-asset currency requires a non-free market (free market PMs would destroy non-asset crypto immediately in all cases). Thus something like BTC requires that the market be a redheaded little bitch, controlled by a Centralized Authority 1984 style (which is what currently exists).
The ONLY way to have sound money is through a free market. That is the only solution for any concept of social human freedom at all. Any efforts working towards any other "solution" other than creating our own truly free market is doomed to fail, so any other "solution" must be immediately abandoned (like BTC) for people to be free.
The funny thing about this response is that it spends three quarters of its time agreeing with the critique of fiat money and then somehow concludes that Bitcoin is the villain.
That's like spending twenty minutes explaining why the ship is sinking and then blaming the lifeboat for not being made of oak.
First, notice the bait-and-switch.
The original objection was: "Crypto isn't backed by anything."
Now suddenly we're talking about Federal Reserve Notes, debt-based money, usury, central banking, the 14th Amendment, and the enslavement of future labor.
Fine. Let's talk about it.
But every one of those criticisms is a criticism of fiat currency, not crypto.
If the Federal Reserve system is a debt-based mechanism that inflates away purchasing power, then you've just explained one of the reasons Bitcoin was invented.
You don't get to spend five paragraphs explaining why the house is on fire and then conclude that fire extinguishers are therefore worthless.
The "Real Asset" Problem
The argument assumes that only a physical asset can back money.
Historically, that sounds persuasive until you actually examine what money is.
Gold was not valuable because it was backed by something else.
Gold was valuable because people valued gold.
The moment someone says, "Money must be backed by a real asset," the obvious question becomes:
"What backs the asset?"
If gold is the answer, what backs gold?
More gold?
Turtles all the way down?
Gold has value because people voluntarily desire it. Its scarcity, durability, divisibility, portability, and recognizability make it useful as money.
Bitcoin follows exactly the same logic.
Nobody eats gold.
Nobody heats their home with gold.
Nobody builds houses out of gold.
The overwhelming majority of gold's monetary value comes from collective recognition of its monetary properties.
The same is true of Bitcoin.
The Free Market Argument Backfires
The strongest claim made is:
"A free market would destroy Bitcoin immediately."
Would it?
Who is forcing people to buy Bitcoin?
Who is forcing corporations to hold it?
Who is forcing pension funds, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds to accumulate it?
The entire existence of Bitcoin is the result of voluntary exchange.
People buy it because they believe it possesses desirable monetary characteristics.
That's called a market.
In fact, Bitcoin's critics often make two contradictory arguments simultaneously:
"Bitcoin is worthless and nobody wants it."
And:
"The government must regulate it because people keep buying it."
Pick one.
Gold Versus Bitcoin Is Not Gold Versus Fiat
The response acts as though the debate is:
Gold vs Bitcoin.
Many Bitcoin advocates would happily take that deal over the current fiat system.
The real debate is:
Gold and Bitcoin vs central-bank money.
Bitcoin's existence is not an attack on sound money.
It is an attack on monetary manipulation.
Gold requires vaults.
Gold requires transportation.
Gold requires trusted custodians.
Gold is difficult to divide for everyday transactions.
Gold is difficult to move across borders.
Bitcoin solves many of those problems while preserving scarcity.
That does not make it superior in every respect.
It does make it a legitimate monetary competitor.
The NFT Detour
Then we get the NFT argument.
"Just tie crypto to real assets."
Fine.
But now you've abandoned the original argument.
If crypto can successfully represent ownership of gold, land, stocks, art, or other assets, then crypto is obviously useful as a monetary and ownership technology.
At that point you're no longer arguing that crypto is worthless.
You're arguing about which type of crypto should prevail.
That's a completely different debate.
The Central Authority Claim
The most curious claim is that Bitcoin somehow requires a centralized authority.
Bitcoin was literally designed to eliminate the need for a central authority.
No central bank sets its issuance schedule.
No government determines how many will exist.
No committee votes to create more.
No politician can print trillions of new units during a crisis.
Whether one likes Bitcoin or not, accusing it of being dependent on centralized control is like accusing a submarine of being dependent on horses.
The entire architecture was built to avoid precisely that dependency.
The Bottom Line
The response accidentally demolishes fiat currency while failing to land a punch on Bitcoin.
If you believe debt-based fiat money is destructive, inflationary, and coercive, you're already halfway to understanding why millions of people became interested in Bitcoin in the first place.
The real question is not whether Bitcoin is backed by gold.
The real question is whether a scarce, durable, divisible, portable, verifiable, censorship-resistant asset can function as money.
The market has been answering that question for over fifteen years now.
And despite thousands of obituaries, Bitcoin remains stubbornly alive, which is more than can be said for every paper currency in history. As the old joke goes, fiat currencies eventually all go to zero.
Yeah I was gonna ask how they "grabbed" it, but yeah if it was sitting in an exchange then that makes sense. Just goes to show, use your private wallet as is intended with crypto.
Pretty sure he literally said they seized their wallets, not their exchange accounts.
It’s not. It’s literally digital fiat with a few other flaws added onto it.
Bitcoin in private wallet cannot be "grabbed" by a third party. You must give them your keys for them to be able to move it off the wallet into usable form. They can always physically grab your private wallet, but cannot use or transfer the Bitcoin, ever. All cryptos, including Bitcoin on a public exchange can be stolen, just like anything else (under guise of law enforcement or "regulatory noncompliance", take your pick).
Current problem with Crypto exchanges is KYC, Know Your Customer. You can open an account without a digital ID, but if you want to move Bitcoin off the exchange to a private wallet, you are FORCED to do a digital ID so your Bitcoin is all then physically traceable to your home address.
Bitcoin is not any safer. I just grabbed a few dozen bitcoin wallets as I am typing this. Crypto is not safe!
Good question!
It actually makes it worse because they actually have to hunt me down to grab my fiat.
Your money don't jiggle-jiggle, it folds. Anyone can grab your fiat with or without you being there.
Splain me like im a liberal
Fiat is the best commodity in the world.
Not your keys, not your crypto.
This is why you keep crypto in your own privately controlled wallet and not on an exchange wallet.
It seems that they can access private wallets as well. He even says they “outright grabbed the wallets”. Nothing that is digital is secure in this world.
On a crypto exchange it's still called a wallet.
You are spreading ignorance instead of seeking understanding by asking questions.
Do better.
No, I do get it. I don’t think that you understand that if it’s digital and it’s plugged in, then it can be accessed and manipulated by the U.S. government… and probably China and Israel too.
😂
Bro just stop. You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorant over generalization fallacy.
You clearly don't understand distributed ledger technology and public blockchains or private wallets and keys.
“Gravity is just a tool of the patriaclrchy, designed to keep us down!”
They were mining crypto. That means they did have the keys. Remember how it was said that they were using their oil to make electricity to mine crypto directly, this means they have their keys.
So if it can be taken that means no crypto is safe. I'd like to know how true this is or is Bessent if just using the fear tactic to get them more off guard
First off there's no evidence of that assertion.
Secondly IF they were mining crypto then they were using a mining pool and they were COMMUNICATING the keys electronically.
Email and most electronic forms of communication aren't safe.
We still have zero instances of Bitcoin itself being hacked. IF it was possible the person's or country that developed the hack would immediately go after enemy countries and every inactive cold wallet on the blockchain.
You're not thinking logically.
“You’re not thinking logically” in regards to Iran using their oil to mine crypto is a bold statement.
wrong not necessarily there are ways to make them safe OF COURSE!!! but that is why it would be clever to save the first use of this for warfare where deception is key I don't think you understand what logic means
...iran was/is the largest in mining BTC
This guy gets it. Most underrated comment in the internet.
Credit is secure. It's basically digital money that you don't yet have, can't yet pay off, and owe more when you do pay it off. Can't say the same about Debit though.
Exchanges can prevent you from transferring your crypto held on the exchange wallet to/from a private wallet (you are beneficial owner only of exchange account, exchange is custodian with granted allodial title to the asset per their "TERMS"). With private wallet you are allodial title holder of property, protected under 4th/5th Amendment from seizure. This is why they must us the fraud of the KYC, unconstitutional Digital ID.
They were mining crypto. That means they did have the keys. They were using their oil to make electricity to mine crypto directly, this means they have their keys.
So this means no crypto is safe
You seem to have the most logical line of reasoning here yet so many people blindly defend crypto
So much for the privacy and security of crypto wallets.
The crypto was on a public exchange which is like having your money in a bank and not your own safe.
Not your keys, not your crypto.
Super simple stuff.
Even in here we have people who have no clue about how crypto works, which is fine. We are here to educate. Research “cold wallets” so you know how safe crypto really can get.
You can tell it isn't simple to most people, because if it were, then there probably wouldn't be so many anons that find it anywhere from challenging to impossible to understand.
Unfortunately the financial whiz-kid set is populated by many who, quite inexplicably, seem to equate low financial or investing acumen in others with overall laughable stupidity—and are delighted to spray that fact like a douche nozzle across online forums. ;)
Which reveals their low social intelligence.
Good distinction. There are "mobile wallets" on phones, "digital wallets" on laptop, "exchange wallets" at brokers/exchanges, but these are all "hot wallets" connected to the the internet and subject to hacking, theft, or regulatory BS.
Also, not all crypto is created equal. Bitcoin in cold wallet cannot be stolen for use without your private keys, even if physical cold wallet is stolen.
Unless your private keys are hacked which may be possible with quantum computers. I wonder if US Government is employing their quantum computers in this way. That would be clever. It's an element of surprise that neither IRG nor city of London were ready for ;)
Could the keys be hacked with a key-logger? Are bitcoin wallets accessed via a web browser?
If so, all that would be needed is a browser hack.
No hacking necessary. All you gotta do is just go to Iran and grab some wallets. Scott explained how to do it.
Oh they took their computers??? That would explain everything
So they found the private keys?
Isn't that like pointing to the vault door at Fort Knox and asserting that banks could never be robbed because no-one could never get through a door like that?
I was one of the people typing inside my wallet when Scott himself just walked by and grabbed it. All my crypto is now gone. If any of you see Mr. Bessent can you please tell him to physically let go of my digital wallet? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXhKgV7qCoo