If I’m reading Mr Schiff comments correctly. Bitcoin is on its own path……. Finally. “If Bitcoin won’t go up when tech stocks rise, and it won’t go up when gold and silver rise, when will it go up? The answer is: it won’t. The Bitcoin trade is over. The suckers are all in. If Bitcoin won’t go up, it can only go down. If HODLers are lucky it won’t be a slow death.” -Peter Schiff

Rotation

A Christmas message to Bitcoiners Throughout history, ideas that fundamentally challenge existing power structures are rarely welcomed by those who benefit from the status quo. Bitcoin, as a decentralized monetary network, finds itself in a position strikingly similar to that of early Christianity: rejected by central authorities, misunderstood by the masses, and sustained primarily by belief among ordinary people rather than endorsement from institutions. While one is a religious movement and the other a technological and monetary innovation, both illustrate a recurring pattern in human history—the collision between emergent belief systems and entrenched authority. Early Christianity arose within a world dominated by religious and political institutions that claimed exclusive authority over truth, law, and legitimacy. The Jewish Temple establishment and the Roman state both viewed Christianity as a destabilizing force. Its teachings bypassed institutional gatekeepers, asserting that spiritual access did not require intermediaries, wealth, or political alignment. This democratization of faith was profoundly threatening. It removed control from centralized authorities and placed it into the hands of individuals, communities, and conscience. Bitcoin similarly challenges modern centralized authority, not in matters of salvation, but in matters of money—arguably one of the most powerful instruments of social organization. Governments and central banks function as the “temple” of modern finance, defining monetary truth, legitimacy, and access. Bitcoin’s rejection by regulatory bodies and state actors mirrors the early institutional rejection of Christianity. It does not ask permission. It does not require trust in a central authority. Instead, it offers a system governed by transparent rules, voluntary participation, and cryptographic verification rather than institutional decree. Both Christianity and Bitcoin were initially embraced not by elites, but by ordinary people. Early Christians were largely drawn from the lower and middle classes, individuals seeking meaning, justice, and hope beyond imperial power and religious hierarchy. Likewise, Bitcoin’s early adopters were not governments or major financial institutions, but individuals disillusioned with inflation, financial exclusion, and systemic instability. In both cases, the appeal was not dominance but liberation—the ability to participate without needing approval from entrenched power. Mass rejection is another shared characteristic. New belief systems rarely enjoy immediate acceptance. Early Christianity was dismissed as heretical, irrational, and dangerous. Bitcoin today is often labeled a scam, a cult, or a tool for criminals. In both cases, critics frequently attack not only the idea itself but the character and intelligence of its adherents. This reaction is less about the merits of the belief and more about discomfort with its implications. If the system works, then the authority of existing institutions is called into question. Belief itself becomes the battleground. Christianity required faith in a message that could not be empirically proven within the frameworks of its time. Bitcoin similarly requires belief—belief that code can substitute for trust, that decentralized consensus can outperform centralized control, and that value can exist outside state decree. In both cases, belief is not blind acceptance but a commitment formed through conviction, experience, and community reinforcement. Finally, both movements demonstrate that belief will always be challenged by non-believers. Skepticism is not merely opposition; it is an inevitable response to any idea that reorders power. Christianity endured centuries of persecution before institutional acceptance. Bitcoin, still in its early stage, remains in its period of testing—socially, politically, and economically. Whether it follows a similar trajectory is unknown, but the pattern is familiar. In conclusion, Bitcoin’s resemblance to early Christianity lies not in doctrine, but in structure and reception. Both emerged outside institutional authority, appealed to the common person, threatened centralized control, and survived through belief rather than permission. History suggests that such ideas are not extinguished by rejection; instead, they are refined by it. Whether spiritual or monetary, belief systems that resonate deeply with human values tend to persist —often long after their critics have faded into footnotes. I for one am staying in the catacombs of self-custody.

If l go to a Square merchant, and he ask me why should he turn on his POS to take bitcoin. Yes he gets a credit card savings, Yada Yada Yada. But what is the most succinct reason. Going to do a little “missionary” work this week.

Spending Inflationary Currency in an Era of Monetary Transition For nearly a century, the U.S. dollar has served as the global reserve currency—a position earned through military power, industrial production, and geopolitical dominance. But over that same period, the dollar has lost over 90% of its purchasing power. Goods and services priced in dollars have steadily risen not because their intrinsic value increased, but because the currency measuring them declined in value. Inflation is a quiet tax, a continuous dilution of individual saving power in exchange for state-controlled liquidity. In such a system, the rational economic actor learns a simple truth: spend inflationary money before it degrades further. Holding dollars long-term is akin to holding melting ice—the longer one waits, the less remains. Spending becomes not only a consumption habit but an investment decision against future loss. For those who understand this mechanism, spending fiat currency is a strategy, not simply an indulgence. It reflects the awareness that idle cash depreciates as governments expand monetary supply through debt issuance and quantitative easing. Bitcoin’s Contrasting Dynamic Bitcoin emerged as a counterweight to precisely this inflationary system. With a fixed supply of 21 million coins, Bitcoin’s issuance curve is transparent and predictable—beyond the control of central banks or nation-states. Over the past decade, prices for goods—measured in Bitcoin—have fallen steadily. This is not deflation in the harmful economic sense, but appreciation of purchasing power. A person who held Bitcoin rather than dollars experienced the opposite dynamic: the ice hardened rather than melted. Yet, since October 2025, Bitcoin has entered what might be called a temporary inflationary state—not because its supply increased, but because its price in USD declined. This apparent inflation is the mirror image of dollar strength, as fiat markets briefly regained relative value through tightening policies and liquidity shocks. When Bitcoin falls against the dollar, its purchasing power temporarily inflates for those using BTC as a pricing unit. But unlike fiat inflation, this is a market-driven repricing, not structural dilution. It will reverse as global liquidity cycles normalize and Bitcoin’s issuance schedule continues its predictable decline. The Relationship Between Fiat Inflation and Bitcoin “Inflation” At a macro level, Bitcoin’s inflationary moments are a reflection of fiat deflationary waves. Central banks can temporarily make the dollar stronger by reducing liquidity, increasing interest rates, or contracting credit. When this happens, all asset prices—including Bitcoin—decline relative to the dollar. Yet nothing about Bitcoin’s intrinsic properties changes; 21 million coins remain fixed. Fiat currencies, on the other hand, are designed to inflate over time. Even during “strong dollar” periods, the long arc of history bends toward devaluation because monetary policy depends on credit expansion. The state’s capacity to issue more units ensures that wealth continually moves from savers to spenders, from private citizens to public balance sheets. Bitcoin reverses that logic: it is a network where issuance is immune to decree, and thus over time it enforces a deflationary bias. The Long Arc Toward a Deflationary Global Currency If Bitcoin—or any neutral, globally adopted digital reserve asset—becomes the standard of value, the world will gradually shift into a deflationary monetary regime. Without a nation-state able to control money creation, the currency’s supply cannot be expanded to finance wars, bailouts, or political agendas. Prices, in such a system, would fall as technology and productivity increase—because money remains scarce while efficiency rises. This would reward savers rather than debtors and foster long-term investment rooted in value creation rather than credit expansion. A deflationary world currency, therefore, represents not just a financial transformation but a moral and civilizational one. It removes the power of arbitrary issuance and restores the discipline of time preference—rewarding those who plan rather than those who print. Until such a system becomes dominant, the strategic approach is clear: spend inflationary currencies while they still hold value, and save in deflationary assets whose supply cannot be tampered with. Adoption Through Strategic Spending Ironically, the same principle that applies to dollars should, at moments, apply to Bitcoin as well. When Bitcoin enters an inflationary state—when its price dips and purchasing power temporarily expands—spending Bitcoin becomes a strategic act of adoption. In these periods, using Bitcoin to buy goods and services seeds the economy with sound money. Merchants who accept Bitcoin during its lower phase end up holding it as it returns to its natural deflationary path, gaining direct exposure to its future appreciation. Thus, spending Bitcoin in its inflationary cycle is not a loss, but a transfer of opportunity. It distributes Bitcoin into broader hands, embeds it in commercial circulation, and accelerates the network effect that eventually restores its price and purchasing strength. In this way, rational actors help drive adoption by understanding the rhythm of Bitcoin’s monetary heartbeat—spending when it inflates, saving when it hardens, and thereby building the foundation for a deflationary world currency untethered from state control.

For the average pleb. Does bitcoin perform better when governments embraces it or fights it?

My sister doesn’t understand why I’m spending my bitcoin on burgers. It’s this simple. Bitcoin is a bottom up mechanism. I, the lowly pleb, transfer my bitcoin to a larger pleb, the small business. Bottom up monetary movement.

So my main frustration with ecash is the multiple Mints. The wallet say 2000 sats but that is split between two or 3 mints. So to drain the wallet a single lightning send out is not possible. This I think will be handled my the bank account.

Bitcoin Banks as Temporary Payment Hubs Bitcoin stands out as both an asset and a payment network. Yet its dual nature exposes a tension between security and convenience: long-term holders value self-custody for sovereignty, while everyday users need liquidity and speed for commerce. Bridging these priorities calls for a reimagined model of custody — not the traditional “bank” that takes permanent possession of assets, but a Bitcoin bank designed as a temporary payment hub. In this model, individuals retain ultimate ownership of their wealth while offloading small, transactional liquidity to trusted payment intermediaries for short durations. Traditional banks emerged to safeguard money and facilitate its movement within a centralized financial system. Depositors trust institutions to store, transfer, and lend their funds, a necessity born from the fragility of physical cash and the complexity of global transfers. Bitcoin challenges that foundation by granting individuals direct ownership through cryptographic keys, making custody optional. A “self-custodial” setup—a hardware wallet or multi-signature vault—manages this securely. However, sovereignty introduces friction: using funds on the Lightning Network or in fast micropayments requires liquidity channels and always-on technical management. For most users, handling these tools daily isn’t practical. That’s where the temporary Bitcoin bank enters. In contrast to the old-world institution designed to keep your money, a Bitcoin bank’s purpose is to move it efficiently and reversibly. These entities—whether ecash mints, Lightning custodians, or federations using technologies like Fedimint—function as liquidity relays, not custodians of long-term wealth. A user can shift a small, spendable portion of their Bitcoin into such a system for payments, shielding the remainder in cold storage. Once transactions complete, the remaining balance is swept back to self-custody. This process mirrors a cash withdrawal for weekend spending: a temporary delegation of transactional control without surrendering ownership. This model also enhances privacy and scalability. Ecash systems, for example, use blind signatures to obscure individual transactions from the mint itself, allowing payments with fiat-like anonymity. Lightning custodians, meanwhile, provide high-speed micropayments that settle instantly without congesting the base Bitcoin chain. In both designs, trust is minimized through transparency, auditing tools, and open protocols. The relationship becomes fluid: users “bank” with these services ONLY WHEN IN MOTION, NEVER AT REST. The philosophical shift here is subtle but profound. We move from asking, “Who holds your money?” to “Who helps your money move?” Traditional banks keep; Bitcoin banks facilitate. Temporary custodianship becomes an operational layer of monetary freedom—akin to a data network rather than a vault. By separating storage security from transactional convenience, Bitcoin users can experience the best of both worlds: uncompromised self-sovereignty and seamless payment agility. As Bitcoin matures, this approach may become the norm. Large holdings remain offline in self-custody. Smaller balances oscillate into temporary banks or federations to fund daily trade, subscriptions, or peer-to-peer commerce. These cycles of movement—buy, hold, deploy, return—mirror capital efficiency in financial systems but without the moral hazard of opaque intermediaries. The “Bitcoin bank” thus isn’t a relic of the old system; it’s a pragmatic evolution of it, built to respect personal custody while enabling frictionless payment flows.

https://money-gif.shakespeare.wtf/ Checking out Shakespeare with a simple gif build.