I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges. My actual response to the claim that the US holds bitcoin from ransomware attacks would be, so what?calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
Is it time to go all in on Bitcoin?
15,366 Views |
204 Replies |
Last: 16 hrs ago by oski003
edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
"Crypto-assets have featured heavily in the growth of ransomware. Nearly all ransomware payments are made in Bitcoin, which enables attackers to receive payments from victims into private Bitcoin wallets that are not held at regulated institutions."
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
"Bitcoin accounts for approximately 98% of ransomware payments. "
You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
edwinbear said:You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
Well that's just illogical interpretation from you when I stated in every single posts payment to threat actors in ransomware settlements. That's what the actors are called in ransomware - threat / hostile actors. How do you skip over every single reference to ransomware in each of my posts and then go off on a tangent? Look at every single one of my post in the string. Is there a single one where I do not reference ransomware?
Then what is your point? If ransomware hostile actors use bitcoin, so what?calbear93 said:edwinbear said:You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
Well that's just illogical interpretation from you when I stated in every single posts payment to threat actors in ransomware settlements. That's what the actors are called in ransomware - threat / hostile actors. How do you skip over every single reference to ransomware in each of my posts and then go off on a tangent? Look at every single one of my post in the string. Is there a single one where I do not reference ransomware?
edwinbear said:Then what is your point? If ransomware hostile actors use bitcoin, so what?calbear93 said:edwinbear said:You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
Well that's just illogical interpretation from you when I stated in every single posts payment to threat actors in ransomware settlements. That's what the actors are called in ransomware - threat / hostile actors. How do you skip over every single reference to ransomware in each of my posts and then go off on a tangent? Look at every single one of my post in the string. Is there a single one where I do not reference ransomware?
This is why I said you lost the plot.
I wasn't addressing you when you jump in obviously without knowing the point.
Bear2024 said US was investing in bitcoin.
I stated (my point) to bear2024 that US is not investing in bit coin but is instead holding bitcoin recovered from bitcoin payments made to threat actors in ransomware situations.
That's when you jumped in and said "That is not correct."
What was not correct?
Again, it's all right there in the tread history, including where you jumped in and stated my response to bear2024 was not correct.
Then my interpretation was off, but I do think it's important to follow through on the "so what if it is?" Basically everything I wrote after that was in response to an implication that that = bad. Which goes into good vs bad money, etc.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:Then what is your point? If ransomware hostile actors use bitcoin, so what?calbear93 said:edwinbear said:You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
Well that's just illogical interpretation from you when I stated in every single posts payment to threat actors in ransomware settlements. That's what the actors are called in ransomware - threat / hostile actors. How do you skip over every single reference to ransomware in each of my posts and then go off on a tangent? Look at every single one of my post in the string. Is there a single one where I do not reference ransomware?
This is why I said you lost the plot.
I wasn't addressing you when you jump in obviously without knowing the point.
Bear2024 said US was investing in bitcoin.
I stated (my point) to bear2024 that US is not investing in bit coin but is instead holding bitcoin recovered from bitcoin payments made to threat actors in ransomware situations.
That's when you jumped in and said "That is not correct."
What was not correct?
Again, it's all right there in the tread history, including where you jumped in and stated my response to bear2024 was not correct.
edwinbear said:Then my interpretation was off, but I do think it's important to follow through on the "so what if it is?" Basically everything I wrote after that was in response to an implication that that = bad. Which goes into good vs bad money, etc.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:Then what is your point? If ransomware hostile actors use bitcoin, so what?calbear93 said:edwinbear said:You said: "Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors..."calbear93 said:edwinbear said:I said you were wrong about saying bitcoin is a preferred currency of bad actors (see links), not that the US holds bitcoin collected from ransomware attacks. Of course that is true, which is what I thought that my argument that being able to use bitcoin in ransom attacks actually being a feature and not a bug implicitly acknowledges.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432calbear93 said:edwinbear said:This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.calbear93 said:I will try to summarize:edwinbear said:You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0ecalbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.bear2034 said:Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z
— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024
The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.
This is not true.
It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?
The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.
But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.
And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.
Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.
I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.
That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.
I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.
You lost the plot again.
My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .
See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.
bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.
calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors
edwinbear - you are wrong.
calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?
edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable
calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.
edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.
the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.
so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.
Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.
Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e
Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!
Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?
This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).
You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.
And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?
You're kind of a sh !t person.
You are way too sensitive about this.
The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.
Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.
https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html
Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.
https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy
https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/
YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.
How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.
As a thought experiment, answer this question:
What would bitcoin have to do, and what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you could admit that it is what people say it is?
And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards that milestone?
And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.
You and I are having two separate conversations.
The only statements I have made (it's all there in the quotes) is that the holdings of bitcoin by the government are recoveries from ransomware threat actors since they use bitcoin for payment. As such, the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin. THAT'S IT That's was the whole string of my conversation before you jumped in and said I was wrong.
I have stated many times that I have no idea what the value of bitcoin will be. It could very well be trillion per bitcoin. I have no means of saying one way or another because the way I value assets does not work for assets without intrinsic value like crypto or gold. As such, even if it may go up to a trillion, I won't invest. You must be mistaking me for someone else if you think I stated anything more than that. Otherwise please provide one single quote where I stated my firm belief in the actual value of bitcoin. Or that it will not go to where you think it will go. You can't because I didn't.
So you are the one that's expanding my points and imputing to me arguments I never made.
OK?
Calm down. I was not insulting you. I was stating a fact that you responded to my post with a strawman argument defending something I never argued against.
Geez.
What is you basis for saying bitcoin is not the preferred form of payment by ransomware threat actor?
Data shows that 98% of all ransomware payments are made in bitcoin. I provided the link. Why are you still saying bitcoin is not the preferred payment form from ransomware threat actors. All you provided was a link showing it is not a safe haven. No one said it was. It is still the most efficient way of payment for threat actors as opposed to bank transfer that requires KYC approvals. Provide some evidence that counters the data I provided. Otherwise, you are just saying it's false despite overwhelming evidence.
Here is another article that states that almost all ransomware payments are made by bitcoin:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ransomware-crypto-growing-compliance-challenge-2023-05-01/
I took hostile actors to mean MORE than just those who demand ransomware payments. I lump all forms of monetary hostilities in with the term "hostile actors" including money laundering, terrorism financing, and yes,...ransomware payments.
The links I provided were meant to show that even if bitcoin is preferred by ransomware bad actors specifically, as a percent of "all hostile actors," it was very small, and that ~98% of all "hostile monetary activities" still preferred dealing in dollars or some other fiat.
Well that's just illogical interpretation from you when I stated in every single posts payment to threat actors in ransomware settlements. That's what the actors are called in ransomware - threat / hostile actors. How do you skip over every single reference to ransomware in each of my posts and then go off on a tangent? Look at every single one of my post in the string. Is there a single one where I do not reference ransomware?
This is why I said you lost the plot.
I wasn't addressing you when you jump in obviously without knowing the point.
Bear2024 said US was investing in bitcoin.
I stated (my point) to bear2024 that US is not investing in bit coin but is instead holding bitcoin recovered from bitcoin payments made to threat actors in ransomware situations.
That's when you jumped in and said "That is not correct."
What was not correct?
Again, it's all right there in the tread history, including where you jumped in and stated my response to bear2024 was not correct.
Well if that's your inference, you got it wrong. I never implied that. That was your bad assumption on my statement of basic fact that most ransom payments are made in bitcoin. It's obvious why. After 9/11, any significant transfer through a bank has to go through a Know Your Customer (KYC) process that would stop payments to threat actors. Purchase and transfer of bitcoin is not subject to regulation by the treasury department. No judgment - just the facts.
And I think where we most fervently disagree is that you think KYC is good, whereas I think it's bad. Poor monetary properties of the dollar itself aside, KYC is another form a control by "those who know better" where you need permission to spend your own money. Sure, they might say it's to stop terrorist financing, but that's a slippery slope. Because of KYC, the non-violent trucker rally protest in Canada the other year was labeled "terrorism" by Trudeau and all supporters had their bank accounts frozen. How much times do people need to answer a litany of questions by their bank for sending a $2k Zelle payment? Happens way more often than you think. This is not good, in my opinion, and will only get worse and more invasive over time. Governments are creating CBDCs not because "it's good for us," but because it gives them even greater control of money. For example, consider being able to restrict spend of money to certain categories and not others by individual. Consider being able to restrict spend of your money by geographic area, etc.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
Quote:
The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.
And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.
I think the point you make about the neutrality of money is a good one. There are multiple cases of people having funds frozen for wrong think and that is a very real problem. Money in the past was much more neutral than it is now due to advances in technology. You can effectively be banned by certain payment processors for political reasons. Having said that, if a nefarious actor was somehow able to gain control of a person's financial accounts and clean that person out, I imagine that person would care far less about the neutrality of his money and be more concerned with what safeguards there are to make him whole.
The other quality of money that people appreciate is their money be more or less stable in value. The extreme volatility of all cryptocurrency is why I consider it an investment and not money.
edwinbear said:
And I think where we most fervently disagree is that you think KYC is good, whereas I think it's bad. Poor monetary properties of the dollar itself aside, KYC is another form a control by "those who know better" where you need permission to spend your own money. Sure, they might say it's to stop terrorist financing, but that's a slippery slope. Because of KYC, the non-violent trucker rally protest in Canada the other year was labeled "terrorism" by Trudeau and all supporters had their bank accounts frozen. How much times do people need to answer a litany of questions by their bank for sending a $2k Zelle payment? Happens way more often than you think. This is not good, in my opinion, and will only get worse and more invasive over time. Governments are creating CBDCs not because "it's good for us," but because it gives them even greater control of money. For example, consider being able to restrict spend of money to certain categories and not others by individual. Consider being able to restrict spend of your money by geographic area, etc.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
calbear93 said:
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
Yeah, I'd have to say after watching this "discussion" that Calbear93 has never assigned moral values.
He's been pretty disciplined when it comes to only dealing with points of FACT in this conversation.
Not sure why Mr. Edwinbear has been involved in so much "this is good" and "this is bad".
Perhaps it's because he's heavily invested in BITCOIN and his narrative?
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
calbear93 said:edwinbear said:
And I think where we most fervently disagree is that you think KYC is good, whereas I think it's bad. Poor monetary properties of the dollar itself aside, KYC is another form a control by "those who know better" where you need permission to spend your own money. Sure, they might say it's to stop terrorist financing, but that's a slippery slope. Because of KYC, the non-violent trucker rally protest in Canada the other year was labeled "terrorism" by Trudeau and all supporters had their bank accounts frozen. How much times do people need to answer a litany of questions by their bank for sending a $2k Zelle payment? Happens way more often than you think. This is not good, in my opinion, and will only get worse and more invasive over time. Governments are creating CBDCs not because "it's good for us," but because it gives them even greater control of money. For example, consider being able to restrict spend of money to certain categories and not others by individual. Consider being able to restrict spend of your money by geographic area, etc.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
Yes, based on your statement of fact, I said "I think….xyz"
I'm allowed to think something.
If I'm wrong about what I think, you can tell me why. Isn't this the whole point? Changing minds? Or are we just playing a game of spouting neutral facts and crying "gotcha!" if someone dares to make an inference or pull on a conversation thread? Like, do you want to address anything I wrote, or just end this conversation by calling me odd? I'm good with either.
DiabloWags said:calbear93 said:
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
Yeah, I'd have to say after watching this "discussion" that Calbear93 has never assigned moral values.
He's been pretty disciplined when it comes to only dealing with points of FACT in this conversation.
Not sure why Mr. Edwinbear has been involved in so much "this is good" and "this is bad".
Perhaps it's because he's heavily invested in BITCOIN and his narrative?
You don't find anything bad about the current monetary system?
Yes, I think some things are good and some things are bad. So what?
#Bitcoin is up over 900% vs. the S&P 500 in the past 5 years.
— Stack Hodler (@stackhodler) March 13, 2024
Choosing the right unit of account is the most important decision you have to make in the 2020's.
Choose wisely. pic.twitter.com/woozuvs02n
edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:
And I think where we most fervently disagree is that you think KYC is good, whereas I think it's bad. Poor monetary properties of the dollar itself aside, KYC is another form a control by "those who know better" where you need permission to spend your own money. Sure, they might say it's to stop terrorist financing, but that's a slippery slope. Because of KYC, the non-violent trucker rally protest in Canada the other year was labeled "terrorism" by Trudeau and all supporters had their bank accounts frozen. How much times do people need to answer a litany of questions by their bank for sending a $2k Zelle payment? Happens way more often than you think. This is not good, in my opinion, and will only get worse and more invasive over time. Governments are creating CBDCs not because "it's good for us," but because it gives them even greater control of money. For example, consider being able to restrict spend of money to certain categories and not others by individual. Consider being able to restrict spend of your money by geographic area, etc.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
Yes, based on your statement of fact, I said "I think….xyz"
I'm allowed to think something.
If I'm wrong about what I think, you can tell me why. Isn't this the whole point? Changing minds? Or are we just playing a game of spouting neutral facts and crying "gotcha!" if someone dares to make an inference or pull on a conversation thread? Like, do you want to address anything I wrote, or just end this conversation by calling me odd? I'm good with either.
It's fine for you to have an opinion. Where you trip up is projecting to me the counter of what you feel and then argue against it and say I am wrong for feeling something I never said I felt. Why isn't it enough for you to say…I feel this instead of making up claims I never made so that you can pretend to have a debate on something?
For me, I don't get emotional about investment or currency. I don't assign moral value to currency or assets. It's all transactional. There are assets that I think are undervalued where I have strong conviction on the future performance, there are assets I think are overvalued, and there are assets I think are speculative without means to value. As far as currency, no emotion. Sovereign currency allows government to manage economy, inflation, growth, valuation. I argue for policy but not on good versus evil. That type of thinking to me is a bit illogical and just make believe to justify what should be a logical investment decision.
Anyway, can't say it has been fun discussing with you. You feel way too emotional about these things, jump to conclusions, come with preconceptions where I often felt we were having two different conversations with you assuming what I wrote instead of reading what I actually wrote. So good night and maybe someone will take you up on the discussing tales of good and evil of assets.
calbear93 said:edwinbear said:calbear93 said:edwinbear said:
And I think where we most fervently disagree is that you think KYC is good, whereas I think it's bad. Poor monetary properties of the dollar itself aside, KYC is another form a control by "those who know better" where you need permission to spend your own money. Sure, they might say it's to stop terrorist financing, but that's a slippery slope. Because of KYC, the non-violent trucker rally protest in Canada the other year was labeled "terrorism" by Trudeau and all supporters had their bank accounts frozen. How much times do people need to answer a litany of questions by their bank for sending a $2k Zelle payment? Happens way more often than you think. This is not good, in my opinion, and will only get worse and more invasive over time. Governments are creating CBDCs not because "it's good for us," but because it gives them even greater control of money. For example, consider being able to restrict spend of money to certain categories and not others by individual. Consider being able to restrict spend of your money by geographic area, etc.
At the very least, bitcoin represents an alternate monetary system outside of this system that is neutral and can't be controlled by anyone.
You are odd, assigning moral values to statements of fact. All I stated was it's easier to transfer funds through bitcoin because of lack of regulation. Never said either is good or bad. But you bring all your feeling and assume people think one is good or bad. Where did I say one is bad or good? Where?! You would stop engaging in strawman if you stop projecting and assuming. Just deal with what is written. Geez.
Yes, based on your statement of fact, I said "I think….xyz"
I'm allowed to think something.
If I'm wrong about what I think, you can tell me why. Isn't this the whole point? Changing minds? Or are we just playing a game of spouting neutral facts and crying "gotcha!" if someone dares to make an inference or pull on a conversation thread? Like, do you want to address anything I wrote, or just end this conversation by calling me odd? I'm good with either.
It's fine for you to have an opinion. Where you trip up is projecting to me the counter of what you feel and then argue against it and say I am wrong for feeling something I never said I felt. Why isn't it enough for you to say…I feel this instead of making up claims I never made so that you can pretend to have a debate on something?
For me, I don't get emotional about investment or currency. I don't assign moral value to currency or assets. It's all transactional. There are assets that I think are undervalued where I have strong conviction on the future performance, there are assets I think are overvalued, and there are assets I think are speculative without means to value. As far as currency, no emotion. Sovereign currency allows government to manage economy, inflation, growth, valuation. I argue for policy but not on good versus evil. That type of thinking to me is a bit illogical and just make believe to justify what should be a logical investment decision.
Anyway, can't say it has been fun discussing with you. You feel way too emotional about these things, jump to conclusions, come with preconceptions where I often felt we were having two different conversations with you assuming what I wrote instead of reading what I actually wrote. So good night and maybe someone will take you up on the discussing tales of good and evil of assets.
Night.
I'm Hedged.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:
I'm Hedged.
Darn, if this climate change keeps up, cocoa is going to demonetize bitcoin.
This isn't strictly about BTC, but it speaks to the general distrust I have of the entire crypto space and the notion that one of the big drivers of the sector is creating a fairer world for everyone. It's much closer to the wild west rife with scammers and people with ill-intention. It's very much a caveat emptor world by design and as it turns out that means a lot of people will get screwed.
Right now, that could mean all of Honduras. Check out this article - it's so wild I won't even begin to summarize.
Right now, that could mean all of Honduras. Check out this article - it's so wild I won't even begin to summarize.
One day, you too will own bitcoin without you even realizing it. Blackrock, Fidelity, Schwab, and even Vanguard will make sure it happens.
Interesting that you mention Vanguard. Not sure how closely you are following. Maybe mention ARKK?bear2034 said:
One day, you too will own bitcoin without you even realizing it. Blackrock, Fidelity, Schwab, and even Vanguard will make sure it happens.
Just so you know, these investment advisors have both active and passive funds, and time-based funds. There may be bitcoin included, but most charters of these funds have restrictions on what can be invested. I assume you are referencing some of their bitcoin funds, which Vanguard has elected not to offer? Because of course, the most popular S&P 500 (tracking S&P 500 composition companies), time-based funds, equity funds, bond funds, etc. that most people own do not have or allow cryptocurrency by their charter. So, it isn't as if people invest in one fund from Blackrock. And they collect a management fee with percentage based on whether they are passive, speculative, or active. I suppose bitcoin would be much higher in management fees, so good business for them. I guess the question is why not just manage your own wallet instead of paying the high management fees?
First - obviously I agree with what you are saying, nothing controversial there. Would add that I can foresee target date retirement funds having some allocation to crypto at some point.calbear93 said:
Interesting that you mention Vanguard. Not sure how closely you are following. Maybe mention ARKK?
Just so you know, these investment advisors have both active and passive funds, and time-based funds. There may be bitcoin included, but most charters of these funds have restrictions on what can be invested. I assume you are referencing some of their bitcoin funds, which Vanguard has elected not to offer? Because of course, the most popular S&P 500 (tracking S&P 500 composition companies), time-based funds, equity funds, bond funds, etc. that most people own do not have or allow cryptocurrency by their charter. So, it isn't as if people invest in one fund from Blackrock. And they collect a management fee with percentage based on whether they are passive, speculative, or active. I suppose bitcoin would be much higher in management fees, so good business for them. I guess the question is why not just manage your own wallet instead of paying the high management fees?
Setting aside fund holdings, most people with any sort of market exposure already has at least some small exposure to crypto - according to this random website public companies currently hold at least $16B in BTC, although I am sure that is understating things.
I personally don't have any intentional allocation to crypto, but one of the private funds I invested in did make a speculative investment in a coing which turned out quite well for me a few years ago before it came crashing down (99% crash which has never recovered). Fortunately the fund was able to trade out of a good chunk of the position to other crypto idiots who became bag holders.
To your more general point, most people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about or how mutual funds or pretty much any financial instruments work. Once you start talking about active vs passive, you might as well try to explain a magic trick to a dog.
calbear93 said:Interesting that you mention Vanguard. Not sure how closely you are following. Maybe mention ARKK?bear2034 said:
One day, you too will own bitcoin without you even realizing it. Blackrock, Fidelity, Schwab, and even Vanguard will make sure it happens.
Just so you know, these investment advisors have both active and passive funds, and time-based funds. There may be bitcoin included, but most charters of these funds have restrictions on what can be invested. I assume you are referencing some of their bitcoin funds, which Vanguard has elected not to offer? Because of course, the most popular S&P 500 (tracking S&P 500 composition companies), time-based funds, equity funds, bond funds, etc. that most people own do not have or allow cryptocurrency by their charter. So, it isn't as if people invest in one fund from Blackrock. And they collect a management fee with percentage based on whether they are passive, speculative, or active. I suppose bitcoin would be much higher in management fees, so good business for them. I guess the question is why not just manage your own wallet instead of paying the high management fees?
Despite the benefits, I suppose there's some inconvenience involved with managing your own wallet or essentially become your own bank. All it takes is to memorize your twelve-word seed phrase but as people get older, we know that's easy to mess up. I custody my own coin as well own coin in my retirement accounts via the ETFs but through Cathie Wood's ARKK fund as you mentioned. I guess I don't like the idea of giving Larry Fink my business despite his bitcoin ETF fund being the most popular by far.
Unit2Sucks said:
To your more general point, most people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about or how mutual funds or pretty much any financial instruments work. Once you start talking about active vs passive, you might as well try to explain a magic trick to a dog.
Most people don't know what IP addresses are and how the internet works but they use it every day. Similarly, most people will eventually own bitcoin or some other crypto asset without understanding it either.
CRYPTO CEO ENVISIONS LITERAL WAR
A prominent cryptocurrency CEO turned outspoken supporter of Donald Trump is resigning from the company he helped build after posting incendiary remarks on X in the wake of Saturday's assassination attempt on the Republican presidential nominee.
Ryan Selkis, who posts on X as "twobitidiot," said Friday he was stepping down as CEO of Messari, a crypto data company, after his "politics and rhetoric put the team in harms way," he said.
Following the attempt on Trump's life in Pennsylvania, Selkis took to X and seemed to call for violence against non-Trump supporters.
"Anyone that votes against Trump at this point can die in a f-----g fire," he said on X in a since-deleted post Saturday following the attempt. "Literal war," Selkis added.
In a follow-up post, he said: "The Civil War for the country started today, and if you are anti-Trump you are against the men who are willing to fight. Good luck."
Selkis later wrote: "If I were a Cultural Marxist hellbent on destroying the country, I would have weathered the storm. But I told the truth too many times, and lost my temper after they tried to kill the President last Saturday."
In his resignation statement Friday, Selkis said he was "disgusted at the media and administration's abject failures at pressing for answers in the attack's aftermath, as well as their failure to tamp down the divisive rhetoric that contributed to the attack in the first place."
"I will be channeling all of my energies into addressing the underlying issues that have led to these systemic problems in our institutions," Selkis said, without elaborating.
In response to a request for comment from NBC News, Selkis texted a link to another post on X Friday that said he was not available for comment outside his public statement and that he would be "monitoring the tone and balance of all articles though. Will dictate who I work with in the future."
His successor, Eric Turner, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The development comes amid a clear turn within the crypto world toward Trump as the Republican nominee reciprocates the interest. Under the heading "Championing Innovation," Trump wrote crypto into his party's new platform, stating: "Republicans will end Democrats' unlawful and unAmerican Crypto crackdown and oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency. We will defend the right to mine Bitcoin, and ensure every American has the right to self-custody of their Digital Assets, and transact free from Government Surveillance and Control."
A prominent cryptocurrency CEO turned outspoken supporter of Donald Trump is resigning from the company he helped build after posting incendiary remarks on X in the wake of Saturday's assassination attempt on the Republican presidential nominee.
Ryan Selkis, who posts on X as "twobitidiot," said Friday he was stepping down as CEO of Messari, a crypto data company, after his "politics and rhetoric put the team in harms way," he said.
Following the attempt on Trump's life in Pennsylvania, Selkis took to X and seemed to call for violence against non-Trump supporters.
"Anyone that votes against Trump at this point can die in a f-----g fire," he said on X in a since-deleted post Saturday following the attempt. "Literal war," Selkis added.
In a follow-up post, he said: "The Civil War for the country started today, and if you are anti-Trump you are against the men who are willing to fight. Good luck."
Selkis later wrote: "If I were a Cultural Marxist hellbent on destroying the country, I would have weathered the storm. But I told the truth too many times, and lost my temper after they tried to kill the President last Saturday."
In his resignation statement Friday, Selkis said he was "disgusted at the media and administration's abject failures at pressing for answers in the attack's aftermath, as well as their failure to tamp down the divisive rhetoric that contributed to the attack in the first place."
"I will be channeling all of my energies into addressing the underlying issues that have led to these systemic problems in our institutions," Selkis said, without elaborating.
In response to a request for comment from NBC News, Selkis texted a link to another post on X Friday that said he was not available for comment outside his public statement and that he would be "monitoring the tone and balance of all articles though. Will dictate who I work with in the future."
His successor, Eric Turner, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The development comes amid a clear turn within the crypto world toward Trump as the Republican nominee reciprocates the interest. Under the heading "Championing Innovation," Trump wrote crypto into his party's new platform, stating: "Republicans will end Democrats' unlawful and unAmerican Crypto crackdown and oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency. We will defend the right to mine Bitcoin, and ensure every American has the right to self-custody of their Digital Assets, and transact free from Government Surveillance and Control."
Have had actual BTC in custody for a while now. Some time back I also took 25% of my Roth IRA balance and put that to work in BTC, plus a few other cryptos. That account balance is now slightly larger than the 75%. I have never sold any BTC and I don't plan to do so. The history of unbacked fiat money lends itself to abuse, corruption and greed; and it never ends well.
I invest in "hard" assets, like real estate, gold (and miners), silver to a lesser extent uranium and lithium, which is also serves as a nuclear play. Tangible stuff that is generally limited in supply. I buy on the dips, swing trade these in some account, simply accumulate in others. BTC being a fixed supply, fits this thesis well.
Retired a few years back and I actively manage my 401K, and there I have purchased the likes Bitcoin and Ethereum in the form of trusts and more recently ETFs. Since this not the actual asset, not true possession, I trade these as I would any other investment, with only a target profit in-mind. So, there I do sell BTC, indirectly, with no immediate tax consequences. That said, I'm gradually converting that 401K into a Roth, only about 5% at this time...
I've posted on this forum and older versions of it in various investment discussions... I'm about 80% out of AAPL. I've been layering-out based upon Fibonacci extensions. The first was around 218 and I'll be all out should it hit around 249/250. I generally thin-out my long equity positions going into the fall anyways, for historical seasonal reasons, and with all of the money printing, particularly in recent years, various indicators pointing to this historic bull run topping in the coming months, possibly next year, that too supports holding the likes of precious medals and BTC.
For me, it's as much about purchasing power and the ability to store value, as it is to generate alpha. Keeping one's net worth in fiat is a losing proposition. Bread, milk, lumber, et al have not gotten more expensive to bring to market over the years. Over time, with technological advancements and efficiencies, such products would actually become more affordable, requiring fewer dollars to purchase. However, with the debasement seen by generating more money, it logically then requires more dollars for our purchases. Call it a hidden tax or whatever one wants, but we are losing purchasing power and the ability to save as before. For those with the means, who have have assets, they at least can partake in this inflation and ideally outpace what they pay at the pump and grocery store. For the vast majority of us who don't have such assets, the poor, inflation hits the hardest.
Throughout much of the 90s the potential of the internet was not well-understood, minimized and even some claiming it was pointless and would cease to exist. It was obviously adopted and the curve very much mirrors the one we are now seeing with Bitcoin and crypto. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you... It generally goes something like that. Then you win. We saw an "anti-crypto army" and hostile SEC fail miserably. Don't believe the media reports of otherwise. The actions, what has transpired in the space, most recently ETFs with more on the way next week (ETH), increased adoption with consumers, on corporate balance sheets and nation states, that's the proof. The government has benefited greatly, at our expense, by controlling our money. They cannot control Bitcoin. There's no Bitcoin company, CEO or HQ to target. The path forward is decentralization and that's the main point of Web 3.0, not one that leans more to command and control, at least for this country.
As I've said before, I encourage everyone to educate themselves on the history of money first. Go into "this" objectively as possible. A book called "Layered Money," is a pretty darn easy read from a Southern Cal prof. If so inclined, pick-up some Bitcoin, at least as a hedge...
I invest in "hard" assets, like real estate, gold (and miners), silver to a lesser extent uranium and lithium, which is also serves as a nuclear play. Tangible stuff that is generally limited in supply. I buy on the dips, swing trade these in some account, simply accumulate in others. BTC being a fixed supply, fits this thesis well.
Retired a few years back and I actively manage my 401K, and there I have purchased the likes Bitcoin and Ethereum in the form of trusts and more recently ETFs. Since this not the actual asset, not true possession, I trade these as I would any other investment, with only a target profit in-mind. So, there I do sell BTC, indirectly, with no immediate tax consequences. That said, I'm gradually converting that 401K into a Roth, only about 5% at this time...
I've posted on this forum and older versions of it in various investment discussions... I'm about 80% out of AAPL. I've been layering-out based upon Fibonacci extensions. The first was around 218 and I'll be all out should it hit around 249/250. I generally thin-out my long equity positions going into the fall anyways, for historical seasonal reasons, and with all of the money printing, particularly in recent years, various indicators pointing to this historic bull run topping in the coming months, possibly next year, that too supports holding the likes of precious medals and BTC.
For me, it's as much about purchasing power and the ability to store value, as it is to generate alpha. Keeping one's net worth in fiat is a losing proposition. Bread, milk, lumber, et al have not gotten more expensive to bring to market over the years. Over time, with technological advancements and efficiencies, such products would actually become more affordable, requiring fewer dollars to purchase. However, with the debasement seen by generating more money, it logically then requires more dollars for our purchases. Call it a hidden tax or whatever one wants, but we are losing purchasing power and the ability to save as before. For those with the means, who have have assets, they at least can partake in this inflation and ideally outpace what they pay at the pump and grocery store. For the vast majority of us who don't have such assets, the poor, inflation hits the hardest.
Throughout much of the 90s the potential of the internet was not well-understood, minimized and even some claiming it was pointless and would cease to exist. It was obviously adopted and the curve very much mirrors the one we are now seeing with Bitcoin and crypto. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you... It generally goes something like that. Then you win. We saw an "anti-crypto army" and hostile SEC fail miserably. Don't believe the media reports of otherwise. The actions, what has transpired in the space, most recently ETFs with more on the way next week (ETH), increased adoption with consumers, on corporate balance sheets and nation states, that's the proof. The government has benefited greatly, at our expense, by controlling our money. They cannot control Bitcoin. There's no Bitcoin company, CEO or HQ to target. The path forward is decentralization and that's the main point of Web 3.0, not one that leans more to command and control, at least for this country.
As I've said before, I encourage everyone to educate themselves on the history of money first. Go into "this" objectively as possible. A book called "Layered Money," is a pretty darn easy read from a Southern Cal prof. If so inclined, pick-up some Bitcoin, at least as a hedge...
Sig test...
A lot has happened since your last post, namely Trump announcing a bitcoin strategic reserve for the country, the election win, the impending removal of Gary Gensler with a pro-crypto treasury secretary, and the start of options trading for bitcoin ETF products. We also have Michael Saylor's Microstrategies issuing debt and buying up massive amounts of bitcoin and front running the U.S. and other companies to the point where the company stock is outperforming bitcoin itself. What a crazy month!
And yet Ethereum (something that you can actually do a lot of stuff on a "chain") has erased years of progress.
The Bitcoin chain has so far proven to be pretty useless other than for trading Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin chain has so far proven to be pretty useless other than for trading Bitcoin.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags said:
And yet Ethereum (something that you can actually do a lot of stuff on a "chain") has erased years of progress.
The Bitcoin chain has so far proven to be pretty useless other than for trading Bitcoin.
That is Eth to BTC. Eth in itself is near all time highs. BTC has scarcity, unlike most other block chain.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Rain 3's on Grambling State, Win 86-63
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast - Cal vs USC Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Ultimate Insider Podcast E99: Syracuse Wrap-up, Stanford Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Cal Football Weekly Presser - Big Game Week
by Jim McGill
Bears Take Down USC
by Cal Athletics