You are describing a way to place a supposed objective value on bitcoin that seems to be based on mining costs (costs of production) and trying to take out the people aspect to it, which is a bit detached from reality (even though you surely have rights to do that).

Of course, you have also not accounted for future value that you believe are based on subjective value and expectations of future value that can affect present value?  You are too busy trying to negate the counting of people as if the world really works like that.. as if you really are going to be capable of figuring out actual costs without accounting for subjective value. 

And, yes there are actual mining costs, but there are also miners who speculate on bitcoin and even will mine at a loss.. and there is also changes in costs and changes in perceptions about whether costs will change that will cause changes in mining efforts too.

I thought that I agreed with your earlier post, but since you are devolving into too much attempts at what you believe is pure objective value (that does not exist as much as you like to believe it does), maybe I don't agree as much as I had previously thought?

Even if there might be some ways of valuing bitcoin (and/or any other thing) in more credible ways, I have my doubts that there is any meaningful way to proclaim value - even if you are trying to assess what you believe to be objective values.. while excluding subjective perceptions of value (even if subjective value is not the only contributor to value - whether bitcoin or some other asset).

I guess my point is that both objective and subjective value needs to be accounted, even if your aspirations to remove subjective value can be a good thought exercise (that is decently detached from reality because it ends up being an extreme in its own right). Objective value ends up being selective in its own right because it is suggesting itself to be excluding one of the main components of value, even if subjective value is not the ONLY thing that contributes towards value, but it is a decently good-sized components that have a lot of angles to it and a lot of indirectness too in the sense that it is everywhere even embedded within your purported proclamations of objective value, too..

What I thought that I was doing was responding to a point that you made in regards to value.  Initially, I thought that I agreed with you, but as we had a couple of exchanges, for the reasons that I already stated, it appears that I do not agree with you as much as I initially thought that I did.

So I am not trying to change any kind of discussion because this thread is about Pete Rizzo's article and his views on what a Bitcoin Maximalist should be - so the value discussion, so far ends up being a tangent to the thread's subject matter.



Yes, and I already responded to your point. .It seems that we disagree, and I already made my points about that, to the extent that I had any points.


I am glad that you are embracing the idea of BTC accumulation - and for sure each of us needs to figure out how much BTC that we want to accumulate based on our individual circumstances, which surely would include considering how many BTC we may have already accumulated and if we have gotten through BTC accumulation, then our thoughts might be different if we are in maintenance stage or even liquidation stages.. but sure view of value versus price could also be considered no matter which stage we perceive ourselves to be in.

For me, I had done my initial BTC accumulation mostly between 2014 and 2015 but I still had some continuing accumulation in 2016 and early 2017, and it seems that I felt that I transitioned mostly into a kind of maintenance stage since about mid-2017... and so surely I have my ways of dealing with my ideas and practices regarding how to maintain my BTC portfolio.. which largely attempts to maintain some levels of price agnostics contained therein.. even though I am working on some formulas for also transitioning into a kind of living on bitcoin (and/or funding projects) that are likely to have formulas that for now spring off of the 200-week moving average in terms of assessing BTC valuations and possible authorizations to sell. so that would be more getting into liquidation stages, even though I am not quite feeling like I am quite yet getting into practices related to such a stage.. still considering myself as being in a kind of maintenance stage, overall..


Perhaps the franky1 version of bitcoin maximalism that appears on its face to be a big blocker nutjob bullshit anti-segwit baloney, but maybe you have your reasons for such (as you just summarized)... and if it works for you so far, then so be it.  To each his own, no?


That seems to be called NGU technology, and surely so far it appears that the longer that any of us have been in bitcoin, then the more likely we are going to been able to do relatively well compared to any other assets that we might have invested into so long as we largely accumulated BTC early on and mostly continued to hold or maintain our BTC holdings with the passage of time.  We can also have all kinds of views about what brings bitcoin its value or our how we perceive our future allocations into BTC to play out, and there's no real evidence that bitcoin is losing any of its foundational values - even if we might assess foundational (fundamental) values in different ways.

I doubt that I was pandering to anyone.  I used words to attempt to describe what I perceive to be your framework in bitcoin, and I am not even saying that you cannot be a bitcoiner or a maximalist with your perspective of how you believe bitcoin best works for you, in terms of attempting to stick with legacy wallets and various practices in which you seem to be shunning current bitcoin developments (such as lightning network seems to be a segwit related set of practices, no?).

I don't claim to be technical, so of course, some of your technical perspectives may well inform an approach that you believe to be superior..... yet wouldn't we be deviating from this topic if we go into very much of those discussions here?


I was around during that time, and my framing of the matter is different from yours, at least in the sense that in 2017 part of the efforts were to attack bitcoin's then governance in order to make it easier to change bitcoin.. I doubt that bitcoin has become more centralized as a response, but surely when some aspects of bitcoin were being attacked then there are likely responses and even ideas that carry into the future to attempt to cause bitcoin to be less vulnerable... and so if you are not confident in how bitcoin's governance or lack of governance is evolving, then you may well lose confidence in bitcoin, too, no?


Yes.. so stop trying to suggest that I am motivated by loyalism.


I disagree, but I do have some history in the ways that I present myself - and largely I try to not get caught up in certain political and/or governance arguments, even though sometimes I do come across such threads and such discussions... and yes, to bring the matter back to this thread, I recall that Rizzo was very much part of the BIG Blocker nutjobs.. but he seems to have come around.. but he still has some of the BIG blocker nutjob tendencies in terms of his seeming to suggest how bitcoiners should think about maximalism. .as if it were to be better if bitcoiners had a kind of unified front in terms of being good builders...


I see no reason to go down this line of discussion unless you are somehow relating the topic to the thread.  You are suggesting bitcoin to be broken in various ways since 2017, and from my perspective, I see ongoing growth in bitcoin since 2017.... and surely some of the wallets, and usages of the second layer solutions, such as the lightning network continue to be developed, too.  You can choose not to get involved in using those aspects of bitcoin.. sure. there are some complications with user-friendliness and even under-the-hood technical matters that I am not going to claim to know or even consider to be directly relevant to this thread.


That would be dumb.  Fuck POS.


You are going on quite the tangent....  We had Taproot go through recently, and surely some other small changes have taken place in bitcoin's code.  I don't claim to follow every change or proposal or to even understand the ramifications to each of these matters, even though from time to time, I do run across some of the various discussions of what kinds of code changes that are being proposed or some developments that might be being built here and there along the way.


My view of how that played out is different from yours, and sure I understand the various underlying facts because I was there and I was actively involved in this forum during that time, too.


There are a variety of ways that people can be involved in bitcoin and consider themselves to be bitcoin maximalists.  They do not necessarily need to subscribe to the franky1 school of thought regarding what is a proper bitcoin maximalist, and you surely seem to be describing some kind of disgruntled historical view of bitcoin, and even if you do not like to be called a big blocker, you surely are anti-segwit - which is also part of where bitcoin currently is.. even though bitcoin's backwards compatibility allows you to have some use cases that seem to have narrow views of bitcoin that are not in touch with current practices of a lot of folks.. which to me, based on your framings in your post, it seems that you are fighting a battle about water that has already gone under the bridge.


Why not both?  We can accumulate coins and choose to get involved in understanding whether and how our bitcoin's are protected. There are other things that we can do too, and still be involved in bitcoin and even call ourselves a bitcoin maximalist, if we so choose.