pull down to refresh

The subliminal message of the BlackRock video
203 sats \ 10 comments \ @Rsync25 19 Dec conspiracy
In the part where BlackRock explains the 21 million supply, it says "There is no guarantee that bitcoin's 21 million supply cap will not be changed". In my opinion, this means that BlackRock indirectly or directly wants to change Bitcoin's consensus, I don't know by what means or by putting pressure on the Bitcoin Core devs.
In any case, we know very well and there's no point in coming up with an excuse that you don't know, that BlackRock controls many companies around the world together with Vanguard, it has almost 100% of the planet in its hands.
My theory is:
  • Force a change in the consensus, creating real Bitcoin vs. BTCBK (Bitcoin BlackRock)
  • Use ETFs as a way to control price manipulation and much more.
  • Lobby using Exchanges and companies as the main factor against the devs.
In any case, let's keep an eye on what the owners of the largest companies are indirectly trying to do with Bitcoin.
write
preview
related posts
26 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Dec
Controlling a lot of coin doesn't give them a leg up in changing anything, quite the opposite as change would be a risk to their existing business... maybe this is a warning from them that the price of Bitcoin is eternal vigilance?
It's evident that there's already a coordinated attack to increase supply:
  • Use influence operations to astroturf a narrative that Bitcoin can't live up to a false/projected "original" ethos without changes
  • Create a shadow governance of shady startups and NGO salaried developers that support the changes and are prepared to implement
  • Flank and divide Bitcoiners over the details of said changes
  • Marginalize as virtue-less any objectors who recognize there's no cause for change at all
  • Shift the Overton window on unit bias by introducing a BIP to change the unit nomenclature
  • Bargain that adding more base units (divisibility) is not the same as a supply increase, and is less risky than the off-chain rube goldberg systems put forward by your sockpuppet startups
  • Death blow: up the base unit from 1/100M to 1/100T, setting the precedent of mutating the immutable
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 19 Dec
Bargain that adding more base units (divisibility) is not the same as a supply increase, and is less risky than the off-chain rube goldberg systems put forward by your sockpuppet startups
Could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure how switching to millisats would resemble a supply increase. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post. Lost in translation and all.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Dec
There's 2 ways to look at supply:
  1. The total number of whole coins being 21M
  2. The number of base units that is how Bitcoin actually functions, 21M * 100M
I think it's fair to say that no self-interested Bitcoiner would actually change #1 because it would be dilutive to their holdings... The second is a bit more insidious because people generally can't extrapolate or think strategically more than 5 minutes out.
Increasing base units would necessitate change on effectively every piece of Bitcoin software, one "harmless" hard fork to prove such a HF is possible then opens the door to others.
The increased divisibility might actually have the potential to address (idiotic) concerns around self-custodial attainability for mud farmers, but with unpredictable trade-offs around mining/mempool incentives, transaction fees, block subsidy, and switching costs.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 37m
Nonsense. Watch this and learn the truth.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @ChrisS 19 Dec
I would love to trade BTCBK for bitcoin.
reply
17 sats \ 4 replies \ @SwapMarket 19 Dec
Legalese bolierplate to cover their asses, nothing more
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 19 Dec
Legalese bolierplate to cover their asses
In what sense?
reply
28 sats \ 2 replies \ @SwapMarket 19 Dec
so that investors can't sue them if the cap is increased somehow eventually. same as "past returns don't guarantee future performance" type of crap.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 19 Dec
All filings with SEC contain legalese especially IPO prospectus which outlines every possible risk no matter how infinitesimal
No one would invest if they actually read and believed legalese boilerplate.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 19 Dec
so that investors can't sue them if the cap is increased somehow eventually. same as "past returns don't guarantee future performance" type of crap.
True
reply