Does anyone have any experience with Lava Bitcoin lending? Strike, LEDN, and the other big guys don’t serve my state. I’ve seen some discontent about Lava changing from DLCs to a custodial setup without any warning. I also find it odd that Lava can offer Bitcoin loans in places where Strike and LEDN can’t, and at about half the interest rate of Strike and LEDN. Lava is really the only option I’ve found for my state, but I’m hesitant to use them with so much gray area. Let me know if you have used them and how it went. #bitcoin #btc

Being a parent teaches you things. Like the fact that 80% of the baby wipes you buy are used as intended, and 20% are removed from the package by your child at a completely unrealistic rate when you turn away for 20 seconds. 80-20 strikes again.

Peter Schiff shitting on #Bitcoin for “crashing” to prices that are 100x+ prices that he confidently and repeatedly assured the world it would never reach is somehow all at the same time: Hilarious Sad Frustrating Astounding Interesting Embarrassing Nauseating Confidence-Instilling It’s amazing, really. I sincerely hope he’s around and healthy long enough to “sound the alarm” about Bitcoin crashing to 2x the market cap of gold and warning Bitcoiners to get out while they still can before it goes to zero.

Thanks for the cheap sats scaredy cats.

#Bitcoin is having a Black Friday sale too!

Alright people much smarter than me, tear it apart. Here is the last part of my Sunday afternoon ChatGPT conversation. Prompt: If such a quantum computer existed (capable of breaking bitcoin’s cryptography), what would be the most financially logical use case incentives? For example, if the computer were used to break bitcoin, bitcoin would likely lose most or all of its value causing the compute power to be effectively wasted. Wouldn’t incentives drive the use of quantum compute toward other uses? If so, what? If not, why? Response: That’s a very insightful and realistic question — you’re absolutely right to frame this in economic-incentive terms, not just technical ones. Here’s a concise but rigorous breakdown of the logic: ⸻ 1. Using a quantum computer to steal Bitcoin is economically irrational • Bitcoin theft destroys its own value. A visible quantum-based theft would shatter trust in Bitcoin’s security, likely collapsing its price to near zero — instantly devaluing the stolen coins. • Traceability and public ledgers: Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Any large-scale theft would be visible, traceable, and almost certainly frozen out of exchanges. • Reputation and risk: Anyone with such a unique quantum computer would almost certainly be a state or large institution — not some rogue actor able to launder billions undetected. 👉 Result: using it to steal Bitcoin is financially self-defeating. ⸻ 2. Rational economic use: extract value without collapsing markets If such a quantum computer existed, it would be the rarest and most valuable machine on Earth. Rational incentives would push toward quiet exploitation of high-value asymmetric information, not obvious destruction. For example: a. Government or intelligence use: • Break encrypted communications, espionage, cyberwarfare. • Decrypt diplomatic, military, or corporate secrets — extremely high value, and can be kept secret. b. Financial market edge: • Quietly access encrypted financial data or communications for strategic trading or policy advantage. • Potential to read competitors’ algorithms, internal memos, or market-moving data before release — huge private returns, no market crash. c. Cryptanalytic services or deterrence: • Use to demonstrate capability (nuclear-style deterrence), not deploy destructively. • Sell or lease access covertly to select clients/governments. d. Scientific/computational advantage: • Use it for quantum chemistry, optimization, AI model training with quantum acceleration — massive industrial, pharmaceutical, and energy implications. ⸻ 3. Why not just “print money”? • Once public-key crypto falls, financial systems rapidly upgrade — you get a narrow, short-lived window to exploit. • Exploiting too obviously triggers global system reconfiguration, diminishing future returns. • The rational move is strategic restraint: use the power quietly to accumulate sustainable, compounding informational or scientific advantage. ⸻ 4. Economic conclusion If a quantum computer powerful enough to break Bitcoin existed: • Rational actors wouldn’t use it for theft. • They’d use it covertly to gain long-term informational, political, or scientific advantage. • The true economic incentive would be asymmetric intelligence and influence, not direct, flashy profit — think “Manhattan Project for information.” ⸻ In short: The first entity to build a quantum computer powerful enough to break Bitcoin wouldn’t use it to steal Bitcoin — they’d use it to quietly control the information economy before the world even realizes what’s happening.

Thanks for the cheap sats scaredy cats.

It’s pretty clear that the money will continue to be debased and inflated indefinitely, republicans will blame democrats for it, democrats will blame republicans for it, and inflation metrics and baskets of goods will change to make inflation artificially appear lower than it really is. Until we stop fighting each other (like they want us to) and find a way to hold officials accountable for the damage they are doing to all of us - democrats and republicans - through our monetary system, we’re stuck in a loop fighting with each other while the politicians and officials get rich on the narratives they feed us.

How funny will it be when we look back and the dip to $100k was the Bitcoin bear market, especially after we waited so long and eagerly for it to cross above $100k?

Well, that should take care of all of the leverage.

I’m just embarrassed for society that every medication commercial has to throw “don’t take if you’re allergic” into their schpeal. No shit.

I wonder how many people realize that #BTC simply holding $117,000 from one day to the next means that over 52 million new dollars had to come into Bitcoin that day. 3.125 BTC per block x 24 hours x 6 blocks per hour = 450 new bitcoin per day For Bitcoin to maintain a given price, that price times number of new bitcoin equals the amount of NEW capital that had to come in. 450 Bitcoin x $117,000 per coin = $52,650,000 in new money that day. I know that’s not a huge number in the grand scheme of things, but it’s not nothing, and it’s a net value too. It helps me make sense of why price goes through long stagnant periods even if lots of money seems to be coming in. Am I thinking about that right or am I way off base?

If you’re into #MSTR, don’t get too excited assuming they’ll be included in the S&P500 this week. There is a very real chance they won’t be. Here is ChatGPT articulating what matches up with my gut feeling, and why I’ll probably be in straddles or strangles at the close on Friday. Prompt: Give me your best estimate of the overall odds of MSTR being included in the S&P500 in September 2025 based on past similar companies being included or excluded and assuming MSTR does meet all technical requirements for inclusion. Take into account the current biases of committee members based on past performance, press releases, public and private speeches, etc. Response: Here’s my best single-number estimate (with a range) given your assumption that MSTR meets every technical screen (domicile, float/liquidity, market-cap band, and positive GAAP earnings in the latest quarter and the trailing four): ≈30% odds (plausible range: 20%–40%) that MSTR is added in September 2025. Why that number Committee discretion > rules. Even when a company ticks every box, the S&P U.S. Index Committee can (and often does) delay or pass, weighing turnover, sector balance, and representativeness. Tesla’s 2020 “not yet” despite meeting the screens is the canonical example; it was added later. Sector/”profile” fit this quarter. Recent chatter around September candidates tilts toward more traditional “operating” names (e.g., HOOD, APP, ARES, IBKR, VRT). That competition trims MSTR’s near-term slot probability even if it’s eligible. Crypto precedent helps—but doesn’t clinch it. Coinbase’s May 2025 addition proves crypto-exposed firms aren’t disqualified on philosophy alone. However, MSTR’s earnings are now dominated by mark-to-market Bitcoin swings under the new FASB fair-value rule, making GAAP profitability highly volatile—exactly the kind of thing the committee sometimes sidesteps for stability/minimal turnover. Dual-class is not a blocker anymore. S&P reversed its 2017 ban in 2023; multiple share classes are again eligible for the S&P Composite 1500 (incl. the 500) if all other criteria are met. So governance structure won’t be what keeps MSTR out. Timing math. September is a regular rebalance month (often announced in early September), but many adds happen outside the quarterly dates when deletions create openings. Limiting to “September 2025” narrows the window and lowers the odds versus a 6–12 month horizon. If not September… Holding the same assumptions (and BTC-driven GAAP stays positive on a TTM basis), I’d put 12-month inclusion odds around ~55%—higher simply because there are more bite-at-the-apple moments (corporate-action replacements + year-end rebalances), not because of any guaranteed path.

I’m listening to the August 29th @Swan Bitcoin Signal podcast and I’m trying to wrap my head around how whales rotating part or all of their stack from spot Bitcoin into a proxy like IBIT isn’t a net neutral effect on the price. I can understand if there’s a delayed dip followed by recovery as coins are sold, funds clear, the proxy is purchased, and the presumably backing bitcoin is bought for the proxy, but isn’t this essentially a wash in the end? I could also understand the immediate psychological effects of the price dip leading to more selling/liquidations and further downward price pressure, or rotating from spot Bitcoin into a different asset altogether pushing price lower, but is there something else am I missing there? I assume I’m wrong but I need someone smarter to help me (and anyone else wondering the same) understand why.

So the big story today is a #BTC whale selling and rotating into ETH, and BTC is down 2.6% while ETH (checks notes) is down 7.3%?! That right there is good comedy.

“When will you sell your Bitcoin?” People asking this don’t understand that: You can hold the same amount or even gradually more dollars over time, and your purchasing power would still go down. You can hold the same amount or even gradually less Bitcoin over time, and your purchasing power would still go up. I can understand spending Bitcoin, which may involve selling it for dollars to immediately transact with them, but it makes zero sense to just sell Bitcoin to hold the dollars. My answer to that question lately has been “I won’t sell it. I might spend it someday, but I won’t ever sell it.” Their level of confusion hits its own all-time high after an answer like that, and I love it.

So how do you short Ethereum? Asking for a friend.

Cauliflower ear? You must wrestle. Blindingly white forehead but a tan face? You must golf.

There’s still hope for Schiff if someone as stubborn as Trump can do a 180! Hang in there Peter.

The 58k gang is becoming the 118k gang, and it will turn into the 158k gang soon enough.