Sanrith Descartes
I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
- 49,321
- 134,078
Yes. I get paid up front when I sell them. You gotta learn to finance, bro.
- 2
Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies
- Thread starter Tripamang
- Start date
Seananigans
Honorary Shit-PhD
- 15,144
- 39,197
It seems pretty clear to me that the reason you and others are not seeing eye to eye is because you are fully bought in to our system as it is, and you (I'm assuming here) see nothing wrong with "the financial world." You also seem to drop back to "crypto" rather than discuss BTC by itself. I don't think any person who believes BTC is the superior store of value (and potential money) also believes the rest of the crypto world is anything but "financial world" speculative trading garbage nonsense.
When people start learning about money and how it *SHOULD* work, they tend to simultaneously realize how bullshitty "the financial world" is. For instance, I'm of the belief that "financial instruments" shouldn't even exist. The stock market as it operates today shouldn't exist. It's all degenerate and simply a manifestation of the corruption that a debt-based fiat monetary system creates.
BTC does exist outside of our current, corrupted, degenerate, system. It's the best money humanity has ever devised to date, one step below the theoretical best money which would be an omniscient telepathic ledger (think Pluribus). As more and more people fully grasp this it will continue its long-term inexorable trajectory. Because of its properties, it is the superior store of wealth available today and that means it has a known future target. Until that target is reached, early adopters have the privilege of capturing extra value relative to whatever shitty fiat currency they currently exist within. I guarantee that in 10-20 years, every single individual will look back and say, "damn I wish I had more BTC." It will absolutely outperform everything else long term.
- 1
Flobee
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,036
- 3,533
I agree with this in principle. However I will say that there is no avoiding financial instruments being built on top of Bitcoin. Some of them will even be useful. The big shift is changing the collateral under girding the entire system to a standard that nobody can print. That is the radical transformation.
This will result in significantly less financialization but it certainly won't go away. A lot of people will be blown up trying to play tradfi games with Bitcoin because they don't fully grok the difference that an unprintable asset will make.
Our current system is both immoral and unsustainable. The struggle communicating this is that nobody alive has lived under anything different so it's hard to understand the problem. You can't measure a system from within the system. It will get easier as we move through the adoption S-curve simply because consensus will push you toward accepting it even if you don't understand it. I know that seems very wishy washy to some of you, but it's how tech adoption works and I believe it will apply here.
Can't predict the future, plenty of ways for Bitcoin to fail to live up to its potential, but for me it's an obvious bet to make and putting my financial "energy" so to speak toward what I think helps create a better future is a no brainer.
Question for doubters; what about the world makes you optimistic about the future?
For me personally Bitcoin and the seeming resurgence of Christianity in the West are two of the main reasons I'm not a doomer. Do any of you have anything at all that makes you hope for a brighter future?
Not to say that's an argument in favor a Bitcoin, it's not, just a genuine question. Most people seem hopeless and I'm curious if those of you arguing in this thread are also hopeless? I tend to think there is a correlation here
- 3
Seananigans
Honorary Shit-PhD
- 15,144
- 39,197
So... no? You have to first convert them to something else?
Hmm, interesting.
Sanrith Descartes
I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
- 49,321
- 134,078
So.. yes.
Options are contracts. I was paid upfront when they were written. I did not buy Put contracts, I sold them. If you are going to try to own me, maybe learn a little bit about the subject matter first. Just an idea.
- 1
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 21,357
- 15,267
I wouldn't bother. He's the ZombieWizardHawk of the BTC thread.
- 1
- 1
Sanrith Descartes
I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
- 49,321
- 134,078
I was leaning toward Eraser but ZWH works too. You just cant have honest conversations on the intarwebs unless you are in total agreement of the subject matter. Another victim of "technology".
Seananigans
Honorary Shit-PhD
- 15,144
- 39,197
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 20,886
- 17,758
The problem is that you keep insisting I "don't understand" Bitcoin, but what's really happening is you're confusing disagreement with ignorance. You're convinced that your lens is the only valid one, and anything outside that frame gets labeled as "you don't get it." That's not objective correctness, it's ideology pretending to be certainty, especially with how rigid you're being.
Your argument also keeps slipping between entirely different categories. One moment Bitcoin is a monetary system that will replace the global paradigm, the next it's a synthetic payments ledger whose value is purely confidence-based, the next it's a hedge that's not actually dependent on its USD price. But the problem is all of those require totally different assumptions about how it functions in the real world. And pointing that out isn't a strawman, it's recognizing that the goalposts move every time someone presses on a weak spot. It reminds me of debating my pastors back in private school, where they'd just keep moving the goalposts to different books of the Bible until dropping the, "you can't possibly know God" rhetoric.
And yes, Bitcoin has interesting properties - settlement speed, portability, supply constraints, all of that is real. But pretending those properties automatically elevate it into "global pristine collateral" while ignoring political, regulatory, and infrastructural constraints is exactly the kind of magical thinking that does sound cultish. You talk as if confidence is all that matters, but confidence itself depends on institutions, legal frameworks, the ability to transact at scale, and a functioning economy. All the things Bitcoin explicitly depends on but BTC maximalists pretend it's immune to.
The irony amongst most of the BTC maxis is they keep telling me "I'm ignoring history" while reducing 6,000 years of monetary development to "metal good, fiat bad". All because they read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" due to some podcast recommendation and think it's the Bible now. Ancient economies used gold because they had no alternative coordination mechanism, not because gold had some metaphysical property that generated trust. As soon as systems advanced beyond that, money became a ledger enforced by institutions. And that's not Keynesian dogma, that's just how every large-scale society has ever worked.
But what's exhausting isn't your communication, it's that every time the conversation gets close to the actual structural limitations of Bitcoin, you retreat to "you don't get it" instead of addressing the substance. That's the kind of rhetorical shield people use when they're defending a belief, not analyzing a system. Bitcoin can be valuable, interesting, clever, even revolutionary in certain contexts. But the more you insist it's inevitably destined to replace every existing monetary layer, all while dismissing disagreement as ignorance, the more it starts to look like faith, not analysis.
If pointing that out makes people "objectively incorrect," then yeah, we're not having an economic discussion anymore. We're having a doctrinal one.
- 3
Sanrith Descartes
I was forced to self-deport from the /pol thread
- 49,321
- 134,078
Lets ask Grok:
full response:
The phrase "you just don't understand" (or variations like "you wouldn't understand") is commonly used in discussions, arguments, or debates, and its generally accepted meanings tend to fall into a few overlapping categories based on context. These interpretations are drawn from psychological analyses, communication studies, and everyday observations in online forums and social media. Here's a breakdown:
1. Dismissive or Evasive Tactic
This is one of the most frequent interpretations: it's often a way to shut down the conversation without providing further explanation or evidence. Instead of engaging with the opposing viewpoint, the speaker implies the other person lacks the capacity or willingness to grasp the idea, effectively ending the debate.
For example, in heated arguments, it can translate to "I don't want to explain this anymore" or "you're not worth the effort," serving as a rhetorical dodge rather than a substantive point.
reddit.com +2
2. Condescending or Superiority Signal
It frequently carries an air of condescension, suggesting the speaker possesses deeper insight, intelligence, or experience that the listener simply can't match.
This can be a subtle power play, implying "I'm smarter/more informed than you," especially in ideological or normative disagreements where "understanding" is code for "agreeing with my values."
In relationships or personal disputes, it might stem from frustration when agreement isn't reached, equating disagreement with incomprehension.
@grayzoneintel
3. Indication of a Genuine Gap in Perspective or Experience
Less commonly, but still acknowledged, it can be a sincere expression when there's a real divide—such as differences in lived experience, cultural background, or expertise—that makes full empathy or comprehension difficult.
For instance, in gender communication studies, linguist Deborah Tannen's work highlights how men and women often have distinct conversational styles (e.g., men focusing on status and solutions, women on connection and rapport), leading to mutual "misunderstandings" that aren't about intelligence but about differing priorities.
washingtonpost.com +2
Here, the phrase points to a cross-cultural-like barrier rather than dismissal.
4. Frustration or Defensiveness
In many cases, it's born out of exasperation after repeated explanations fail, or when the speaker feels their point is being willfully ignored.
reddit.com +1
It can also mask insecurity, where the speaker avoids admitting their own argument is weak by shifting blame to the listener's supposed lack of insight.
Overall, while the phrase can occasionally be literal and benign, the predominant view in discussions is that it's not a strong or constructive argument—more of a fallacy or emotional shortcut that prioritizes winning over clarity.
Responses to it often involve asking for specific clarification (e.g., "What exactly don't I understand?") to force engagement.
1. Dismissive or Evasive Tactic
This is one of the most frequent interpretations: it's often a way to shut down the conversation without providing further explanation or evidence. Instead of engaging with the opposing viewpoint, the speaker implies the other person lacks the capacity or willingness to grasp the idea, effectively ending the debate.
For example, in heated arguments, it can translate to "I don't want to explain this anymore" or "you're not worth the effort," serving as a rhetorical dodge rather than a substantive point.
reddit.com +2
2. Condescending or Superiority Signal
It frequently carries an air of condescension, suggesting the speaker possesses deeper insight, intelligence, or experience that the listener simply can't match.
This can be a subtle power play, implying "I'm smarter/more informed than you," especially in ideological or normative disagreements where "understanding" is code for "agreeing with my values."
In relationships or personal disputes, it might stem from frustration when agreement isn't reached, equating disagreement with incomprehension.
@grayzoneintel
3. Indication of a Genuine Gap in Perspective or Experience
Less commonly, but still acknowledged, it can be a sincere expression when there's a real divide—such as differences in lived experience, cultural background, or expertise—that makes full empathy or comprehension difficult.
For instance, in gender communication studies, linguist Deborah Tannen's work highlights how men and women often have distinct conversational styles (e.g., men focusing on status and solutions, women on connection and rapport), leading to mutual "misunderstandings" that aren't about intelligence but about differing priorities.
washingtonpost.com +2
Here, the phrase points to a cross-cultural-like barrier rather than dismissal.
4. Frustration or Defensiveness
In many cases, it's born out of exasperation after repeated explanations fail, or when the speaker feels their point is being willfully ignored.
reddit.com +1
It can also mask insecurity, where the speaker avoids admitting their own argument is weak by shifting blame to the listener's supposed lack of insight.
Overall, while the phrase can occasionally be literal and benign, the predominant view in discussions is that it's not a strong or constructive argument—more of a fallacy or emotional shortcut that prioritizes winning over clarity.
Responses to it often involve asking for specific clarification (e.g., "What exactly don't I understand?") to force engagement.
- 1
Flobee
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,036
- 3,533
Yea, it's all three of these. When I say you don't understand this is what I'm talking about. You believe these three somehow contradict one another.
I'm not saying Bitcoin will be global pristine collateral just because of feels, it's literally happening right now. I'm not going to go dig up references for you, I don't have time right now, but I assure you there is plenty of reason to believe this is occuring outside of "mah feelz" or some sort of dogma. No it is NOT a forgone conclusion, it can still fail. I just don't think it will.
Monetary systems rely on trust. Gold was that layer of trust. It's not now, US debt is. No one currently trusts US treasuries (hence all issuance is front of the curve now). I believe Bitcoin will be a major part of international trade, specifically as collateral due to its properties. If you don't that's fine, but from the way you argue this point I suspect you don't understand how this works. That's also fine, I have an incomplete understanding myself, but I'm not being cultish when I point out you don't seem to understand something that.... You don't seem to understand. Your arguments sound very similar to someone like Paul Krugman.
To be clear, what I find exhausting is reading what you write while consistently not seeming to grasp what I'm saying. I don't know why I keep bothering to reply to you honestly.
I'm not saying Bitcoin is inevitable in the sense that I'm speaking an objective fact. It's my opinion that it's going to do the things I'm saying it will do. What I'm saying is objective is your misunderstanding of monetary systems, specifically around collateral for trade.
I'm not sure if it's intentional but you've mentioned faith and Christianity a number of times in this reply. If you're trying to insinuate that these things are bad, or because I have faith in Christ I must be only capable of, or suceptable to, placing faith in something like a BTC "cult" then we're probably much further from finding common ground than we're likely to cover on a forum. Hopefully I'm just reading more into that than is intended.
Last edited:
- 1
Flobee
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,036
- 3,533
Well, no argument the devs are not acting well. The "fix" for quantum, if it becomes and issue, is just an algorithm change. It would be a hard fork and depending on how it all happened, it probably wouldn't even be that contentious.
Note that quantum computing would break ALL commonly used encryption not just Bitcoin. It's really just FUD as it will be a big deal yes, but recoverable. It's not like banks are more prepared. Granted they could probably move faster if they needed to. Centralized vs decentralized. It's a tradeoff
Regarding "resisting all warning signs as usual" I'm not really sure who these mythical maxis you're referring to are? Everyone in aware of acknowledges it's a potential issue and there are a number of potential approaches to dealing with it under consideration.
I genuinely wonder who you people are listening to that makes you have such ridiculous opinions of anyone that likes Bitcoin lol. Strawmen everywhere
Last edited:
Furry
Email Loading Please Wait
- 26,406
- 38,048
Quantum computing is bullshit and will not do this. No quantum computer has as of yet calculated anything at all. There currently is no viable theory on how a quantum computer could possibly calculate something.
It's really hard to overstate how completely overblown and non-existent quantum computers are as is.
- 1
Rangoth
Vyemm Raider
- 2,231
- 2,500
While I do believe quantum computing in our lifetime is bullshit, it’s possible I’m wrong with the pace things are advancing.
quantum computing isn’t some special type of new computing, it’s just a fundamental difference in the transfer of information and bits. It would allow for trillions more operations per second without much more real-estate from a processing unit size. I also believe there is an element of probability to it where you can the calculations through multiple entangled particulars to get the highest chance of accurate outcome. I’d have to rewatch some of the videos.
the reason people focus encryption is because brute force methods can crack them, it would take a very long time. Encryption survives on complexity, so as ‘things get faster’ we can beat complexity quicker. Same shit as bitcoin hash rate.
but yes, unlikely we will see it at commercial applications or scale before I die. Everything right now is proving quantum entanglement with two individual electrons/particles. not mass use and scale. As we continue to understand the more Fundamental properties of physics I imagine a lot of things could change.
quantum computing isn’t some special type of new computing, it’s just a fundamental difference in the transfer of information and bits. It would allow for trillions more operations per second without much more real-estate from a processing unit size. I also believe there is an element of probability to it where you can the calculations through multiple entangled particulars to get the highest chance of accurate outcome. I’d have to rewatch some of the videos.
the reason people focus encryption is because brute force methods can crack them, it would take a very long time. Encryption survives on complexity, so as ‘things get faster’ we can beat complexity quicker. Same shit as bitcoin hash rate.
but yes, unlikely we will see it at commercial applications or scale before I die. Everything right now is proving quantum entanglement with two individual electrons/particles. not mass use and scale. As we continue to understand the more Fundamental properties of physics I imagine a lot of things could change.
- 1
Arden
Vyemm Raider
- 3,035
- 2,330
I saw the quantum FUD and got concerned, so I did some research on this. This issue isn't so much "quantum computing" broadly, it's Shor's Algorithm, a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers and compute discrete logarithms exponentially faster than classical computers.
In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could derive a private key from its public key but only if:
1. The public key has been revealed (e.g., by sending a transaction), and
2. The attacker has a quantum computer with millions of error-corrected qubits- which does not exist today.
The thing is, even with quantum computing, Shor's algorithm is purely theoretical. There's no guarantee that, even with quantum computing achieved, it would work anytime soon (or at all).
At the moment, quantum computers can't do anything close. To break Bitcoin signatures using Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computer would need roughly 10–30 million physical qubits. The most advanced machines today have ~1000 qubits.
The most optimistic (realistic) projections put us 4-5 years out before we get a quantum computer that can run Shor's and *possibly* hack the specific BTC addresses that have revealed their public keys. More likely estimates are 10+ years and (again) it's still only theoretical.
Importantly, as others have mentioned, this is a solvable problem. Bitcoin can upgrade before quantum becomes a threat.
The bottom line is that quantum computers do not threaten Bitcoin today. And by the time they might (decades, if ever), Bitcoin will almost certainly have quantum-resistant signatures, upgraded wallets, and migration paths for old coins.
Anyone who has followed the crypto space for a while knows that shorts and whales waiting to buy LIVE for FUD like this. People dumb enough not to research it panic and sell and these guys profit.
Some other fun facts I learned:
- Zcash (which someone brought up) is actually MORE vulnerable to Shor's than BTC. For privacy, Zcash uses shielded addresses, which rely on elliptic-curve-based zk-SNARKs (Groth16, Sapling, etc.) and pairing-based cryptography built over elliptic curves such as BLS12-381. All of these depend on elliptic curve discrete log assumptions, which are directly broken by Shor. A powerful enough quantum computer could break the zk-SNARK proving system, forge shielded proofs, and potentially create ZEC from nothing. This is worse than Bitcoin’s vulnerability, because breaking the SNARK layer has deeper implications than just stealing keys.
- Very few blockchains are natively post-quantum. Most chains (BTC, ETH, SOL, NEAR, AVAX, APT, SUI, DOT) use ECDSA or ED25519 and are fully breakable by Shor’s algorithm. Some of the chains that are natively Shor resistant are QRL, Praxxis, and (believe it or not) Algorand.
- While just about every chain can be upgraded to be "quantum proof", some are more easy to upgrade than others for technical reasons. Here's a basic idea of the difficulty level per chain:
NEAR- Easy to upgrade
Solana- Medium difficulty
ETH- Medium/dhard difficulty
BTC- Hard to upgrade
Zcash- Most difficult to upgrade
In theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could derive a private key from its public key but only if:
1. The public key has been revealed (e.g., by sending a transaction), and
2. The attacker has a quantum computer with millions of error-corrected qubits- which does not exist today.
The thing is, even with quantum computing, Shor's algorithm is purely theoretical. There's no guarantee that, even with quantum computing achieved, it would work anytime soon (or at all).
At the moment, quantum computers can't do anything close. To break Bitcoin signatures using Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computer would need roughly 10–30 million physical qubits. The most advanced machines today have ~1000 qubits.
The most optimistic (realistic) projections put us 4-5 years out before we get a quantum computer that can run Shor's and *possibly* hack the specific BTC addresses that have revealed their public keys. More likely estimates are 10+ years and (again) it's still only theoretical.
Importantly, as others have mentioned, this is a solvable problem. Bitcoin can upgrade before quantum becomes a threat.
The bottom line is that quantum computers do not threaten Bitcoin today. And by the time they might (decades, if ever), Bitcoin will almost certainly have quantum-resistant signatures, upgraded wallets, and migration paths for old coins.
Anyone who has followed the crypto space for a while knows that shorts and whales waiting to buy LIVE for FUD like this. People dumb enough not to research it panic and sell and these guys profit.
Some other fun facts I learned:
- Zcash (which someone brought up) is actually MORE vulnerable to Shor's than BTC. For privacy, Zcash uses shielded addresses, which rely on elliptic-curve-based zk-SNARKs (Groth16, Sapling, etc.) and pairing-based cryptography built over elliptic curves such as BLS12-381. All of these depend on elliptic curve discrete log assumptions, which are directly broken by Shor. A powerful enough quantum computer could break the zk-SNARK proving system, forge shielded proofs, and potentially create ZEC from nothing. This is worse than Bitcoin’s vulnerability, because breaking the SNARK layer has deeper implications than just stealing keys.
- Very few blockchains are natively post-quantum. Most chains (BTC, ETH, SOL, NEAR, AVAX, APT, SUI, DOT) use ECDSA or ED25519 and are fully breakable by Shor’s algorithm. Some of the chains that are natively Shor resistant are QRL, Praxxis, and (believe it or not) Algorand.
- While just about every chain can be upgraded to be "quantum proof", some are more easy to upgrade than others for technical reasons. Here's a basic idea of the difficulty level per chain:
NEAR- Easy to upgrade
Solana- Medium difficulty
ETH- Medium/dhard difficulty
BTC- Hard to upgrade
Zcash- Most difficult to upgrade