BTC

TheresNoSecondBest

**6.15 BTC exactly**. Don't question the number, it has been scientifically proven.

tenor_tymir

5BTC

adjudantloic

Never any clarity act will exist: imagine That this funny to imagine that --> because there is no impact. The goal of the BTC system is precisely freedom Bitcoin doesn't technically exist. No one can ban it, that is its strength. Banning drugs is fine because the government makes money by seizing illegal goods. The government will never be able to seize your Bitcoin.

adjudantloic

Peer to peer systems are being devoloped for buy and sell BTC. The peer-to-peer system is the best. It is used in a great many IT applications, particularly in antivirus update distribution systems and other areas for governments and major institutions. It is very powerful.

JuxtaposeLife

Then $90k tomorrow because Clarity had nothing to do with BTC.

Illustrious_Nothing9

F the geriatrics, Let's go BTC

adjudantloic

This is where we see the power of Bitcoin: whether US policy does something or not, it will never change Bitcoin. The US, like the rest of the world, is powerless against this unique BTC system. Why are people so drawn to the Clarity Act? Bitcoin is free and therefore it is nothing compared to any law --> it's a force and this is a sign that the BTC system works very well and that even the most powerful person in the world will not be able to do anything about it. [](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/sections/38303584022676-Accessibility)

adjudantloic

BTC system doesn't care about this sh.t

LowerStranger9021

This is an incoherent comment that contradicts itself. Buying BTC is going long. You understand this right?

Mobile-Growth2053

checking the chain is the right first split. If the withdrawal address shows nothing, this is probably internal rather than a market issue, even with BTC moving around again ahead of the Fed headlines. Save old emails too, especially any miner payout confirmations

Chrysalis1111

I give more of a shit how much BTC will Russia and Russian citizens stockpile now that they at least have a law about it. Also the countries that wish to trade with them (or are forced to - Helllooo EU!)

adjudantloic

Why are people so drawn to the Clarity Act? Bitcoin is free and therefore it is nothing compared to any law --> it's a force and this is a sign that the BTC system works very well and that even the most powerful person in the world will not be able to do anything about it.

anonymousopsec1337

Fuck longs and fuck shorts. Buy BTC

adjudantloic

This is where we see the power of Bitcoin: whether US policy does something or not, it will never change Bitcoin. The US, like the rest of the world, is powerless against this unique BTC system.

JohnnyMofo

"US national debt now exceeds 40 trillion USD / 524 million BTC" 😂

bitusher

> still account for a huge chunk of (centralized) hashrate and % of the network. It has a lot of room for improvement , sure, but its merely one mechanism in Bitcoin's security assumptions >however, the economic incentive doesn't exist for that to be a meaningful change. If all the hashrate to secure the network is pointed at the larger chain, there is no incentive for anyone to switch over and start using a new, "little brother" chain, The 2017 Blocksize wars reflected otherwise because we could see which chain had the most economic support in multiple ways from large holders statements and prediction markets . Miners ultimately get paid by users so it was clear that a majority of the sell pressure was going to be on the forked coin thus the largest miners decided instead to simply create a separate altcoin to A/B test and mine both chains. > It will be far less secure. No. The security is ultimately paid by the users buying coins from miners . If there isn't a market for this and a speculative war drive the price down on the new fork coin that the security(hashrate really as security is much more than merely hashrate) will return to the original chain >And the non-miners don't have incentive to switch either. Many will sit on the sidelines with both sides of the fork until clarity comes after many coins are sold > miners have a choice, they can keep securing the old chain, or they can move over and secure the new chain. This is a false dichotomy . Miners will mine both chains when its economic to do so . How much they mine from each chain depends multiple variables. >when they could just kill the new chain by doing a 51% attack? There are multiple ways to defend against a 51% attack, and performing a 51% attack is very dangerous for them to do because of the 100 block maturity rule >So it brings us back to why would the humans switch chains? Most will sit on the sidelines until clarity is made from an economic majority(not miners) >This worked in the blocksize wars because BTC wasn't a financialized Wall St asset. You are also making the false assumption that only companies, governments and ETFs hold large amounts of Bitcoin. There are many individuals that also hold over 100k BTC as well Also you need to consider that these companies also have many motivations. Some of these motivations are influenced by keeping the status quo of users happy so they can profit off them. Some of these motivations are keeping the devs happy because they depend upon them .

TheSneederOfSeethe

Of all the people who could hold my BTC, these would be the last people I would want holding my BTC. Don’t get me wrong, Cash App is useful, I even buy BTC on it. But, it’s almost always for immediate spending. Anything left is what I didn’t spend so like $1 or 2 of BTC. But I would never keep any large quantity of BTC on cash app.

Aggressive-Spirit265

We talk a lot about Bitcoin as a store of value, but I'm more interested in where people think it actually becomes useful in everyday life. Holding BTC is one thing, but using it for real things like services, payments, or business expenses feels like the bigger test. What kind of real world use cases do you think could actually push Bitcoin adoption forward?

reddit4485

This is a stupid article. It ignores the fact that the value of Bitcoin increases by the time of each halving. This gives the value of the subsidy right after the halving. It does not include transaction fees, which are tiny now. Halvings will occur long after we're dead. | Halving | Date | Subsidy in $ | Bitcoin Subsidy | |---|---|---:|---:| | 1st | 11/28/12 | $312.50 | 25 BTC | | 2nd | 7/9/16 | $7,987.50 | 12.5 BTC | | 3rd | 5/11/20 | $52,968.75 | 6.25 BTC | | 4th | 4/19/24 | $199,275.00 | 3.125 BTC |

TheresNoSecondBest

2017's concentration was hidden by pool labels. AntPool, BTC.com, BTC.TOP, and ViaBTC were all effectively Bitmain aligned. Counting them as separate pools understates how much of the network answered to one entity. **By operator concentration, 2017 was arguably worse.**

TheresNoSecondBest

>It sounds like you didn't read my post. I read and replied to your ridiculous statements, mate. Also I read your comments here. They all sound like something from Luke's or Kratter's videos. >It's okay to debate and explore options. That is what makes open-source technology like BTC great. That's also the exact opposite of what Luke has wanted and historically operated on Yet, you're happy to run his software, while calling the [Bitcoin Core compromised](https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinKnots/comments/1vjh390/comment/p2nvt5q/) just a month ago. >So if you're unwilling to even have a discussion Again, I've replied to your post and comments with facts. You're the one not replying back. >He's been a hardliner, hard to work with dev for over a decade. Agreed. It was good to have someone with opposite views in Core but we was IMHO a net negative.

No-Masterpiece2246

Ehh in 2017 they were just printing a couple billion Tether and wash trading every time BTC went down. That's why it plunged from $20k to $3k.

AnywhereSavings1710

Yes, pools and corporations are different, of course. As for your comments about miners being more centralized in 2017, just plain untrue mate. If you mean by region, that's fair. 2017 was China dominated. But by pool? Nope. Here's the facts: |**Metric / Feature**|**📌** The 2017 Landscape|**⚡** The 2026 Landscape| |:-|:-|:-| |**Top Pools by Hashrate**|**AntPool** (\~17%)[**BTC.com**](http://BTC.com) (\~16%)[**BTC.TOP**](http://BTC.TOP) (\~13%)**ViaBTC** (\~11%)**Slush Pool** (\~7%)|**Foundry USA** (\~26%–31%)**AntPool** (\~18%)**F2Pool** (\~13%)**ViaBTC** (\~10%)**SpiderPool** (\~9%)| |**Centralization Index**|**Highly Distributed:** The top 2 pools controlled less than **30%** of the network.|**Highly Concentrated:** The top 2 pools control roughly **45%–50%** of the network.|

AnywhereSavings1710

Yes I agree with you here. But the problem is still that the mining corporations, such as Foundry, still account for a huge chunk of (centralized) hashrate and % of the network. As for the "large hodler running a full node" who "gets both sides of a fork", yes I acknoweldge that's how the network works, however, the economic incentive doesn't exist for that to be a meaningful change. If all the hashrate to secure the network is pointed at the larger chain, there is no incentive for anyone to switch over and start using a new, "little brother" chain, if you will. It will be far less secure. So while there may be plenty of users with those new coins from a fork, why would they begin to transact on the forked chain? They are taking a much larger economic risk. The miners HAVE to make the switch, therefore the miners HAVE to be incentivized to do so. And the non-miners don't have incentive to switch either. Continuing on the economic incentive train (because that's how the world works), let's say that as rational humans, we believe that the cost of not switching to the forked chain is actually HIGHER than the cost of switching to it, even though it has much less security and could be co-opted by the current mining cartel. So we all do it. In that case, miners have a choice, they can keep securing the old chain, or they can move over and secure the new chain. But why would they do that, when they could just kill the new chain by doing a 51% attack? They'd certainly have the resources. So it brings us back to why would the humans switch chains? This worked in the blocksize wars because BTC wasn't a financialized Wall St asset. Now that it's a part of that system, it doesn't matter. Wall St can survive without "us". And by survive, I mean they can keep the network running as a store of value, without needing plebs or whales to transact on it.

inadyttap

Bought some more BTC 

AnywhereSavings1710

I don't disagree with you. When did I ever propose that that should be the case? It sounds like you didn't read my post. I don't support Luke, never listened or read of Mechanic other than hearing others talk about him, and have watched Kratter but again don't support his sentiment and actions. It's okay to debate and explore options. That is what makes open-source technology like BTC great. That's also the exact opposite of what Luke has wanted and historically operated on. So if you're unwilling to even have a discussion, you're closer to Luke Dashjr in mental framework then you may even realize. He's been a hardliner, hard to work with dev for over a decade.

AnywhereSavings1710

That post was from 2 years ago, and was intented to serve as a hypothetical thought experiment. If you read my replies on it you'll see that. Additionally, I've spent the last two years studying and do understand BTC on a much deeper level at this time. This is why I made this post.

Tall-Ad1293

Michael Saylor is probably looking at that even 25,000 BTC balance right now thinking: 'Amateurs, that's just a Tuesday buy for us.'

MrKillerKiller_

Or protect your BTC and never hold extended downtrends.

Objective_Basil_8414

The value overflow bug is the best case study in this whole list if you write software for a living. The output values summed past int64 and the sanity check was comparing an already-wrapped total, so a fully conformant node happily validated 184 billion BTC as legal. Five hours from report to patched binaries, and the bad chain only got orphaned because enough people actually ran the new build. Nobody's 2010 threat model said "a missing overflow check is the monetary policy", but that's exactly what it was, and it's why shipping a feature into consensus code is a completely different sport to shipping one into a web app. Good to see it walked block by block instead of retold from memory.

Objective_Basil_8414

The extension only ever works in one direction though. It will happily tell you that latte cost 0.00004 BTC, but it never opens a second panel for the nine times you sold early. Real financial therapy would price everything in the sats you already paper-handed back in 2017.

MrKillerKiller_

Everyone knows utility and fundamentals and news and all that bullshit is just noob fuel and doesnt matter whatsoever. Its fleeting moments of BTC profits looking to sweeten the bag briefly before cashing out.

DiamondHandsDarrell

I don't have the time to go into it, but this is a terrible take and it goes against the core belief, because it sounds like you're saying we need more BTC produced. That's the system we have in fiat now and it doesn't work.

AutoModerator

Post is by: DazzlingNet1516 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1wh261q/two_big_catalysts_this_week_the_clarity_act_vote/ Crypto has two pretty big events coming up almost back to back. The Senate is voting on whether to move the CLARITY Act forward, and then we’ve got the Fed rate decision right after that. The regulation side feels important longer term, but I’m wondering if the Fed still matters more for price in the short term. If the bill advances but the Fed comes out hawkish, does crypto still sell off anyway? What do you think will actually move BTC and ETH more this week? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Ok-Software3522

The calendar cycle argument has always bothered me when people treat it like a law instead of one historical pattern. Bitcoin is operating in a completely different market structure now with ETFs, institutional positioning and much deeper integration with macro liquidity. I would rather build the cycle thesis from those variables than assume October has to behave a certain way because previous halvings did. I have Moon pull those pieces together when I want a reality check on the narrative, especially liquidity and rates against BTC.

DiamondHandsDarrell

I just want my % back in BTC on USDC held on coinbase that beats inflation 😭

Big_Professional9253

I've been expecting to test support at the structural lows since BTC hit $57.7k, and I've been looking for another leg down to the mid to upper $40k range. Obviously none of that has materialized yet, but as long as Bitcoin keeps getting rejected at the 50-Week SMA there is a chance for another support test, and maybe even another leg down. The problem is, the August 19th pump literally changed the structure, and last weeks pump from the CPI strengthened it. IMO, if this move proves to be legit, (pending the Monthly close) it reduces the likelihood of another leg down. At this stage, there is no denying that there has been a sequence of technical and structural r/S Flips that have opened my mind to the  possibility that the bottom could be in. However, there is also no denying that we still have no confirmation of a macro breakout, and until we do, there is still a chance to test support at the macro low, and potentially lower.  That said, the longer price stays elevated, the higher the probability that the bottom is in, so here are the levels I'm watching to gain some insight on how things are likely to develop from here. # 50-week SMA A wick above the moving average is not sufficient. Bulls need to reclaim the level, close above it and then validate it as support. Until that happens, the 50-week SMA remains resistance. When it does happen – algos and breakout buyers will long. # $78,380 Timescape r/S Flip Line This is the first meaningful structural test beneath the rejection. At the time of writing, price has dropped below it, but what matters most is where BTC closes. * Holding above $78,380 would show that the pump retained value despite failing at the SMA, and keeps BTC in range of another breakout attempt with a higher probability of succeeding. * Losing $78,380 would increase the probability that the move was primarily a liquidity sweep. # $77,200–$77,000 A move back through this area would surrender most of the post-CPI advance and place the market back inside the pre-release structure. # Approximately $76k A return to the CPI-session low would complete a near-total round trip. That would provide the strongest confirmation that the pump was a failed breakout and liquidation event rather than the beginning of a durable trend. # $75,000 No longer just a psychological level, it now has confluence with the macro support line – losing it opens the door to the $69k – $73k range. How price reacts at this level determines where the last accumulation range will be. Are we in it now, or is there a chance to go lower? Pro Tip: Keep an eye on [liquidity and order flow](https://materialindicators.com/firecharts/). # $69,000 – $73,000 As long as price fails to break above the 50-week SMA, revisiting this range or lower is a possibility. Save some dry powder. \#NFA

CyanDew

it's a marketing expense, not interest. they payin out of their own revenue the same way a credit card gives u cash back, probably to keep you as a customer using their BTC hot wallet. just remember the reward exists specifically to discourage you from withdrawing to self-custody. Block is a business after all, and every sat that leaves for a hardware wallet is revenue they never see again. you’re also accepting custodial risk for roughly 1.5% annually… plus the rate is variable and can be cut to 0% whenever they want.

SwapzoneIO

We wouldn’t call this outright bullish yet. I’d describe it as relative strength. ETF outflows are clearly selling pressure, but the more important question is how BTC reacts to that pressure. If BTC continues holding around $76K–$79K despite those outflows, it suggests there is still enough demand elsewhere to absorb the selling. That said, we wouldn’t read too much into the current stability on its own. For us, $80K is the level to watch. A clean reclaim and hold above it would be a much stronger confirmation of demand. If BTC keeps getting rejected there, the current range could still turn into another move lower. So rather than looking at ETF flows in isolation, we’d focus on the relationship between selling pressure and price reaction. That gives a better picture of whether the market is actually absorbing supply or simply consolidating before the next move

Previous_Valuable873

Now go check XMR in the last 2 years how it's tripled against BTC

Previous_Valuable873

All I am saying is if all the ETF, shilling, clarity act etc BTC can do only this much now, when everyone is shilling it, then when the AI bubble pops because you can bet your farty asses it'll, decreasing the USD 25% plus purchasing power minimum, plus global recession.... sub10k even

Pyroll2206

You can only get new BTC at the price of mining.

NiceInflation2483

Quiet Bitcoin is honestly where I find the market more interesting because everyone stops reacting to every candle and you can actually look at what is happening underneath. I would keep an eye on ETF flows, liquidity, hash rate and the rate environment rather than trying to call the exact cycle bottom from the calendar. Something like moon could come in handy for putting those pieces next to BTC and seeing which relationships are actually holding in this cycle. If Bitcoin continues absorbing bad macro days without making new lows, that would get my attention more than another random green candle.

TapeLegacy

Hurdles my ass, yall are about to cry when BTC hits $100,000 right before your eyes today

AsherHayes6

This extension is basically the modern '10,000 BTC Pizza' reminder for your everyday Amazon cart. Instant minimalism unlocked.

gordonfr_

Some would sell and buy something nice for it and be happy without owning FIAT or BTC.

Objective_Bus_6270

The sideways action is boring but it is probably more interesting than it looks because volatility compression eventually has to resolve somewhere. The mistake is assuming that automatically means the resolution has to be upward. With the Fed coming up I would rather map the levels and wait for price to show which scenario is actually getting accepted. Moon can be handy for putting the BTC chart beside rates, liquidity and the broader risk on picture instead of trying to infer everything from one candle pattern.

UpbeatFix7299

Lightning? Lol. Let's technically use BTC but not use it for the reasons BTC exists in the first place. Because if we transacted in BTC like it was intended, it would be totally impractical due to to the baked in limitations

Cryptomuscom

If BTC price scales with halvings, miner incentives stay fine

UpbeatFix7299

No one transacts in BTC so who cares? Unless you're a true believer who just hangs out in the echo chamber.

jojothehodler

That is what is called the consensus. If you change the rules, you are not in the consensus anymore, you just created a fork. Of you change the rule, and everyone agrees, you are in the consensus, you are still BTC

Topspeed_PT

People buy and sell every second. BTC is down 1.59% today.

KanedaSyndrome

Well if we know others exit when there's uncertainty, then that's the play. This is not about underlying value, as there is none in BTC, but it's Poker against the other investors.

Which_Drop_5877

You can add unlimited 0s after the decimal point. You can keep dividing and distributing. If 0.0017 BTC is $133.45 then you can buy a $3 loaf with just 0.000014 BTC.

TheresNoSecondBest

>BTC is first and foremost a store of value. It's held by Governments, Corporations, and individuals, as a store of value. The only way node runners (*as the system currently stands*) would have any real sway over miner (mining corporations) choices, is if BTC's primary function was transfer of value (currency). Since it is not, and since currently it is treated as digital gold (which I'm not trying to argue is a bad thing, just stating the reality), there's no reason for miners to listen to anyone. Honestly, it doesn't matter how people use bitcoin. I'm using it as an insurance in case my current government ducks things up again, I'm using it as a currency to pay for goods and services, I'm using it as a savings account. Yes, the majority of people use it as a store of value but to do that, they still had to the "transfer of value" to their own wallet. Yes, HODL is using too. Anyway, store of value doesn't remove node power. Nodes enforce the rules that make BTC scarce and valid in the first place (21M cap, signature rules, etc.). If miners tried to change those, nodes reject the blocks regardless of what BTC "is used for." **The store-of-value property depends on node-enforced rules.** The miners node relationship is a mutual hostage situation, not one sided as you think. Miners need nodes to propagate and validate their blocks. And nodes need miners to produce blocks. If miners diverge from what users and nodes accept, their blocks are worthless. That mistake costs a lot of electricity. This is why the Blocksize War I have mentioned above, resolved the way it did: the majority of miners backed bigger blocks, but economic nodes and users rejected them. >Let's do some game theory: let's say a bunch of node runners want to make a change. Let's even say 60% agree, and run a different implementation of BTC. Why would the miners make a change? If this 60% is just Luke and friends spinning cheap Sybil nodes like it happened recently, miners will ignore it. If the 60% are nodes with a 60% crowd of users behind, like we had in 2016, miners will start paying attention. >ESPECIALLY if that change had some kind of threat to miner incentives (profitability & future profitability)? Bip110 was forcing the spammers to use more block space to achieve the same result (surprise, it didn't stop the spam at all), which incentvied the miners "profitability & future profitability" and yet, they ignored it. **ESPECIALLY, because the majority of nodes and users ignored it**. In 2017, miners didn't ignore segwit, despite losing "profitability & future profitability" due to [ASICboost](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/mining-manufacturer-blocking-segwit-benefit-asicboost). **ESPECIALLY, because the majority of nodes and users wanted it.** >In this hypothetical Instead of hypothetical, I gave you REAL examples that happened. Try to read them, and research everything, instead of listening to the scammers. >The reality is, the node runners could fork, and because they have no mining power (in comparison) they will forever be the shorter chain. Less mining power doesn't necessary means shorter chain, even if the fork stays at the same algo. Since 2017, Bitcoin is "the shorter chain". Bcash is currently at block number 968,580 while Bitcoin is at 967,088. I'm honestly too lazy to check on other forks but I'm sure, at least one of them will have even longer chain. The longest chain isn't everything. >Do Do you forget that part of BTC's value proposition is it's network effect? It's length of uptime? Just BTC existing for a longer amount of time than any of it's competitors is a factor in why its more valuable today. This is your only correct assumption, mate. And that's the reason, why if you're proposing a BIP, you need to convince as much of people as possible. 20% Sybil nodes won't cut it. Even trying to force the change with only 60% of nodes as in your scenario would be bloody difficult. You don't want to force or break anything, you want to **make Bitcoin better**. You won't make Bitcoin better by forcing people to use your idea, like Roger, Faketoshi and Jihan tried in 2017, nor Luke, Mechanic and Krater in 2026. You make Bitcoin better when you convince people how it helps them. >Don't forget that two mining pools already currently make up 43% of hash.. so "Secure" is surface level of course. You're wrong again, mate. Lukecoin for example had currently one pool that made over 60% of hash alone. I bet they forgot to tell you about that. Anyway, pools =/= miners. I'm a small miner myself. I'm also a part of one pool. Should this pool start acting strange or forcing a change I don't like, it'll take me about one minute to point my machines to another pool. Pools are here to make money too. Not to ruin their reputation and kill their income within an hour. If you think Bitcoin is not secure, you should probably sell your coins and use a "more secure" shitcoin. >From first principles, there's no incentive for miners to listen to node runners. Wrong. I just showed you examples from the past. Not scenarios, made in your head. >They don't work for anyone but themselves. Wrong. They work for the network. They earn from the network bitcoin for themselves. >They are corporations, regulated by governments, Not all. Thousands of miners like myself out there too. There's more small unregulated miners out there than corporations. >with one driving force: profitability. Correct for the corporations. Not for everyone. We, small miners care about more than that. I value the non-KYC'd coins more than coins bought at some shitcoin casino, for example. >To say otherwise would be going against basic economic incentive structure. Nothing's absolute, mate. I just gave you my reason. Do you think Satoshi mined just for profit too? How about the thousands of people between Satoshi and now?

cuteman

> I think govts secretly have more. China, Russia, NK, Europe, S America… all the continents, all the govts- BTC is at least on their radar. If BTC ever became that significant a state actor could brute force 51%

PeteyPab305

Digital Silver! LMFAO Ok well it launched in 2011 only 2 years after BTC, how long will I need to wait, exactly for it break back above $100? NTM Charlie Lee sold and donated all of his market-accumulated Litecoin holdings on December 20, 2017, to eliminate a conflict of interest, following a launch that is widely considered to "fair" at best. I know more about LTC than you might think bud. It assure it's hot trash that lost all of it utility when Stable Coins launched enabling a pegged coin to settle into with near zero transaction fee's! Why would I settle into LTC when Stable Coins exists?

creative_usr_name

I don't consider moving BTC already withing my control, or consolidating UTXOs taxable events. If you went to the bank and exchanged 100 one dollar bills for 1 one hundred bill no one would think that's a taxable event. I have a spreadsheet where I track my cost basis and when I spend I "use up" those basis's. Granted I only have a few dozen BTC transactions.

redbow7

I thought lost BTC was higher 3-4 million

Enfiznar

Behold, [BTC is the wave the Voyager ship navigates ](https://imgur.com/a/vCIOjV7)

sheeeeeeeeei

Yeah, but I don’t like being optimistic when it comes to the fate of the ledger. Why bother lol, it either fails catastrophically or becomes too big to ignore. Just heard too that Data centers are coughing up big big money to guarantee contracts to future electricity reserves. And I’m not confident in finding more efficient ways of hashing. I’m especially thoughtful about if we will EVER move past silicon. Wouldn’t it be funny if bitcoin was just one big lesson in chemo-physics 😂 which actually reminds me of our own role in how halving actually is supposed to affect price action in a perfect world where we all trade our fiat for Bitcoin and use it as a P2P electronic cash system 😭😭😭😭 I keep my mind not too far away from scarcity economics and who’s really bag holding big time with an evil secret agenda? I don’t blame some people for not caring about the health of the system (software) that gives them riches. And to me that’s why BTC is so powerful a tool. Because we’re still early (to mining, buying, etc.) the same way you could have been early in 2009. I somewhat believe in the inverted Bitcoin rainbow chart. Scarcity from lost coins will continue to dominate price action well past 2140. My main fear is running out of a usable amount of coins and all functional coins are lost and no one can participate in the system anymore. You’d have to build a new one or abolish currency and worship the fallen God BTC 😭 idk man I think way far ahead

Wildwildworld123

I'll just say this...Nobody knows for sure, but lets say theres one more dip. BTC goes down to 60k(i personally dont think it will) I would NOT wait for 50k. If we see 60K again you better jump the fuck on it.

Amazing_Giraffe_7464

+ 1 for Gemini. I've had one since they started their CC program. They do 1-3% cashback in your choice of coin, including BTC. Their anti-fraud protections trigger enough for me to feel safe and moving coin rewards to my cold storage is straight forward. I've had to replace one card due to entering my info into a shady website and their customer service was top notch in getting me sorted.

GrokM14232

A cloture vote is mostly a test of whether leadership has 60 votes to open debate, not a clean probability estimate for final passage. Even a 58-42 failure can be constructive if the holdouts are bargaining over amendments or jurisdiction, while 60-40 can still leave the bill stuck later. For BTC and ETH, imo the near-term move is probably more positioning cleanup than a lasting regulatory repricing unless the vote exposes a durable bipartisan coalition.

Snoo_51584

What about BTC’s utility? Can the BTC network handle the same number of transactions as VISA or Mastercard? NO!! How many times or people are promoting BTC for its utility instead of its trading value? Even at current price of BTC, who is using Satoshis to pay for their sushi dinner, groceries and/or Mortgage? BTC was a promising open source project and now it’s “Brought to you Big Money and Financial institutions”! 🤷🏽‍♂️✌🏽

magicseadog

I think my biggest lesson about BTC is almost always the narrative is wrong.

Kitchen_Net_GME

I see Bitcoin hitting $85K pretty soon. Just seems like BTC and the markets are consolidating and bubbling to go higher. I watch meme stonks too and see the same pattern there.

r3dd1t0r77

But they didn't have the money. They had an investment (BTC). If they were going to sell their investment, they should've planned for that months in advance. Selling a large investment (6+ figures) shouldn't be done on a whim (no emotions, no impulse buys like houses/cars). They should have had a plan like "when BTC reaches *x* value, sell 25%... etc etc." You can ignore this, but that would be inadvisable. Ask any veteran investor. Secondly, once you have the money, you still need to research your next investment: the house. See the link provided for steps 2 and 4: 2. Get to know your market (4-5 months before you plan to buy) 4. Start searching for the right home (around 4-5 months) Failing to plan is planning to fail, my dude.

damnuchucknorris

What losing 18 BTC taught me about B2B sales- LinkedIn. Total marketing post.

Mister_Way

I expect CLARITY to pass cloture tomorrow followed by a big green candle, then gets dashed to pieces as US and Japanese central banks cause dollar rates to rise and risk assets to get fucked. Then an escalation from Iran, who want to make sure Trump gets fucked at the election, all coming together for a huge resumption of price losses for BTC.

MiaTaude589

Yeah this. Bitcoin can remove some monetary discretion, but it doesn't make lending, custody, or credit risk disappear. I'd still keep my BTC in self-custody, but businesses borrowing in BTC from private banks seems inevitable?

Beneficial_Giraffe21

Doesn’t avoid the tax event however better to take the hit now than in 10 years from now. Did the same. If BTC turns out the way many hope tfsa is a great way to get the gains out tax free or at least tax deferred.

TapeLegacy

I feel sorry for anyone who didn’t enter at $58,000. Good luck, but BTC is never hitting that price again 🤷🏼‍♀️🔥

blastermckaster

Mmm....BTC from 0.1 USD to 78k is a bull run my guy.

CyanDew

fair point. allow me to dive further. in all honesty, since June i’ve been 80% allocated in BTC. 60% of my BTC is locked in a hard wallet with no output history, while the other 20% is in a hot wallet. i get paid weekly in BTC and USD. i mainly use up my 20% USD allowance for the week for bills and expenses, because it fits my budget. that way i only have to sell portions of my BTC when i absolutely need to. somedays ill wake up and see i have an extra $50 in BTC when its up for the day. depending on the USD i have leftover, ill take a portion of those gains to treat myself. thats more or less what i meant when i said i DCA out. nobody likes to part ways with their bitcoin, but for the most part, i don’t feel as bad knowing i only sell small bits when absolutely necessary. i hope that makes more sense! nonetheless, this is my

bitusher

>are you sending them BTC? or are you using a BTC card type deal where it automatically converts your BTC into $$ then pays them? I don't use any crypto cards and don't like them. I always spend Bitcoin directly online and locally. I my country hundreds of local users take bitcoin directly over lightning and most keep their BTC and respend it > for signaling intent of "plebs" and for if we are pointing our wallets at them and transacting with them. Not all nodes are the same. Nodes with merchants , wallets , exchanges, and large hodlers matter much more than someone with a little amount of BTC. You are right that economic nodes are what matter . But being a trader or hodler is a type of economic node as well.

AnywhereSavings1710

"Many users like myself see Bitcoin primarily as money and I spend it with merchants almost everyday . You could suggest that most either treat it as a store of value **or as a speculative asset to day trade or swing trade** though. Thus its not just a store of value even if you consider its most popular use cases." \> Need to respond to this as well - are you sending them BTC? or are you using a BTC card type deal where it automatically converts your BTC into $$ then pays them? If it's the latter, this has no effect on the incentive I was discussing. The point was that non-mining nodes are only good (as far as what we're discussing, but yes, there are other benefits for the network and user besides what I'm about to say) for signaling intent of "plebs" and for if we are pointing our wallets at them and transacting with them. So that there is some functional connection to the network activities.

bitusher

> BTC is first and foremost a store of value. Many users like myself see Bitcoin primarily as money and I spend it with merchants almost everyday . You could suggest that most either treat it as a store of value **or as a speculative asset to day trade or swing trade** though. Thus its not just a store of value even if you consider its most popular use cases. >The only way node runners (as the system currently stands) would have any real sway over miner (mining corporations) choices, is if BTC's primary function was transfer of value (currency). This does not follow. Economic Full nodes absolutely enforce the consensus rules and can directly influence which chain a miner decides to mine >there's no reason for miners to listen to anyone. Miners are also Bitcoiners . Many run their own full nodes , contribute to development , spend Bitcoin. There isn't miners vs others. There is a spectrum of users who use bitcoin in many different ways. >Let's even say 60% agree, and run a different implementation of BTC. Why would the miners make a change? ESPECIALLY if that change had some kind of threat to miner incentives (profitability & future profitability)? This is not a hypothetical scenario and was already played out in the 2017 Blocksize wars >In this hypothetical, what happens if the miners do NOT run a different implementation? You need to be more detailed as to the power dynamics and support for a change. Is the change a hardfork ? A soft fork ? Which groups of users support the change and what degree of support? Devs, merchants , exchanges , miners, users , wallets ? >Don't forget that two mining pools already currently make up 43% of hash.. so "Secure" is surface level of course. Miners hold less power than you assume as proven in 2017.

heinzmoleman

Inflation at ATH and you want to trade BTC for Fiat???? Yikes

sheeeeeeeeei

Oh my god! So true. I remember reading the white papers (didn’t really understand much of the jargon but I tried) but I simply knew it was going to explode exactly the way it did. Mainly because I knew how small it was back in 2012. So I do think about it a lot, like what will happen when it becomes difficult to mine due to electricity shortages? If there is no possibility for electricity shortages, bitcoin is a great way to protect your self from predatory financial institutions. I also wonder a lot about that Satoshi guy. I saw a comment on here from a guy saying he thinks BTC was given to us by aliens. I suppose that’s extremely unlikely lol so yeah let’s go with aliens 😂 Bitcoin seems like a living creature at this point if you’re paying attention to miner incentives and capitulation forecasts. Quite a rich history and I still have no idea who the hell would “trade” bitcoin

xaviemb

There are closer to 20.1m BTC right now... in about 3.7 years you can round up to 21m

yoobermcruber

Trump did not promise a strategic bitcoin reserve of 4 million BTC or removal of taxes on bitcoin in his election campaign. During his election campaign he said, “If I am elected, it will be the policy of my administration to keep 100% of all of the bitcoin the U.S. government currently holds. This will serve as the core of the strategic bitcoin stockpile. No bitcoin will ever be sold, only purchased and secured.”

sheeeeeeeeei

I read the white papers at 15 years old cuz I found an article about BTC. (Long time ago) I also immediately knew it sounded like a scam to outsiders, and not to even try to tell other people about it, because you’ll get the same response. I understood exactly what a bitcoin was and what the ecosystem looked like immediately. It’s just not for everyone. I didn’t even buy in because I wanted to mine and mining had already become specialized. I still plan on buying a mini rig. I was interested in a full size machine but it’s just too much electricity. Bitcoin was cool back then. I really wonder what it’d be like to meet this community irl. Either way the price action is written into the white papers itself if you can build some inference skills. Gosh.

richardto4321

Well, BTC is less volatile nowadays, but it still has a lot more potential upside compared to traditional investments like the S&P. There will still be swings, but not like 10 years ago when everyone was seeing 10x or even 50x on their investment within 2 years. If that's what you're expecting, then I'm afraid you're gonna be very disappointed.

bigcoumbe

.21 equates to every current millionaire. If every current millionare had 0.21 btc that would be all the BTC.

archm1chael

To answer your first question. Last cycle we had rumours of a BTC ETF, and then the actual ETF listings. Both the rumours and the listings had associated upward pa. I see pretty clear parallels with the clarity act.

Normal_Bandicoot7926

Does BTC in exchanges like Binance or Coinbase count as Funds&ETFs or individuals ?

AutoModerator

Post is by: _SG9 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1wgeacz/i_track_perpetual_open_interest_across_four/ Method first, so you can pull it apart: I read the four venues' open interest and funding at each UTC close (Binance, Bybit, Hyperliquid, OKX) and rank the ETH/BTC ratio against its own 73-session window; ETF flows come from the daily fund files; correlations run over 969 pairs of daily closes. At the September 12 close, 23:59:01 UTC, ETH perpetual open interest was $11.910bn against Bitcoin's $16.971bn. That is 70.18%, rank 1 of the 73 complete sessions since July 3, against a window median of 60.9% and a minimum of 54.4%. It happened on every venue. Between the September 4 and September 12 closes ETH open interest rose 6.1% on Binance, 7.0% on Bybit, 12.1% on Hyperliquid and 9.6% on OKX, while Bitcoin fell 7.1%, 6.5%, 6.3% and 3.1% on the same four. It is also not a price artifact: ETH/BTC rose 6.0% over those eight days while the ratio rose 15.3%, and the dollar size of the Bitcoin book shrank outright. Against the underlying asset the ETH book is 3.888% of a $306.3bn market capitalisation and Bitcoin's is 1.086% of $1,562.2bn, so ETH's is 3.6 times as large relative to its own coin. Funding did not follow. Open-interest-weighted ETH funding closed September 13 at 0.005941% per eight hours, about 6.5% a year, against a 31-day median of 0.005682%, the 53rd percentile. That is an ordinary carry cost, and nobody is paying a premium to be long the perpetual, which is what a short perpetual leg inside a delta-neutral carry book looks like from the outside. The ETH spot ETFs took $189.3M on CPI day, 1.54% of $12.28bn in assets, the cash leg such a book needs. Bitcoin's funds went the opposite way, minus $482.4M over four sessions, 0.5% of $93.58bn. Where I would argue against myself: \- Open interest reports size and never side, so a directional crowd cannot be ruled out, only priced. One that wanted the exposure badly would normally bid funding above its median. \- 73 sessions is the whole claim. My constant window starts July 3, when the venue count went from three to four. \- ETH's 30-day correlation to QQQ is plus 0.012 against a 0.476 trailing 252-day baseline, the 1.28th percentile of 548 days, and to the dollar index minus 0.622. Out of a 969-pair scan roughly ten first-percentile hits are chance alone; the cluster means survive that better, 132 crypto against US equity pairs averaging 0.105 and 22 crypto against dollar pairs averaging minus 0.402, both the 3.6th percentile. \- Friday's CPI print cuts against the dollar-channel reading. In the 60 minutes after the 12:30 UTC release Bitcoin rose 0.85%, gold rose 1.27% and the dollar index fell 0.11%, a dollar-weakness reaction. \- Nearly half of the raw ETH exchange-inflow tape over the last four weeks, 47.7%, is one address depositing every day. Every figure above excludes it. Polymarket and Kalshi both read 79.5% for a 25bp hike on Wednesday, stamped 12:58 UTC today. data + full method: [https://kresmion.com/daily-brief/2026-09-14](https://kresmion.com/daily-brief/2026-09-14) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Lefties_TheWorst7331

Well, just not much new bitcoin. Plenty new fiat though. And yup, few understand. Gimme as much BTC exposure as possible. 😎

Public-Pass5158

Just read about MSTR. It's give or take 1.5 leverage on BTC, and look how volatile the stock price is. Now imagine if the leverage were 3x.

OtherwiseNeat9617

Yes. They're all betting on the price of BTC, settled in fiat. Being scammed by the whales

Gentry_dev

I just want to add re-reading your post, just do the effing post-nuptial…..or maybe even better, no nuptial agreement at all! You are free to hold that BTC to your hearts content and never tell her about it as long as you keep it in BTC. Whatever you spend of it after marriage, don’t buy other assets with it! If you spend it use it to pay bills or so there’s nothing she could take.

Queasy-Ride4291

BTC is a currency. Used for exchanging goods and services. And a poor one at that. And it can’t even keep up with the US Dollar over half a decade. I understand all that I need to. 

joefunk76

Incorrect. 1 BTC would be worth $42M in that scenario, not accounting for GDP real growth and inflation.

Meto_Kaiba

It's misleading, but it's not inaccurate I hope. If a human works an entire lifetime to afford 0.0017 BTC, that's on them.

TypicalSalt5360

Try not to be in the 7.7% of lost BTC, guys.

aleksandra_brznsk

Why moving everything to BTC? Can store assets in one wallet, almost any of them. If you have Ledger, try Guarda. Using it with ERA Wallet, it's a hardware one, and loving such features as predictions

xaviemb

Given the assumption (premise) that Bitcoin replaces store of value and unit of account for all transactions globally (\~$900T USD of value), 0.0017 BTC would represent \~$42,857,142.85 of todays USD Better way to think of it is 0.0017 BTC would buy what today $42.8 million buys... but if that happened USD would not really have a value anymore. Bitcoin would be what everything is priced in (given the premise).

Meto_Kaiba

I've got time on reddit. If every human on earth owned that much BTC, then what? We would all be called 0.0017 and there would be no more r/namenerds needed.

Meto_Kaiba

If there's 21 million times 100 million of something, where something is something that is in hot demand such as BTC, then why does 21 million matter more as a number than 100,000,000 times 21 million units?