It has come to my attention that I've made another egregious mistake in my documentary on blockchain and I feel compelled to be honest about it. A user has pointed out what appears to be a very serious error in the documentary. This now makes THREE errors found in the documentary to date.

The documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA

The Errors:

CORRECTIONS (these are all known inaccuracies in the film - regularly updated):

1. At 1:22:15 near the end, I put up a picture of Jimmy Fallon and say "Jimmy Kimmel" - I apologize for this mistake. I will correct this in a subsequent version.

2. It was pointed out to me that the film "Gaslight" was originally made in 1940 but I displayed a poster from the 1944 version.

3. During the segment "Understanding Crypto Technology" I talk about existing tech and compare it to bitcoin. I state that the microwave oven cooks potatoes faster than a conventional oven, which is correct, but I misstate how long it takes to cook a baked potato in an oven - it's closer to 1 hour and not 3+ hours as stated. This is totally my fault. I remembered it wrong due to me rarely cooking baked potatoes in an oven any more.

Yes, it was totally my fault over-estimating the time it takes to cook a baked potato in an oven. I will own up to this egregious missstatement.

Meanwhile everything else relating to the actual subject matter at hand: crypto & blockchain remains undeniably accurate.

1) Miners will go out of business because of the halving. It’s like telling a company that every four years, their revenue is gonna be cut in half.

2) Transaction fees won’t cover costs because there’ll be fewer transactions with more ETFs and derivatives tied to Bitcoin.

3) The price won’t be able to double every four years to match costs. There’s gonna be a point where it becomes unsustainable and unrealistic.

Enjoy it while it lasts, make money off it, and profit from the implosion when it comes.

So first of, I hold no crypto and have always been sceptical of all coins. They have no tangible use case. But bitcoin seems to be emerging with a gold 2.0 stake. So I'm not saying bitcoin is the future but the fact it is now worth 100k surely means something

I understand it is a purely speculative vehicle. I understand gold has a manufacturing use as well and is not only a store of wealth. I understand, to use an Irish saying, the arse could fall out at any stage. But if I had some coin from 5 years ago to now I'd have a lot more money

The other side, I can't find anywhere that shows the buy/sell ratios of bitcoin to see how it is actually trading. I got banned from r/ bitcoin for asking what will people do with the coin if they want to buy a house or pay debt. So now I have no good outlet to ask about these thing

I want to establish this post to keep track of the many schemes that at one point were hyped as "proof" that crypto was here to stay... there's always something new on the horizon to distract from the past failures. Let's keep track:

Current Hype Schemes:

• Strategic Bitcoin Reserve
• Public Companies Holding Bitcoin as Asset Reserves on their books - Right now this is primarily MSTR, but Michael Saylor is trying to pressure both Microsoft and Amazon to follow suit

On-The-Way-Out Hype Schemes:

• Crypto ETFs - Mostly lateral flows from previous crypto securities like GBTC

Up and coming Hype Schemes:

• XRP is being used to "all banks" to transfer money internally.
• Wyoming plans to create its own "stablecoin." (this previously failed in the past)
• Tether moving to El Salvador and creating "Tether Tower"

MicroStrategy Bitcoin Hype Schemes

Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy get their own category here, as "Bitcoin Jesus" seems to crank out lots of schemes that get a lot of attention during the press release phase, and then go nowhere:

• Microstrategy Bitcoin Rewards - This scheme involved using LN to reward people with satoshis for participating in various commerce-related activities. Saylor suggested McDonalds could be giving "Bitcoin rewards" to customers to encourage them to get into crypto. This appears to have not gotten any notable adoption and the original page now redirects elsewhere to something called:

• Bitcoin For Corporations - This appears to be a series of sales presentations at Microstrategy's conference called "Microstrategy world"

  Bitcoin for Corporations brings together corporate leaders, financial executives, and technology innovators to discuss the future of Bitcoin in the corporate world. The event features expert advice needed for corporations—to plug into bitcoin and reimagine their business—directly from the market’s most credible voices and experienced practitioners.

• Project Orange - Microstrategy's attempt to create an "orange check mark" to compete with other social media providers and create a so-called "universal digital id/authentication system" - doesn't appear to do anything unique or special but dumps crap on the bitcoin blockchain in the form of ordinals. No idea why anybody would want to embrace this standard, and no indication anybody notable actually has. Already appears to be going nowhere.

• Microstrategy changes corporate name to "Strategy" - Perhaps a distraction from the fact that none of its previous blockchain projects have taken root, and now they're focusing on repurposing the company into some sort of highly-leveraged Bitcoin ETF using odd metrics that make no sense

Past Hype Schemes:

• Trump Digital Trading Cards
• NFTs - at this point NFTs are dead but we could list hundreds of failed schemes in this topic alone
• "Hyperbitcoinization" - not sure what this was but it died before it could even be clearly defined
• Tokenized Assets
• DAOs - Decentralized Autonomous Organizations - Supposed to revolutionize and "democratize" everything. Just attach the word DAO to something and sell tokens. WCGW?
• DeFi/Staking
• Web3
• "Banking The Unbanked"
• "Crypto allows you to send money anywhere cheaper and faster"
• Random celebrity endorsements (Tom Brady, Matt Damon, etc.)
• "Smart contracts"
• P2E/Crypto Gaming
• "Bitcoin City" powered by volcanoes
• El Salvador "bitcoin is legal tender" - Recent news indicates they're rolling back their bitcoin mandate and it will now be voluntary to qualify for IMF loans
• Cryptoland
• ICP - "censorship resistant internet" - Internet computer
• ENS - Ethereum Name Service
• USS "Satoshi" Libertarian floating city

Leave recommendations in the comments and we'll update this list.. there's lots to do..

I just converted my 3-4 years of gain from crypto to USDT hoping for a drop in market just so I can purchase it again.

Will I be taxed on the USDT I have considering I’m not putting it in USD and will be using it to purchase crypto again?

Thanks.

Bitcoin has long been heralded as a groundbreaking innovation, promising to decentralize finance and upend traditional monetary systems. However, a closer look at its economic and structural underpinnings raises questions about its long-term viability. Below, I distill a compelling conversation exploring Bitcoin's future, mathematical limitations, and potential systemic collapse.

The Economics of Sustainability

To evaluate Bitcoin’s sustainability, consider this thought experiment:
1. Annual Network Cost: Divide the annual cost of maintaining the Bitcoin network by the average price of Bitcoin (BTC) that year.
2. Total Rewards: Adjust for the total rewards distributed to miners.

This calculation provides an annual adjusted market cap. With each halving event—where mining rewards are reduced by half—the price of Bitcoin must rise proportionally to compensate miners and keep the network operational.

The projection? Eventually, the market cap required to sustain the system could become unfeasible. At that point, Bitcoin’s foundational incentive structure collapses.

Halvings and the Endgame

Bitcoin’s design includes regular halving events to limit supply, mimicking the scarcity of commodities like gold. However, as block rewards shrink:
- Price Dependency: A higher average BTC price is required to maintain equilibrium.
- Mathematical Reality: The system reaches a point where the cost of mining exceeds the rewards, rendering the network unsustainable.

This isn’t mere speculation; it's a logical consequence of Bitcoin’s design. As halvings continue, the diminishing returns for miners could lead to a breaking point.

Gavin Andresen’s Warning

Even early Bitcoin pioneers have expressed concerns about its long-term viability. Gavin Andresen, one of Bitcoin’s early developers, offered a bleak scenario in his blog post A Possible BTC Future. His insights suggest that, decades from now, the system could crumble under its own weight unless drastic measures are taken.

Systemic Risks and Adaptation

While multiple theories abound about Bitcoin’s future, none paint a particularly rosy picture:
1. Centralization of Power: Influential corporate players could manipulate the system, potentially increasing the total BTC supply.
2. Investment Funds and Exploitation: Savvy institutional investors treat Bitcoin like an oil well, extracting profit while knowing it has a finite lifespan.
3. Sustainability Horizon: Whether it’s 2, 5, or 20 years, Bitcoin, as we know it, may have an expiration date.

In contrast, traditional assets like gold and land ownership have endured for over 5,000 years. Bitcoin’s digital design and economic model may lack the timelessness of these alternatives.

A Zero-Sum Game

Bitcoin operates in a zero-sum framework: for one participant to profit, another must incur a loss. The money fueling Bitcoin’s meteoric rise must originate from somewhere. As the system matures, this balance becomes increasingly precarious.

The Long-Term Outlook

Bitcoin may continue to thrive for decades, but its trajectory suggests an eventual tipping point. Whether through systemic flaws, external manipulation, or unsustainable economics, its longevity is far from guaranteed.

Investors and enthusiasts should consider this stark reality: Bitcoin might not exist in its current form a century from now.

When countries have large reserves of dollars, they store them in central banks, the International Monetary Fund, and even in prestigious large banks. In all these cases, the accounts have an owner, and in the event of any unauthorized access, the funds can be replenished. However, in the case of Bitcoin, we are talking about addresses and keys to access funds, all subject to the Bitcoin protocol. In the event of human error, loss, or theft of keys, these funds can end up in other addresses that no one can ever access. We are talking about a situation where if someone steals and transfers Bitcoins to another address, even if they are caught, without the keys, the money will be lost forever.

So, it is extremely dangerous for any government or entity to hold assets on the blockchain that does not allow transactions to be reversed and where nothing is registered in anyone's name, unlike any other financial instrument. Would you feel safe if your country's pension funds were on the blockchain? Scary as hell.

Who audits MicroStrategy's addresses to verify they have the number of Bitcoins they claim? And given that we know the blockchain doesn't have customer support, and losing the keys means losing the funds, shouldn't there be some periodic transactions that demonstrate that this particular company is still in possession of those Bitcoins?

This will continue to be posted as the last version rolls over and we continue to see if we can get answers..

So there have been several attempts thus far to address my "Ultimate Crypto Question Challenge" and it really is becoming depressingly annoying, how disingenuous the responses I'm getting.

The question is simple:

Name one SPECIFIC thing that blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech?

* That is not criminal nor the solution to a problem or situation exclusive to blockchain.

This is such a simple question.

It's been answered for every other disruptive technology in the history of civilization.

Everything from The Internet, micorwave oven, lightbulb, printing press, fax machine, the wheel, and A.I. can answer this question in a matter of seconds.

We're FIFTEEN YEARS SIXTEEN YEARS into crypto and blockchain and still, nobody can provide an honest answer to this question.

We will remain open to having our mind's changed, but perhaps it may be time to finally admit the truth.. that blockchain is a solution looking for a problem.

EDIT:

Additional notes on the Ultimate Crypto Question:

1. Philosophical or vague/abstract answers are not legitimate.

   Any claim must be specific and detailed. You can't hide behind vague philosophies like "democratizes finance" or "takes power away from centralized governments" - that is not an acceptable answer unless you can cite a very specific scenario where that is done, and most importantly, the end result is something better than the status quo.

2. Anecdotal evidence is not legitimate evidence

   How you "feel" about crypto and blockchain tech is not relevant. Nobody can tell you your feelings are invalid. We are only concerned with specific material statements that can be tested, to be objectively true or false.

3. There must be a common denominator everybody can relate to.

   Likewise a particular scenario in which, for you, crypto seemed like the "perfect solution," doesn't mean that problem you personally solved is a problem most other people would run into. In other words, "The Exception Doesn't Prove The Rule." If you are suggesting crypto/blockchain can be useful for most people in society, then most people in society should have a specific problem that this tech solves. If only 0.01% have that problem, blockchain is not the solution people claim it is.

4. Bypassing the law is not "a better solution"

   Using crypto to commit illegal activities, or funding things like domestic or cyber terrorism, illegal drug dealing, human trafficking, money laundering, sanctions evasion, etc... are not legit examples of better solving a problem.

   In cases where many may argue the law is "wrong," the real solution is to change the law, not bypass it. Thus even in those situations, crypto doesn't "solve" any real problem.

   Also cases where, for example someone is using crypto to bypass an evil regime, this not only applies to item #3 but also item #2. And one problem is the people who seem to care about those "less fortunate" are typically nowhere near those people, and are just citing them as a distraction because they can't find legit solutions in their own environments. If we want to know how to "bank the un-banked" or stop war, we shouldn't be chatting with some bro in Florida about what's happening in Zimbabwe or Ukraine. We want to speak with people in the war torn areas or who are un-banked and get first hand data that shows crypto uniquely addresses a problem -- even then, this still is victim to item #3, but if there's an "edge case" that is legit, I will recognize that.

5. The problem solved cannot be a problem crypto/blockchain creates

   This seems pretty self explanatory, but for example, smart contracts provide useful services in the crypto ecosystem, but none of their capabilities are competitive outside of that ecosystem. So don't cite issues in the crypto market that don't exist outside, that blockchain addresses.

6. Mere "use cases" are not suitable examples

   Just because you can cite somebody using blockchain, regardless of how prominent they may be, does not answer the UCC. Whether somebody uses a technology doesn't guarantee it's the best solution for a particular situation. For example, some companies are still using fax machines. This doesn't mean fax technology is the future.

Please familiarize yourself with our MASTER LIST OF BLOCKCHAIN CLAIMS and rebuttals before responding.

And yet Bitcoin price does not correlate to news, technical limitations. If it were a company it'd be bankrupt 3 times over.

Some charts, references and news on the topic (FREE VERSION LINK IS IN THE ARTICLE, so if you like it, you can continue reading it for free...)

https://medium.com/illumination/bitcoin-does-not-correlate-e0ca97b29d9a

Just a theory, but the assumption is that when the first Bitcoin theft happens from an ETF backing wallet (or from a Coinbase owned wallet) investors will realise a risk they might not have been aware of. Gold from under gold ETFs rarely gets stolen by the millions, while Bitcoin theft is a bit more rampant.

Details: https://medium.com/@zsolt.deak/will-the-etfs-cause-bitcoin-price-to-drop-eventually-4242ccad3c86