Thread

Replies (18)

I don't know who this Jordi Visser hopium salesman is and what he sells, and I don't have the time to correct him because I'd have to rewrite his very long article. Admittedly, I only read like 60-70%. If you want some information that's closer to the truth, maybe check some of what I've written. I'll have to commit an Ad Hominem here because I don't really care to rewrite his article. So who is Jordi Visser? Current Position: President and Chief Investment Officer at Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers. - The firm faced bankruptcy due to high spending and poor performance management. - A significant creditor accused the firm of mismanagement and improper financial practices. - Legal disputes are ongoing regarding bonuses paid out before the bankruptcy. But oh wait, there's more. He is the architect and portfolio manager for the Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund (Ticker: WEISX). Maybe I should invest in his fund, let's see how he's doing. image Damn bro, -15.71% since January of 2019. That's impressive. I don't know how that's even possible but maybe I should start following his research just to fade him.
🛡️
↩ replying to Control-Plane Capital
Whilst you’re absolutely correct to look at who the author is, and their track record, thank you for sharing The message from the story told, in some ways, as a opinion piece, means it simply has to be judged on face value And the key point is how high risk capital behaves, long-term, when it’s seen good gains, plus de-risking, plus a liquidity opportunity This fundamental insight is helpful, through the analogy of an IPO, at least that’s what I felt Now of course, one of the key things with Bitcoin is it’s always liquid, but what he highlights is the newfound depth of liquidity, which I liked as an insight
↩ replying to Jake Woodhouse
Yes mate, that's why I called out my own logical fallacy in the comment. There's too much lazy Bitcoin information on the internet to address it all. His article is an oversimplified, lazy, post-hoc rationalization. It was probably written using ChatGPT and can be debunked using ChatGPT unless your prompt is absolutely awful. The thing is, stability > truth at scale. Seeing unpleasant truths requires staying regulated while holding dissonant facts. If anxiety spikes, the mind selects comforting models.
Makes sense! The only thing I’m wary about is this: “Old coins, coins that haven’t moved in years, some dormant since the single-digit price days, are suddenly active. Not all at once. Not in panic. But steadily this year but especially since the summer. Methodically. Addresses that accumulated when Bitcoin was a cypherpunk experiment are finally moving their holdings.” If a sufficiently advanced actor would’ve developed the quantum capability needed to attack Bitcoin, this is exactly how it would look like. I don’t actually think that’s the case though. And also, that wouldn’t change the actual effects of the redistribution, so maybe wouldn’t even matter!
🛡️
↩ replying to Janis
If you can’t prove whether coins were moved by an owner or an attacker, then you can’t prove a “attack” ever occurred. All you’d have is a story, an unverifiable assumption under the guise of science. To change/“upgrade” Bitcoin over an unprovable threat is to abandon the very principle it was built on: don’t trust, verify.
🛡️
↩ replying to Jack K
The chances these long dormant coins are being moved by a nefarious actor is very low It’s just as likely that a nefarious actor is moving recently attained coins @_Checkɱate 🔑⚡🌋☢️🛢️ does some great on-chain anlaysis looking at long-term holder behaviour And frankly it explains so well why we get sell-side pressure when the price runs People have made a amazing returns, far better than any other asset class, and it makes sense to cash some in I believe that’s what we’re seeing
↩ replying to Jake Woodhouse
In general I agree. Except new coins are much less likely to be attacked, because people routinely use HD wallets these days, so long-range attacks wouldn’t work. There only the short-range attack targeting the funds while they’re in the mempool would be a concern. It’s primarily old coins in wallets with long-exposed pubkeys that would be first attacked.
Exactly. Price stabilization isn’t stagnation—it’s maturity. This phase lays the groundwork for real CryptoCommerce, where Bitcoin moves from speculation to circulation. Stability opens the door for it to function as money, not just an asset. Still I think in our community there is huge fear for spending BTC as hold of value seems to be only consensus for BTC use case now. I wonder if anyone here on Nostr believes in CryptoCommerce path? image