SP

LevelStationaryPlane

I’ve made more money this year in just SP500, than I have for the last 5 holding BTC no wonder people aren’t taking this shit seriously, nor should they. You guys are textbook financial and economic Dunning-Kruger maxis.

Unable_Beat_3194

Are you actually trying to learn or just affirm things that you’ve heard. Some good use cases is stablecoin yields which is an alternative to money market funds and bond yields. Depository yields from major banks is very low the default yield on a stablecoin through LPs is 10-15x higher than a standard savings account. RWA hedging is another major use case, being able to access SP500 outside of market hours and buying stocks outside of NYSE hours is a huge advantage when markets are so reactive after hours especially during an earnings call after market closes. Remittance markets has been a primary use case for a long time, sending money to family overseas without delays and high fees. Bitcoin in general acts as another low inflationary instrument outside of traditional metals as an instrument against fiat debasement especially in 3rd world countries. These are just a few topics you can do some more research on. One of the main technological breakthroughs is the ability to prove ownership on a public ledger which is what so many firms are building use cases for.

itsadiseaster

Best crypto investment is SP500.

BTCMachineElf

That does look like a rough ride, buying through the hype cycle to get crushed like that. But 60k held. Beneath the hype, institutional demand is strong. The floor is set. We will get to aths and if you hodl from here, well I'm expecting to continue to beat the SP500 long term myself.

no_choice99

I tried hodl since 2021 after Musk first advertised Bitcoin, entered the game in May of that year. Worse investment than if I had invested in SP500, and barely beats banking accounts in my region. Bitcoin was over 55k when I first bought back then. So yeah. Hodl sucks unless "you're smart enough" or earlier than Musk. I wasn't.

Which_Drop_5877

Everyone’s who has SP500 exposure is already diversified into crypto.

FewUnderstanding2214

Nobody can accurately predict anything, including SP500 there are too many unknowns

McBurger

“If you never spend or use your SP500 shares then what exactly is the point?” Long term storage ≠ never sell. Eventually we pivot to a DCA sell

flangarky

If Bitcoin was a stock in the SP500, it's 1-yr performance (-32%) would put it at 477th out of 500!

Btomesch

Whatever works for you. “Daily Buy” wouldn’t even be a bad idea with how volatile Bitcoin is. But lots of ppl tend to buy when they get their paycheck. We are in a bear market so you want to start now. The bear markets last about a year and then it starts to tend upwards for 3 years after. Just going off historical patterns here since we are kinda talking about short-term. But if it’s a long term play, just keep DCA’ing and ignore it. That works with SP500 also.

crimeo

And if he put it in the SP 500 for what he's spent going in, he'd be up like 40-60 billion. So 1.2 (actual number btw) is really really bad

ZarathustraWakes

Are you trying to be contrarian? The total stock market and the SP share a 98% correlation and the SP makes up 80% of the capitalization

flangarky

If Bitcoin were in the SP500, it'd be the ranked #483 out of 500 in 1-yr performance (-38%).

hpaynecrypto

Disclosure, I am a Casa employee. I just published an article (linked below) on entropy and multi-vendor generation. Ideally, you generate three keys from three different devices that are made by three different vendors. [https://blog.casa.io/what-is-entropy-a-plain-language-guide-to-how-your-bitcoin-keys-get-made/](https://blog.casa.io/what-is-entropy-a-plain-language-guide-to-how-your-bitcoin-keys-get-made/) If you don't want to click into the blog/read it, the biggest takeaway you might find useful here is verifying that each seed was generated with the correct amount of entropy. (pulling the following directly from my blog for ease of reading) There are a few ways check your entropy. 1. Use a tool like [bip39-cli’s analyze\_entropy\_quality](https://github.com/robcohen/bip39-cli/blob/fa7410977fff03628af980f67a2ad0062482a2aa/src/security.rs#L207) function.  1. *Do not enter any seed you intend to use into an internet-connected device* 2. Plug it into an agentic model to try to interpret and check how the entropy is generated 3. Generate a few million / billion seed phrases and plug them into a NIST SP 800-22 test suite For the everyday user, those options are neither practical nor reliable as they open up other potential failure or exposure opportunities. The easiest and most secure way to make sure your digital assets are secured with enough entropy is to have them secured by multiple hardware devices in a multisig from different manufacturers, each generating their own entropy. If one wallet has bad entropy, that doesn’t mean that your assets are lost. It just means that you have to rotate out the compromised key from your multisig which takes about 5 minutes. 

DearGodWhyDidntISell

I'll preface by saying I sold 99% of my crypto in 2011 for beer money and food. Was a lot of money at the time for broke me when my 17¢ BTC turned into ~70$ a coin, lived it up. Can't see the future, hard to imagine now but BTC could have faded into oblivion back then. If XRP hasn't gained world changing mass adoption yet don't believe it ever will. That ship sailed. Don't drink that Kool Ade if it goes up it's due to inflation and broader BTC / crypto run. It will eventually go up on a bull run, but could lose years of compounding SP500 gains waiting, your better off in the SP500 or NQ. Even betting on a Fintech, Quantum, or SMR company, etc. Unless your nostradomus, sell it next spike buy some VOO & move on.

PeaceAgitated1978

No matter what, BTC is a net Long investment.. just like Gold.. with if they are intelligent enough to see their investments in $ through the CAGR lenses, will invest in without hesitation since nothing else beat BTC by Cagr average.. yet we are so "late" in adoption than most good years of guaranteed CAGR over performance are behind us.. we're ate the merge of the need to time the markets or underperform.. we can't just buy anywhere anymore and just wait.. that result in underperform the SP 500 average that for him is not decreasing but exponentially increasing through inflation and money printing terms.. while BTC lagging behind because of lack of adoption due to lack of understanding of the asset..

Affectionate_Act3731

Maybe not SP500, but a World ETF

New_Manner_1826

If earning money now on your money is priority there is lots of possibilities within strong companies within strong sectors : XAUUSD, DFI, ITA, HG1!, HACK, TTF1!, SMH. The US and Canada market have today and the prior 3 months abundance of companies performing stronger than the big index : SP500 or QQQ. Make a short (10 names) selective watchlist of the absolute strongest. Read up on risk management.

ObjectiveMusician218

Remove the AI hype from the SP500 and you get the bitcoin chart

silence2087

Like the SP500 doubling over the past five years and BTC ending up where it started?

unforseen0_o

I want to talk about why the Coldcard incident from a couple weeks ago is scarier than most hardware wallet stories, and why ERA's response is a genuinely good case study in designing around the failure instead of just certifying against it. Quick recap for anyone who missed it. Starting July 30th, attackers began pulling roughly 1,367 BTC, about $89 million, out of thousands of Coldcard wallets. The cause traced back to a firmware bug from 2021. Under certain conditions, some devices silently fell back to a weak software random number generator during seed creation instead of using the hardware one they were supposed to rely on. The resulting seed phrases looked completely normal. There was no error, no warning, nothing that would tip off a user that anything was wrong. The keys were just reconstructible offline, and stayed that way for years until someone finally did the reconstructing. What makes this genuinely unsettling isn't the dollar amount, it's that Coldcard's RNG was a certified, respected component from a respected wallet. Certification tells you the chip behaves correctly in a lab. It says nothing about whether the firmware around it will actually route your entropy through that chip every time, under every condition, forever. That gap between "the chip is certified" and "the wallet used the chip correctly" is exactly where Coldcard users got hurt. ERA's blog post lays out how they're designing against that exact gap rather than just pointing at a certificate and calling it a day. Their seed generation pulls from up to five independent sources instead of one: Always active, two separate hardware random number generators from two different manufacturers. An STM32 microcontroller whose entropy is validated against NIST's statistical test suites, and an ATECC608C secure element whose entropy source is formally certified under NIST SP 800-90B. Different silicon, different vendor, different failure modes, so one bad batch or one bad firmware assumption doesn't take down the whole system. Optional, if you choose their expert flow, three more sources that come from you specifically. You draw on the screen, you shake the device, and you sweep the camera across whatever room you happen to be sitting in. None of that can be predicted by a factory or a supply chain attack, because it didn't exist until you made it exist in that exact moment. Every one of those user driven sources has to pass an on device randomness test before it counts. Leave the camera face down or barely tap the screen and the device just rejects it and makes you try again. If you skip the expert flow entirely, the slots that would have come from you get backfilled with fresh hardware entropy instead, so your seed is never weaker than the two chip baseline, only ever equal to it or stronger. All five sources then get combined through SHA-512/256, a one way hash function where partial knowledge is worthless. Knowing four of the five inputs perfectly still leaves an attacker with nothing they can use, because the function doesn't degrade gracefully. One honest source is enough to keep the output unpredictable. Where I'd push them further: everything above comes from ERA's own team, and while that's not a red flag by itself, "trust us, we tested it" is the same energy that let Coldcard's certified chip fail quietly for five years. To ERA's credit, they've already followed up with a technical report running their actual chips through NIST SP 800-90B, SP 800-22, AIS-31, and PractRand test suites, along with cold boot forensics, which is a real step toward "don't trust, verify" rather than just saying it. The next thing I'd want to see is an independent third party audit of the actual mixing implementation itself, not just the individual chips, since that's the layer where Coldcard's bug actually lived. If you're into wallet security or you're the kind of person who reads audit reports for fun, worth the full read: https://blog.era-wallet.com/randomness-you-dont-have-to-trust-how-era-generates-your-seed-phrase/

Western-Source710

Hey man room temp IQ in here only please.. you should buy SP500 at ATHs right now because it has more chance of doubling to even newer ATHs than this crypto does at *reclaiming* its ATHs! For real, don't show common sense in here it won't get grasped lol

Mysterious_Sleep7443

Wait till the fake tech and AI SP500 overbought shit bubble bursts

PrestondeTipp

Bitcoin being worth more in the future is a good argument for investing in Bitcoin. Not a strong argument for investing in MSTR, which operates inefficiently, burns cash, and dilutes shareholders. Investors may need to wonder how much opportunity cost they are willing to incur while alternatives like the SP500 are sitting on record years. 

CommercialMonth3640

Good pushback. The honest answer is that you can't verify entropy from the output, 32 bytes from a weak PRNG and 32 bytes from a good TRNG are statistically indistinguishable. My post was sloppy using the word proof, I should have said architecture. Fail-closed is about removing the failure path, not inspecting bytes. ColdCard's bug was a silent fallback to a software PRNG. A fail-closed design instead treats that exact condition as an error: if the hardware TRNG isn't healthy, the device refuses to generate a seed, shows a warning, and repeats the step. No software fallback exists in the code, so there is nothing to silently succeed. Health tests like NIST SP 800-90B on the TRNG output can catch obviously broken sources, but they can't catch every weak seed, nobody can. What actually moves the needle is independence: multiple entropy sources with their own circuits and vendors, plus user input mixed in. If one source is compromised the seed still isn't derivable, because the other independent sources still add unpredictability. That is closer to a guarantee than any post-hoc entropy test could ever be.

blade0r

12 words equal to 128 bits of entropy, I’d go for 24 words. Buy a new cold wallet, create a 24 words seed phrase and transfer all your funds from the old wallet to the new one. Don’t use the existing 12 words SP to activate your newly bought cold wallet, though!

IBAN-IBON64

Diversification. BTC SP500 ETF ARISTOCRATES ...

Lefties_TheWorst7331

Saylor said *you* should never sell your BTC. Saylor is busy trying to get MSTR included into the SP500, and to do so, they need to look more like a company and less like a digital asset. On record ≠ old ass interviews? BTC has been going up on the news of his selling, so I'll take it..

Moonrunner04

You're not misunderstanding the attack vector, you've actually identified the right question, which is more than most coverage of this is asking. Here's what happened, stripped of jargon: Coldcard devices had a dedicated hardware random number generator built in. The bug wasn't that the hardware RNG was weak, it's that a firmware integration error caused the device to silently skip the hardware RNG and fall back to a deterministic software algorithm called Yasmarang instead. That's a huge difference. A software PRNG takes a seed and some device state (UID, timer values, call history) and produces output that looks random but is fully reconstructable if you can pin down those inputs. That bug shipped from firmware 4.0.1 in March 2021 through the last supported release, unreviewed for over five years, until disclosure forced Coinkite's hand. [Fystack](https://fystack.io/blog/coldcard-entropy-bug-wallet-security) So to your question, "is my Ledger safe": the honest answer is nobody outside Ledger's engineering team can tell you with certainty, and that's exactly the problem. Entropy generation is usually the least-audited part of the stack because it's invisible when it works. You can have flawless elliptic curve cryptography, a perfectly secure element, airtight firmware everywhere else, and none of it matters if the seed came from a weak source, because every key, every address, every signature downstream assumes the seed was actually unpredictable. Break that one assumption and the rest of the security model is decorative. This is also why "the manufacturer says it's fine" isn't fully reassuring on its own. Coldcard's hardware RNG existed and was presumably tested. The failure was in the integration layer nobody was watching, the connective tissue between the RNG and the code path that was supposed to call it. That's not a hardware problem or a software problem specifically, it's a supply-chain-of-trust problem, and it's exactly why the industry is starting to move toward independently validated entropy, like NIST SP 800-90B certified sources, rather than trusting a manufacturer's internal claim that "we use a hardware RNG." If you want a starting point for evaluating any wallet going forward: ask specifically whether the entropy source has third-party validation, not just whether it's "hardware-based." Hardware-based was true for Coldcard too.

Puzzled-Rip641

Right because generally speaking investing in crypto won’t make you rich. Because when you invest the chance is you invest in general market terms. You can lie to yourself and say I’m going to pick the ZEC coin every time, but that’s simply not reasonable. What’s going to happen is your returns are going to follow the general market return. If you invested in Bitcoin at the start of this year (the thing most crypto mirrors) you’d be down around 24%. If you did a total market fund you’d be down 40%. If you invested in the SP500 you’d be up 13%.

Suspicious-Holiday42

Did SP500 lost the plot when it crashed in 2008 too and no one should have bought it from that point on?

Totallynotfakenews

Honesty, a dump to $50 would be preferable to this. All the sudden SP500 seems exciting by comparison.

other_acc_banned

Idk if you use AI much at work, but I use it all day at mine. I can tell you it is absolutely not a bubble. Now, if OpenAI and Anthropic were at the top of SP500, I would agree that it's a bubble. But considering the valuations are going to the companies that host AI, and not to those that make it, I don't think it's a bubble.

MisterMephistopheIes

BTC 1 YR charts: Down 44% SP500 1 YR charts: Up 21% You're  not as smart as you think you are because you can quote the most well known fact in all of investing lmao. Literally just buying and holding SPY would have made you way more money than buying crypto. And if you have the slightest amount of emotional control, conviction, and ability to do your own research, it's really not that hard to beat SP500. I'm up over 100% in the last year, just making logical choices and rotations. 

PrimaryHuckleberry11

As I use Keystone, I got AI to review the actual code, it looks good: # Keystone3 Firmware RNG Security Analysis ## Executive Summary The Keystone3 firmware has a **robust, multi-source RNG architecture** that is **significantly more secure** than the Coldcard RNG vulnerability (which affected Coldcard Mk2/Mk3 v4, Mk4, Q, and Mk5 devices). The Keystone implementation uses **three independent hardware RNG sources XORed together**, making it resistant to the class of vulnerabilities that affected Coldcard. However, there are **several security concerns** worth noting: --- ## 1. RNG Architecture (Good) The Keystone firmware implements a strong `random_buffer()` in `src/managers/keystore.c`: ```c void random_buffer(uint8_t *buf, size_t len) { TrngGet(buf, len); // MCU hardware TRNG SE_GetDS28S60Rng(tempBuf1, len); // DS28C50 secure element SE_GetAtecc608bRng(tempBuf2, len); // ATECC608B secure element for (size_t i = 0; i < len; i++) { buf[i] ^= tempBuf1[i] ^ tempBuf2[i]; // XOR all three } } ``` This is a **defense-in-depth** approach: even if one source is compromised, the XOR with the other two maintains entropy. ### RNG Sources Used Across the Firmware: | Location | RNG Used | Purpose | |----------|----------|---------| | `keystore.c::random_buffer()` | TRNG ⊕ DS28C50 ⊕ ATECC608B | Wallet entropy, key generation | | `drv_trng.c::TrngGet()` | MCU hardware TRNG | Nonces, AES IVs, encryption keys | | `drv_atecc608b.c::Atecc608bGetRng()` | ATECC608B hardware RNG | SE operations, encrypted reads/writes | | `slip39.c` | `random_buffer()` (overridden) | Shamir secret splitting | | `data_parser_task.c` | `TrngGet()` | ECDH private keys for USB pairing | --- ## 2. Critical Difference from Coldcard Vulnerability The **Coldcard vulnerability** (Block/Coinkite, July 2026) was caused by: - `MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG` defined as `0`, disabling hardware RNG - Libngu's `#ifndef` check passed (macro exists, but value is 0) - Fell back to a **deterministic Yasmarang PRNG** seeded from UID + timer - Secure-element reseed only updated 32 bits of state **Keystone does NOT have this vulnerability** because: - It does not use MicroPython or libngu - It directly calls hardware TRNG peripherals - It never has a software PRNG fallback path - The `mh_rand.c` LCG is explicitly guarded by `#ifndef RAND_PLATFORM_INDEPENDENT` and is only for testing --- ## 3. Security Concerns Found ### 3.1 Trezor Crypto RNG Comment (Low Risk — Mitigated) The file `src/crypto/slip39/trezor-crypto/rand.c` contains: ```c #pragma message("NOT SUITABLE FOR PRODUCTION USE! Replace random32() function with your own secure code.") static uint32_t seed = 0; // LCG with zero initial seed ``` **However**, Keystone overrides the weak `random_buffer()` via the `__attribute__((weak))` mechanism in `keystore.c`. In production builds (`#ifndef COMPILE_SIMULATOR`), the strong triple-RNG version is used. **This is a documentation/code hygiene issue, not an active vulnerability.** ### 3.2 MCU TRNG: No Health Checks The `TrngGet()` function in `drv_trng.c` simply reads from the TRNG data register: ```c void TrngGet(void *buf, uint32_t len) { for (uint32_t i = 0; i < len; i += 16) { TRNG_Start(TRNG0); while (0 != TRNG_Get(buf4, TRNG0)); // Wait for S128 memcpy((uint8_t *)buf + i, buf4, 16); } } ``` - The TRNG does have an **attack detection flag** (`RNG_CSR_ATTACK`), but it is **not checked** in the production `TrngGet()` path - If the TRNG detects an attack, the data may be invalid but is still returned - The `mh_rand.c` does have `mh_trand_buf_attack_get()` but it's not wired into the main entropy flow **Risk**: If the MCU TRNG is under attack (e.g., voltage glitching), corrupted random data could be used. ### 3.3 Dice Roll Validation is Heuristic The dice roll feature validates entropy quality with: - Minimum length check (50 for 128-bit, 100 for 256-bit) - Maximum frequency check: no single digit > 30% of total rolls This is a **statistical heuristic**, not cryptographic validation. A user who deliberately inputs biased rolls (e.g., "111111...") would be caught, but the validation is not rigorous (e.g., no chi-squared test, no NIST SP 800-22 compliance). ### 3.4 Slip39 Uses `random_buffer()` for Shamir Shares `slip39.c` calls `random_buffer()` for Shamir secret splitting: ```c random_buffer(tempShare[i], enMasterSecretLen); ``` This is OK because Keystone overrides the weak RNG. But if a build configuration accidentally uses the platform-independent (weak) version, Shamir shares would be predictable. ### 3.5 No Periodic Re-seeding The RNG does not periodically re-seed. Once initialized, the TRNG continues producing data, but there's no mechanism to detect TRNG degradation over the device's lifetime. --- ## 4. Comparison: Keystone vs Coldcard RNG | Aspect | Keystone3 | Coldcard (vulnerable) | |--------|-----------|----------------------| | Primary RNG | MCU TRNG + 2 SE chips | STM32 hardware RNG (disabled in fallback) | | Fallback | None | Deterministic Yasmarang PRNG | | Entropy sources | 3 independent hardware sources | 1 (when working) | | RNG composition | XOR of 3 sources | Single source or fallback | | Re-seed mechanism | Not needed (always hardware) | 32-bit reseed (weak) | | Attack detection | Present but not enforced | None in fallback path | | Software PRNG risk | None (overridden) | **Critical** (deterministic) | --- ## 5. Recommendations 1. **Enforce TRNG attack detection**: Check the `RNG_CSR_ATTACK` flag in `TrngGet()` and refuse to return data if an attack is detected. 2. **Add NIST SP 800-22 statistical tests**: Run periodic self-tests on RNG output to detect degradation. 3. **Remove or clearly mark the weak LCG**: The trezor-crypto `rand.c` should be excluded from production builds via build flags, not just relied upon to be overridden. 4. **Add entropy health monitoring**: Periodically verify that all three RNG sources are producing valid entropy. 5. **Improve dice roll validation**: Add a proper statistical test (chi-squared, runs test) rather than just frequency checks. --- ## Conclusion **The Keystone3 firmware does NOT suffer from the Coldcard RNG vulnerability.** Its triple-source hardware RNG design is fundamentally different and more secure. The primary RNG path in production always uses hardware entropy from three independent sources. The known weak RNG code (trezor-crypto LCG) is only used in simulator/test builds and is overridden in production. The main remaining concerns are: - TRNG attack detection not enforced in the production path - No periodic self-testing of RNG health - Heuristic-only dice roll validation These are **defense-in-depth improvements** rather than critical vulnerabilities.

jwhendy

I think is potentially misleading, as it's the *chip* itself that has the certification, not the overall device, integration, or functionality. Someone [posted a few days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/s/DIHmFVkkGL) commenting on Ledger vs. ColdCard TRNGs, and [I did some digging](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vbtpiq/comment/p0x7dm4/) on the ColdCard chip (ATECC608). The documentation lists NIST certification/validation on the TRNG (see comment for quotes). Using this post as an opportunity to look further, here's a comparison. Note: AI summaries, please correct if wrong: > NIST SP 800-90 Series: Focuses strictly on random bit generators (RBGs). Part A covers deterministic random bit generators (DRBGs), Part B covers entropy source requirements and health testing, and Part C details composite RBG constructions > EAL6+ (Evaluation Assurance Level 6 Augmented): Part of the Common Criteria ISO/15408 standard. It measures the depth, rigor, and-lifecycle security of an entire Target of Evaluation (TOE)—such as a secure microchip, hardware security module, or operating system—against sophisticated attacks. EAL6+ requires a semi-formally verified design and tested architecture. TBD if EAL6+ specifically verifies entropy/randomness. And either way, this is still not the point... it wasn't about how good the hardware was, but implementation. Neither of these certifications probes "did you code this up as to use the super sophisticated, dedicated cryptographic chips on board?" Maybe all of this opens an opportunity to address the unaddressed gap of "did you build this thing correctly?" vs. today we may only have certifications asking "do you have hi-tech gadgetry on board?" Like we're talking abut deadbolt certifications but don't check if they get installed or if the door is getting locked.

AcostaJA

To assess the “purity” (genuine unpredictability, lack of bias, and absence of exploitable patterns) of a random number generator (RNG), one typically combines statistical testing with source-specific physical validation. Here are key methodologies: 1. **Statistical test suites** - **NIST SP 800‑22** – a widely used set of 15 tests (frequency, runs, longest‑run, DFT, etc.) that checks for non‑random patterns in binary sequences. - **Dieharder** – an extended battery of classical and modern tests (e.g., Birthday spacings, Overlapping sums, 3D sphere minimum distances). - **TestU01** – considered one of the most stringent, with three pre‑configured batteries (SmallCrush, Crush, BigCrush) that systematically hunt for subtle deviations. *Purpose*: These suites evaluate the null hypothesis that the sequence is uniformly random; repeated failures across uncorrelated tests indicate a flaw. 2. **Entropy estimation** - Compute **Shannon entropy** or **min‑entropy** from the output directly, or use lossless **compression tests** (how much can the data be compressed? Truly random data is incompressible). - For physical sources (TRNGs), an **entropy source model** estimates the entropy per bit, e.g., from jitter measurements, to verify that conditioning is sufficient. 3. **Autocorrelation and spectral analysis** - Calculate autocorrelation coefficients at various lags. Any significant peak reveals short‑ or long‑range correlations. - A **Fourier (DFT/FFT) power spectrum** should be flat (white noise). Peaks indicate hidden periodicities. 4. **Machine‑learning‑based pattern detection** - Train a simple predictor (LSTM, logistic regression) on past bits to try to forecast the next bit. If the prediction success rate significantly exceeds 50%, the sequence is not fully unpredictable. - This goes beyond fixed‑formula tests and can uncover complex, high‑order correlations. 5. **Hardware‑specific physical validation** - **Quantum randomness sources**: verify Bell inequality violations or measure photon statistics (e.g., second‑order correlation function g²(0) for single‑photon sources) to confirm quantum origin. - **Chaotic/thermal sources**: check fundamental noise distributions (Johnson noise, avalanche breakdown) against theory and ensure no deterministic driver is leaking. 6. **Standardized certification frameworks** - **AIS 20/31** (Germany’s BSI) and **FIPS 140‑2/140‑3** (NIST) define evaluation procedures that include online health tests (repetition count, adaptive proportion, stuck‑bit monitors) and off‑line statistical suites, plus a model of the entropy source’s physical process. 7. **Long‑term continuous monitoring (online tests)** - While generating numbers, continuously run lightweight checks (e.g., chi‑square on a sliding window, total runs, or the proportion of 0s and 1s) to immediately detect a degradation in “purity”. No single test can certify absolute randomness; but provide at least some measurable evidence that the sequence behaves indistinguishably from a true uniform random process and that the physical source’s underlying entropy is fundamentally sound.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

They're trying to get into the SP500.. they need to show that they're a company and not a digital asset proxy for them to get into the SP500.

stefansilva_xrp

the drop in Q1 didnt end the bullrun but it killed the momentum for that entire quater until the liberation day crap everyone was selling on the news there will be tariffs had that not had happend we wouldve carried on. I dont buy the US and Japan notion because the stock market is still doing well because in my opinion Bitcoin was meant to top in 2025 and SP500 will top this year but the point I am trying to make is Q1 2025 was responsible for the momentum being lost and we not getting a 150k BTC. We would still be at the price we are know with or without Trump

LevelStationaryPlane

Brother the SP500 is lapping BTC this is why nobody is buying this shit/selling right now lmfao.

Pepsiholic251

You make it sound like it was always at 16k. No. Before that the high was 10k and the low was 500 and before that the high was 2k and the low was $2. Do you want to go before that? OK, it went from pennies to $200 and back to 2. If someone wants to talk about the SP500 doing a 2X in a 5 year period, you cant discount other assets in the same 5 year period. That is picking amd choosing winners based on personal preference as opposed to actual returns. And if you want to talk about an asset class giving back gains over 1 year, 1979, 1987, 2008, 2020 stock market crashes. The stock market has safety nets built in to shut down when certain limits are hit, the crypto market doesnt. If your going to pick and choose, you can make anything sound good. Look at all the facts, not just the ones that make your point. Talk about cringe worthy.... geeze.

Pepsiholic251

Q3 & Q4 2022 (4 years ago), I was buying bitcoin at $16k to $20k. It went to $124k. Thats an easy 6X plus. But if you're happy with 2X, by all means, stay in the SP500.

UnitededConflict

Why did you not get him to use seed signer and SP coin flips like you did😭

setzer

150k isn’t even that exciting… SP500 is up close to 2x over the past 5 years and it’s held onto it unlike Bitcoin I reckon it needs to go past like 500k next cycle to ignite any sort of FOMO.

stefansilva_xrp

I have a feeling the SP500 will end its bullrun this year I would love to see him justifying falling stock prices or will he ignore it like when he said Powell being removed will lower interest rates. Completely forgetting Powell couldnt lower rates because of Tariffs and know Warsh cant either because of Iran.

AutoModerator

Post is by: stefansilva_xrp and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vc38ob/donald_trump_is_the_worst_thing_to_happen_to/ I'm not going to pretend that I ever liked Trump I have never been a fan of Trump. He called Bitcoin basically a scam in his first term and this term is responsible for the poor performance in the bull market. Had Trump not done those tariffs the dip in Q1 2025 wouldve never happend and I believe we wouldve reached close to 160k therfore the current bear market wouldve been as bad as others and not this horrible one we are in know. Under Biden the SP500 and BTC was trailing side by side no doubt BTC wouldve crashed this year but the impact wouldve never been as bad. Under Biden and Gensler they were keeping scammers at bay. Shitcoins together are the size of Ethereum market cap there is a scam crypto exchanged named Changelly and those who have been victims of them wish the US DOJ took them to court. Biden and Gensler were targetting bad actors. *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.*

jwhendy

Great writeup and questions. Just a note that I think this is misleading: >The ring oscillators inside the Secure Element chip extract raw physical chaos from thermal fluctuations. The chip filters and concentrates this physical noise into a string of 256 ones and zeros (binary bits). This reads like hardware was the limitation and potentially implies that the Coldcard *doesn't* have a TRNG and/or use ring oscillators... but it does. [Datasheet](https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/3/282/1/ATECC608C-CryptoAuthentication-Summary-Data-Sheet-DS40002513.pdf) for the Coldcard MK3 chip, the ATECC608 [emphasis mine]: >**The ATECC608C True Random Number Generator (TRNG)** was developed in accordance with the NIST SP800-90A/B/C specifications. The DRBG and NRBG elements of the design were evaluated using a NIST certified laboratory to the procedures they have specified. [...] NIST validated and attests that the "ECC608 NRBG Entropy Source" module **complies to the SP800-90B standard with a ring oscillator-based architecture for a physical non-deterministic random bit generator module** that can be reused in product revisions of the ATECC608. Quotes from [the Coinkite writeup](https://blog.coinkite.com/entropy-technical-backgrounder/) on all of this, which illustrate the true root cause: > The cryptographic choice was sound. **The integration was not.** During that migration, wallet seed generation moved from ckcc.rng_bytes() to ngu.random.bytes(). **That path resolved rng_get() to MicroPython’s software fallback instead of COLDCARD’s hardware RNG implementation.** > The bulk of randomness on the COLDCARD was **coming from a PRNG that I didn’t know was actually in the source code base** (it is from a submodule, Micropython). At the same time the carefully crafted TRNG code I wrote was being used, but just by chance, and only for less important things. > That file either builds PRNG code, or uses the STM32 hardware TRNG. Looking quickly at it, you’d think we got the TRNG version of get_rng() but in fact, **I explicitly set MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG to zero, thinking we didn’t need either version, but that’s not what it does.** Because that code provided a PRNG with the same function signature as the desired code, the build completed without identifying the wrong implementation. Collective translation: "I had a fully capable hardware tool, but did not know exactly what I was doing and thus it wasn't used." I think [this X post](https://x.com/zherbert/status/2082993276324319713) is super interesting, and IMO it reads that Coinkite rushed to swap crypto libs to prevent competition (change from GPL to other licenses) and absolutely fumbled. It seems like they chose to prioritize blocking others in the hardware wallet space vs. the proclaimed mission of utmost security. Aside: I don't have a Ledger, but looks like airgapping is not feasible from [this rundown comparison](https://www.spark.money/tools/bitcoin-hardware-wallet-comparison)? So you trade random seed generation for some amount of leak risk (and overall, would say the latter is far more likely, or at least where most users are likely to trip up somehow). This is not to defend Coldcard, nor to detract from Ledger. The point to make is to be *super, duper, duper* specific on the *exact* cause of the issue as all of this circulates. You make *excellent* overall points, I just disagree with writing up the RNG details as if this is about better vs. worse secure chips. It's not, and there are other considerations as well (entropy vs. leak risk, as one example).

SikwititG

Instruments are down yes but Downtrend? The Nasdaq moved 8000 points in a month, the SP more than a 1000, at that point it was in a weak technical position, it’s a consolidation, Equalization between buyers/sellers. you could have made a fortune short selling, but most people don’t know how to operate that side of the market, it would need to fall back under 23,000, and 6800 to call it a true “downtrend” could we see that possibly but the line of least resistance is still upward my 2 penny but I’ve been wrong before 💀

Cody_XOTWOD

Don’t you need RH Gold in order to actually use that? I get 1.5% on platforms like SP but I’ve been paid over $10,000 with all of their bonuses over 5-6 years. I haven’t found a card higher 2% or higher that didn’t require some form of payment.

Generationhodl

Getting Rich and Staying Rich are 2 different Things. I'm all in btc right now, but I could see myself buying some boring SP500 when my networth reaches some funny big numbers. My Idea is to switch to 70-80% BTC , 20-30% SP500 in the future, just to have SOME other stuff besides BTC.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

You're thinking too short term.. this action is hopefully getting them closer to SP500 inclusion.

retrorays

Op - listen to me carefully. Put 5%, maybe max 10% of your assets into crypto. The other 90%: 40% SP500, 30% VT, 10% alt, 10% bonds.

WestQ

Man. Why them st** shillers keep bringing insights and quotes to a token with 0 value? Only value or Bitcoin is that it's a base line of the concept of crypto. Like SP500 and others. Problem with it is that it does nothing at all but burn resources. It's not a company with a mission. The original mission has been dismantled by control, surveillance, pump and dump and mainstream usage. It's not a natural metal with uses to build infrastructure or jewelry or anything related. It's only value right now is the value that the banks & big players give it, and believe me they do it because they are controlling it. It's not a 0.001 crypto token that will make you 10000% at this rate. It's not stable as any twit will force it's price up and down. L I don't know what to tell you, I'm pro Bitcoin, but I'm against this bullshit of romanticism that blue berries give it. Treat it as another stock that is mainstream and passed it's proof of concept. that's all and duck of

shrewsbury1991

He beat the 8 year SP500 return of 175% with this investment 

Old_Preparation8434

Bitcoin 75%, 25% into SP500 for peace of mind.

Neat-Finger197

If you’re a bitcoiner, then you have realized that most SP500 are zombie companies that benefitted from years of ZIRP. Sure, the quantum threat is real, but I’m confident this will be solved before it causes significant problems.

explosiveplacard

Strategy is a wall street company first. They really only care about USD and building shareholder value in dollars. Having massive cash reserves gives them a better chance to get a positive rating by the agencies and to (maybe) someday make it to the SP500. They are just noise.

KryptoChic

For retirement, buy and ETF on the SP500 or Gold. Gold has actually outperformed the SP500 since 1970, when the USA left the gold standard. Its fine to keep some crypto to speculate but not in your retirement funds.

aramirez07

Most people don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Try asking your average Joe about the bitcoin 4 year cycle. They’ll think you’re huffing paint. So, to answer your question. Yes. And it’s not easy. You’ve clearly spent time researching about Bitcoin. Or at least time on this subreddit. So that counts for something — the average person doesn’t know squat about these patterns. Most people don’t have a clue that the SP500 also roughly has a year cycle as well and it’s been around for much longer than bitcoin.

golden_bear_2016

can't believe we voted for fascism for underperforming just holding SP500..

achshort

I’d put that in SP500. Sounds like that’s all the money you got

PeaceAgitated1978

It's way more about buying the best amount of out of the old system in terms of BTC quantity. Of course as long as $ are still backing the whole economy.. there's a use to trade BTC against US $ 🤷 it's still a net accruance of net worth if you win your Trades.. but trading isn't for everyone... Investing on the other side.. is for everyone and should have been since way back then . Only some people seems to have strayed from common sense. Or sometimes, they have been strayed from the right investments by their own advisors at Banksfor less and less risks.. but risk is rewards equivalent. And not having the best rewards make sure you end up below the average debasement of your currency. And that word is the best one to truly understand. Debasement is you paying for the gov. Debt upright via net buying power of yours being stolen by your government while he just printed endless amounts of cash . To pay / roll his debt further away. So yeah.. minimum you should have as a return on my end of it? An average of 16% / year.. beating the broad indexes.. SP 500.. or so.. first step to not being fully stolen of your purchasing power.. next step is estimating how much does you should have been investing.. so that you still have something left to ease your life after you have worked out your full working time.. aka slaving your way 🤷

No-Associate-7962

Have you seen the SP500 100 year on a log chart? Log charts take all the fun out of financial markets.

MathiasThomasII

High level, you’re calling the current state of an asset an “outcome” which is definitively incorrect. You’re calling the score mid game the outcome. There is no outcome until profits/losses are recognized which is different for everyone. This was actually a standard in Investment strategy at IU. This is OBVIOUS and is used as part of industry standard tax strategies where we recognize losses and not profits to offset organic profits and lower taxes. The current state of an asset is not an outcome. Period, that’s it lol you’re not even giving me a time frame to measure an “outcome”. You’re not making an argument lol The proper statement would be “over the last 5 years you’d have been better off strictly holding the SP500.” Okay, that’s correct. However, if you timed the buttons and tops within when 75% the volatile asset would’ve have made you exponentially more money. There are different strategies with volatile and non-volitale, dividend heavy investments. A “day trader” would’ve had far more opportunity to make money on bitcoin the last 5 years than fay trading the SP500. This is exactly why “outcome” makes no sense unless you know the guy that bought at $120k and is selling now then you know THEIR outcome. By legal, academic, and industry standard DEFINITIONS there is no outcome unless the profit/loss of an asset is realized. Used different phrasing or you sound silly.

thinkingperson

I thought this was part of the plan to get Strategy onto the SP500 index and get perpetual "free" index money to buy btc? What am I missing?

LevelStationaryPlane

How many of you are also exposed to the SP500 and also raking in gains there vs just being a troglodyte and all in on BTC while missing gains elsewhere due to ego and pride etc.? I'd bet over half of you at very least are eating shit and pretending to smile lmao.

RichPokeScalper

"currently performing worse than the S&P". Ya when your investment horizon is weeks instead of years, weird things happen. Wendys is currently beating the SP500 by 5000%. You think that means you should put all your eggs in that basket?

Jave3636

You're asking what makes crypto different from AI? Crypto has always followed the SP500, so when things were good, investors used crypto as the high tech/innovation/high risk&reward option, so crypto rose and fell with the rest of the market. Now all that money is in AI.  Since now it's not the preferred option for that type of investment, the rest of the market is enjoying a bull run, while crypto is not.  And there's not a lot of reason to believe it ever will have a bull run again, short of a catalyst like some bank deciding to use crypto for cross border transactions or something like that. 

Jave3636

Lol have you seen the SP 500? It's a bull market, just not for crypto. OP is right, all the high risk, tech investment money that used to go to crypto is going to AI. That's not to say crypto is dead, but all the speculation money is gone. Crypto won't see massive gains until it actually starts being adopted on a large scale. The days of investors throwing their money at crypto as the "just in case the tech gets adopted on a large scale" are over, as AI is the much better choice for that kind of investment. 

FullOf_Bad_Ideas

> Any market that rewards "HODLers" for holding for a few short years is temporary fluke. SP500, DOW and NASDAQ100 and bonds are temporary flukes?

LOPS008

Break even and go to SP500

Far_Veterinarian_635

Yes, exactly. For the past few years, 2x was almost nonexistent for whatever crypto it was. Honestly, putting money into SP500 would've been a hell lot better

Generationhodl

Bitcoin will make a 10x in 7-8 Years. I doubt that SP500 will make a 10x in 7-8 Years. [https://btcpowerlaw.nl/](https://btcpowerlaw.nl/)

Suspicious-Holiday42

Will the SP500 to a +100% from todays price on before Bitcoin recovers to 120k (also +100%)? I think BTC recovering will happen faster than the SP500 doubling in price

aramirez07

All the models suggesting BTC/D would plummet at 2025 year end and rotate to alts also didn’t pan out. Crypto has just continued to bleed. All models are great, until they’re not. Also, if SP500 crashes further from here or later in year, high chance so does BTC, despite suggestions BTC/USD is already at a potential low.

Longjumping-Bonus723

I can't take it anymore. Loosing my hard earned money for 1,5 years straight. Why didn't I just DCA in the SP500....

MichaelHawkson

How do the returns compare when I sell my SP500 ETF in a tax free registered account (or, TFSA in Canada) vs selling BTC from a non registered account? OP is forgetting about that too.

CaterpillarMain2138

SP500 is up 85% over the last five years. The difference between your number and mine is the dividends paid 😎

Civil_Possibility_3

because im old, and i dont have time for 8% SP500 :)

Any_Toe2716

SP500 is up 22% in a year and they call that a bear market to try to make sense of BTC. Insanity!

Accomplished_Slip684

Your reasoning is circular, “betting on war is immoral because you’re betting on people dying.” Why is it immoral if it doesn’t harm anyone? Also this market was about a peace deal being drafted not kids getting blown up. Stop straw manning. In my book things that harm people are immoral. Simple. You didn’t address the 401k/stock market point. If you buy the SP500 which is what 99% of 401ks do, you invest in companies that build weapons, facilitate gambling, sell alcohol, etc. That one isn’t a necessity, what do you say to that?

bbatardo

Strategy disclosed the sale June 1st and from then until June 10th BTC was down almost 14%. However.... Nasdaq was down over 7% and SP500 was down over 4% during that same time period. People like to pretend Strategy selling caused a large dip, but there were bigger macro events going on during that time period. The most volatile assets always have the biggest dips.

mlhender

Fun fact: Harvard also sold their bitcoin this summer. Even more fun fact: the Harvard endowment has lost to the SP500 since its inception. It would literally be better to not have a single Harvard staff member managing the Harvard endowment and just invest it in an index fund. That’s how great they are at investing! https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/harvard-endowment-grows-532-billion-strong-returns-during-turbulent-year-2024-10-17/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/10/21/endowment-big-but-lagging/ https://nypost.com/2024/09/30/business/harvards-endowment-fund-ranked-at-bottom-of-ivy-league-in-returns/

rroobbbb

Yes, but investing your money in crypto is a much bigger gamble than investing your money in the SP500 for example.

petewondrstone

Your hearts in the right place, but you’re mistaken. What they were trying to do was make it so early investors could sell right away but instead they still have to wait a year just like every other IPO on the.SP. Either way I don’t believe in this company at all.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

Macroeconomics held this bullrun back a lot, but that will be what sends the next bullrun to oblivion.. People are going to realize investing into tech heavy SP500 is speculation and manipulation, not investing on true principals anymore.. so why not buy another speculative asset (BTC) instead of the speculative SP500? At least BTC has a ledger behind it showing any manipulation.. I have yet to find that ledger for the SP500..

CurveAdministrative3

Why didn't you sell a small amount, like 1M and put it into something safe like gold for SP500?

Hanzieoo

Fuck crypto and the SP500

GBT-92

45% SP500 40% World 15% crypto 😁

Will_Sommers

So you spent 15K to buy stocks 6 years ago and many of the tech stocks in SP500 blew up over 250% in returns and you're mad you didn't get bitcoin? I've seen shilling before but when you low-key bet against your shill, I'm genuinely confused what the end game is here.

postexitus

Why? Do the same with SP500 and compare.

Zealousideal-Ad7773

If SP500 crashes we are going back to 30k BTC. How this could be bullish for crypto?

lavenderviking

These graphs are misleading. Most of the return came until 2020 and last 5 year returns are just on par with SP500 returns. Can’t expect returns like these going forward

PrestondeTipp

> And here's the part the haters never want to deal with: not only is Bitcoin not going to zero, it's going to infinity. Why? Because the currency it's priced in is being printed to infinity. That's true for *everything* you fucking imbecile. One day, a loaf of bread will be worth an infinity amount of money. *** The question is the *rate*.  If investing in Bitcoin gives you a return lower than the conventional alternatives, or in a sequence of volatility that means you cannot *use* the gains before you die, it's useless. There's a reason the SP500 is so popular. It's the most consistent wealth creation vehicle in human history.

cognitiveDiscontents

If you had DCAd over that time period you would have beat the SP500. What are you talking about?

origami_bluebird

I agree, and froth will always exist in growth companies which is what Elon promises, if you claim more than the entire US GDP as your TAM and get to frontrun entrance to the SP500 because half of wallstreet and silicon valley are incentived and gonna make shocking gains from its liquidity dump when it was only worth $120 Billion during its capital raise in 2024. The dump will likely happen but the true scam will be when SPCX,investors are able to cash out when the public market drops it 50% because any one invested private will still make 20x on the low side.

nachtraum

Wrong, it depends on the volatility of the asset. For something like the SP500, which went mostly straight up over the last 15 years, lump sum is better. For a highly volatile asset like Bitcoin, you are much worse off when buying at a cycle peak. DCA leads to better returns.

express_sushi49

If you zoom out far enough, every system of currency is a scheme. The dollar’s power is from the belief that it has value, simple as that. Do you think all of the old people allocating BTC to 5% of their portfolios/retirement funds know diddly squat about blockchain technology or give a flying fk about decentralization? The answer is a big fat no. It might still matter to some, but the majority of money going in is doing so to set & forget. In time, BTC will behave exactly like a slightly more volatile SP500 ETF if it doesn’t already. Tokenization and stocks IMO will have a convergence point where it all just blends to being the same crap. And we’re already seeing tokenized stocks, so we’re kind of already there.

long-da-schlong

If you look at the 5 year chart bitcoin outperforms the SP500

Party_Operation_9711

80% SP500 20% crypto