Sure, maybe. But there's still some fundamental assumptions built into this.

First of all, quantum computers are not magic. They can theoretically do things faster than classical computers but they're still bound by physical time constraints.

Using Grover's Algorithm for searching unsorted databases has quadratic speedup compared to classical computers. When applied to breaking SHA-256, Grover's algorithm would theoretically take around 2^128 / 4 ≈ 2^127 steps on a quantum computer.

The exact time it takes for a single step depends on the specific implementation and hardware of the quantum computer. For today's early-stage machines, each operation might take microseconds to milliseconds.

With those speeds, breaking SHA-256 would still take a very long time:

These are rough estimates and don't account for the significant overhead of error correction, control systems, and other aspects needed to make a large-scale quantum computer work reliably.

So yes, while quantum computers can do it significantly faster than classical computers we're still talking about huge numbers.

I was just about to watch the video and moments later the account was closed.

edit: Is the video on Rumble or somewhere else?

I came to say this but you said it better. I've studied it, you've lived it. Have some sats.

It's definitely one of my favs. Shaan is an excellent story teller.

Think for yourself

It seems inevitable that hyper inflation of the US dollar will happen sooner or later. The hard part is predicting exactly when or how that will play out though. One might even argue it's already happening but we're still in the 'slowly' part of 'slowly then suddenly'.

People that get hurt most by hyperinflation are typically those that hold most of their wealth in the currency being inflated. That's not the case for Saylor so he'll probably be okay. Although, there might be second order effects like a 6102 attack, capital controls or other regulations that make it difficult for MicroStrategy to move their holdings. But don't forget, Saylor has also said he holds about 17,000 BTC in his personal stash which he probably has in self custody so even if MicroStrategy gets burnt he personally will still be extraordinarily wealthy.

As for banks, I agree the current fractional reserve, lender of last resort, bailout model won't work on a Bitcoin standard. But I don't think banks will cease to exist entirely. They'll more likely transform onto a different model more like the old traditional lending models of the past.

That's my opinion for what it's worth, but again predicting the future, especially many decades out is fraught with speculation. I try to not let my emotions about what I want to cloud my decisions and instead just do my best to understand the current state of the world.

Saylor was certainly in a bad mood in that interview but nothing that he said really surprised me.

Billionaires have been using lending and leverage to get and stay rich for as long as I can remember. They do it because it works. The model is very simple, buy and hold valuable assets, borrow against them and buy more. Never sell. Pass them on to your children and repeat.

It blows my mind when people are surprised by this. It blows my mind even more when people are delusional enough to think it's going to suddenly change overnight.

Saylor speaks publicly about it but I highly doubt he's the only one. There's plenty of wealthy people that keep a much lower profile. It's a good thing we get some insight into how they think.

Lastly, timelines are extremely important. It's one thing to see a different future for Bitcoin but we might be off significantly about how long it's going to take. On that journey it's not crazy to make the observation that the fiat system and regulations will persist.

Making observations is not the same as advocacy. There are many things I don't like about the fiat system but I'm not delusional enough to think it's going to disappear in my lifetime.

The word invent means to create something that didn't exist before.

But you can't really have invention without discovery. So it's actually both.

Not your keys, North Korean hackers coins.

It's both. People who have done the work up front will push the price higher and the price going higher will attract more people.

I think a lot more people are paying a small amount of attention but it's not thier main focus. Kinda like they see Bitcoin in thier peripheral vision but haven't turned thier head to really look at it.

In other words, I think the orange pill barrier has lowered and the next wave of people being orange pilled well be much larger than the previous.

Hi James! I've often wondered if your time as a hockey player has given you any unique perspectives in the investment world?

I think people underestimate the ability of Bitcoin core developers. They can read, understand and test the SHA256 code as well as any NSA employee.

If there was a back door it would've been found. This is one fear I don't lose sleep over

Wouldn't they just sell their GovCoin and buy more Bitcoin?

If we're going to talk about tainted sats I would like to understand what the risks actually are?

As far as I'm aware receiving money is not a crime. But it could be used to connect you to a crime.

Receiving money is also a taxable event. If you failed to declare it as income on your taxes that would also be illegal.

If you didn't actually commit a crime it would seem to me the risk is being falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit.

Don't get me wrong, the risk is certainly not zero. There's obviously corruption in the legal system. People do get caught in the crossfire sometimes. We also don't know what the future holds, some future political change could greatly increase the risk of receiving tainted sats.

In an ideal world I never want to receive tainted sats. But it seems to me the simple act of receiving them is not the issue. The risk is the surrounding evidence that connects you with a crime you didn't commit.

Yes is is.

To be clear, I do not support or endorse what they do. I only seek to understand the enemy.

Legal tender has a very specific purpose in tax law. You use legal tender as the base currency to calculate capital gains tax.

If you live in the United States the government expects you to use USD as the base currency for capital gains tax.

However, if you live in Australia and the government declared AUD as legal tender but you're holding some USD you are supposed to pay capital gains tax if you sell, dispose or transact with USD.

You could technically walk into a coffee shop in Australia and pay with USD if the owner accepted it. But that transaction could incur a capital gains tax for you and the coffee shop owner now has the USD and they could incur capital gains tax if they converted it to AUD.

In other words, legal tender is simply the currency the government declared it to be.

The point is, even though USD and AUD are both legal tender in thier respective countries they are not equally treated as legal tender from country to country.

Legal tender is any form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt. In particular, legal tender is typically the currency the government collects taxes in. However, the money itself does not technically have to be a debt based fiat currency. Although, as far as I'm aware they all are.

Remember, laws are just rules some politicians decided. There's nothing technically stopping them from deciding to make sea shells legal tender.

You're right. I don't know what you're talking about. I'll let you get back to doing very important things and I'll go do something else.