4 ms·

Someone that was predicted to own 5% (1mm) of all Bitcoins just died in Costa Rica I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins and I

Someone that was predicted to own 5% (1mm) of all Bitcoins just died in Costa Rica I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins and I doubt Bitcoins become less scarce Shorting Microstrategy and Coinbase via puts are good ideas though. Microstrategy isnt overleveraged yet but its easy for them to be. Coinbase is just a share dump, thats the entire purpose of direct listings. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

arcticbull 5y ago
That is true, unless you believe that the scarcity isn't at all relevant to the price in your anticipated future state. After all, the sacks of garbage in my kitchen are scarce but you don't see people tripping over their shoelaces to pay $30,000 a piece.
- vmception 5y ago
  I believe it is relevant as more bitcoin becomes distributed on bridges and in Defi protocols (see burned liquidity pool shares), on lightning and liquid, in longer dated “physical delivery” derivatives contracts and more
- jkepler 5y ago
  You are confusing scarcity and monetary hardness. Its super easy to create more sacks of garbage, and if demand for them shot up, a ton of people would bring their own sacks to market, crashing the garbage sack price. This happened to silver between the two sold wars, and nations that abandoned bimetal standards late lost a lot of monetary value to those on just gold. Monetary hardness is whether its easy or hard to introduce more supply of a commodity money when demand goes up. More dollars are printed in response to demand, more gold mined in response to rising gold prices, more sacks of rubbish if that's what people clamor for. Dollars are harder money than sacks of garbage (unless we're talking about the failed Zimbabwe dollar), gold is harder than dollars. However, more bitcoin CAN'T be created than the predetermined, declining schedule. Today, bitcoin's stock to flow is roughly equal to gold, but at its next halving it will double its hardness, and that will double again at every subsequent halving. So, bitcoin will become exponentially the hardest money ever created. Scarcity is only part if monetary hardness. But perhaps you're right regarding future price: in the future (as is true presently), one bitcoin will be worth exactly 100,000,000 satoshis.
rys 5y ago
I was unsure and looked it up, so in case it helps someone else: the person that died in Costa Rica is Mircea Popescu.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Yes, and our friend Pomp left this delightful message on Twitter to mark his passing. > Mircea Popescu, a Bitcoin OG, has passed away. He likely owned quite a bit of bitcoin. We may never know how much or if they are lost forever, but reminds me Satoshi said: "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." Disgusting. [Edit] To be clear I'm reacting negatively to his choice of framing Micrea's passing in terms of his own enrichment, not quibbling with the mechanics. I've nothing against the idea that supply going down would benefit the community, just the way Pomp chose to address Micrea's passing. I suspect Pomp realized the optics himself as he has since deleted the tweet.
  - vmception 5y ago
    You follow bitcoiners on twitter? That’s interesting I would have assumed you had completely segregated yourself from them Yeah I also believe the coins are lost and the principles of scarcity do apply, this is acknowledgeable with more tact than what Pomp chose to say, its an assumption that can just go unsaid
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I do; when I feel really strongly about something I always try and challenge my opinions. I like to hear both sides of the debate and make up my own mind. I'd like to think I have more than a passing knowledge of Bitcoin and crypto and the ecosystem in general. Not as much as some, to be sure. I am open to being wrong, and of course it goes without saying that I've learned a lot from you and our various back-and-forths! :) I work in payments, and have for a long time now so it's important I have at least something of an informed opinion on cryptocurrency in general. I've also got a few friends who did very well in crypto (and some who haven't done very well at all). I follow and often engage with Paolo Ardoino too! :) I think in a different life he and I would be great friends. I agree, Pomp is right about the mechanics, I was referring to the tactless way in which he chose to honor the life of Mircea - in terms of his own enrichment.
ur-whale 5y ago
> I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins You're speculating though. Any information to back that up?
- vmception 5y ago
  Just general behavior of that person and their expectations at 41 years old. You would just add this to other assumptions about unmoved bitcoin, where over time you would look for the days destroyed the metric, aka how many bitcoins have remained unmoved for how long. It is decent news when old bitcoins are moved, and until that occurs they can be assumed to never move, especially when they are in version 1 addresses.
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    Mircea was (if he is indeed dead and isn't instead pulling a fast one) one profoundly odd bird [1], but he was most certainly not dumb. He also lived a rather unusual life [2][3] and likelihood of some sort of trouble hitting him at some point were not insignificant. Also, his death would be a perfect Mircea-type opportunity to create an "event" in the Bitcoin ecosystem. It's quite possible he wouldn't let something like that go to waste. These taken together, I think assuming he hadn't planned anything in case of his demise is a bit of a stretch. The only reason I could think of that he didn't was his profoundly individualistic take on life. But then again, he had folks he cared about [4] Also, the "old coins moved" metric argument isn't necessarily a good one: if there is a plan in case of his (alleged) death, it does not imply the coins will move right away (not that you even know on which addie they were stored in the first place). Anyways, RIP Mircea, the world got quite more boring if you did indeed pass away. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210601004904/http://trilema.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210601004904/http://trilema.co... [2] https://archive.md/9AvNW https://archive.md/9AvNW [3] https://archive.md/wip/cJNKb https://archive.md/wip/cJNKb [4] http://thewhet.net/2021/06/goodnight-sweet-master/ http://thewhet.net/2021/06/goodnight-sweet-master/
keymone 5y ago
that prediction is bogus. they were OG, yes, but it's highly improbable they were able to hold on to all those bitcoins. 2009-2011 was a time when people threw literally hundreds to thousands bitcoins for dumb things like socks and pizzas. and those are real world assets - it was much easier to spend BTC for virtual assets like hosting or vpn or gambling. no doubt the guy was beyond rich, but i'm almost certain they didn't hold 5% of BTC. > I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins and why would you doubt it? when somebody becomes billionaire, paying financial management companies and lawyers is pocket change.
- vmception 5y ago
  Because Mirceau made their trust issues with institutions to be pretty clear I think he was aware of technological solutions native to Bitcoin, but I just dont think he would have put them in place unless he was terminally ill and had some lead time to do it. This has nothing to do with being a billionaire and is distinct from drowning on vacation as an in shape 41 year old He’s had an objectively gargantuan sum of money for a very long time, everything you said is true for single digit millionaires too Or a thousandaire in Romania
  - keymone 5y ago
    becoming a billionaire most likely changes your perspective a lot. and he became billionaire 7 years ago. that's plenty of time to think of how to preserve bitcoins such that they aren't lost when one passes away. and since you say he was technical - well there are tehnical solutions to do that, multisigs, sharded keys, etc.
    - vmception 5y ago
      > I think he was aware of technological solutions native to Bitcoin
      - keymone 5y ago
        sorry, i misread your comment.

arcticbull 5y ago

That is true, unless you believe that the scarcity isn't at all relevant to the price in your anticipated future state. After all, the sacks of garbage in my kitchen are scarce but you don't see people tripping over their shoelaces to pay $30,000 a piece.

vmception 5y ago
I believe it is relevant as more bitcoin becomes distributed on bridges and in Defi protocols (see burned liquidity pool shares), on lightning and liquid, in longer dated “physical delivery” derivatives contracts and more
jkepler 5y ago
You are confusing scarcity and monetary hardness. Its super easy to create more sacks of garbage, and if demand for them shot up, a ton of people would bring their own sacks to market, crashing the garbage sack price. This happened to silver between the two sold wars, and nations that abandoned bimetal standards late lost a lot of monetary value to those on just gold. Monetary hardness is whether its easy or hard to introduce more supply of a commodity money when demand goes up. More dollars are printed in response to demand, more gold mined in response to rising gold prices, more sacks of rubbish if that's what people clamor for. Dollars are harder money than sacks of garbage (unless we're talking about the failed Zimbabwe dollar), gold is harder than dollars. However, more bitcoin CAN'T be created than the predetermined, declining schedule. Today, bitcoin's stock to flow is roughly equal to gold, but at its next halving it will double its hardness, and that will double again at every subsequent halving. So, bitcoin will become exponentially the hardest money ever created. Scarcity is only part if monetary hardness. But perhaps you're right regarding future price: in the future (as is true presently), one bitcoin will be worth exactly 100,000,000 satoshis.

rys 5y ago

I was unsure and looked it up, so in case it helps someone else: the person that died in Costa Rica is Mircea Popescu.

arcticbull 5y ago
Yes, and our friend Pomp left this delightful message on Twitter to mark his passing. > Mircea Popescu, a Bitcoin OG, has passed away. He likely owned quite a bit of bitcoin. We may never know how much or if they are lost forever, but reminds me Satoshi said: "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." Disgusting. [Edit] To be clear I'm reacting negatively to his choice of framing Micrea's passing in terms of his own enrichment, not quibbling with the mechanics. I've nothing against the idea that supply going down would benefit the community, just the way Pomp chose to address Micrea's passing. I suspect Pomp realized the optics himself as he has since deleted the tweet.
- vmception 5y ago
  You follow bitcoiners on twitter? That’s interesting I would have assumed you had completely segregated yourself from them Yeah I also believe the coins are lost and the principles of scarcity do apply, this is acknowledgeable with more tact than what Pomp chose to say, its an assumption that can just go unsaid
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I do; when I feel really strongly about something I always try and challenge my opinions. I like to hear both sides of the debate and make up my own mind. I'd like to think I have more than a passing knowledge of Bitcoin and crypto and the ecosystem in general. Not as much as some, to be sure. I am open to being wrong, and of course it goes without saying that I've learned a lot from you and our various back-and-forths! :) I work in payments, and have for a long time now so it's important I have at least something of an informed opinion on cryptocurrency in general. I've also got a few friends who did very well in crypto (and some who haven't done very well at all). I follow and often engage with Paolo Ardoino too! :) I think in a different life he and I would be great friends. I agree, Pomp is right about the mechanics, I was referring to the tactless way in which he chose to honor the life of Mircea - in terms of his own enrichment.

ur-whale 5y ago

> I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins You're speculating though. Any information to back that up?

vmception 5y ago
Just general behavior of that person and their expectations at 41 years old. You would just add this to other assumptions about unmoved bitcoin, where over time you would look for the days destroyed the metric, aka how many bitcoins have remained unmoved for how long. It is decent news when old bitcoins are moved, and until that occurs they can be assumed to never move, especially when they are in version 1 addresses.
- ur-whale 5y ago
  Mircea was (if he is indeed dead and isn't instead pulling a fast one) one profoundly odd bird [1], but he was most certainly not dumb. He also lived a rather unusual life [2][3] and likelihood of some sort of trouble hitting him at some point were not insignificant. Also, his death would be a perfect Mircea-type opportunity to create an "event" in the Bitcoin ecosystem. It's quite possible he wouldn't let something like that go to waste. These taken together, I think assuming he hadn't planned anything in case of his demise is a bit of a stretch. The only reason I could think of that he didn't was his profoundly individualistic take on life. But then again, he had folks he cared about [4] Also, the "old coins moved" metric argument isn't necessarily a good one: if there is a plan in case of his (alleged) death, it does not imply the coins will move right away (not that you even know on which addie they were stored in the first place). Anyways, RIP Mircea, the world got quite more boring if you did indeed pass away. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210601004904/http://trilema.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210601004904/http://trilema.co... [2] https://archive.md/9AvNW https://archive.md/9AvNW [3] https://archive.md/wip/cJNKb https://archive.md/wip/cJNKb [4] http://thewhet.net/2021/06/goodnight-sweet-master/ http://thewhet.net/2021/06/goodnight-sweet-master/

keymone 5y ago

that prediction is bogus. they were OG, yes, but it's highly improbable they were able to hold on to all those bitcoins. 2009-2011 was a time when people threw literally hundreds to thousands bitcoins for dumb things like socks and pizzas. and those are real world assets - it was much easier to spend BTC for virtual assets like hosting or vpn or gambling. no doubt the guy was beyond rich, but i'm almost certain they didn't hold 5% of BTC. > I doubt they had a survivorship and secession plan for their bitcoins and why would you doubt it? when somebody becomes billionaire, paying financial management companies and lawyers is pocket change.

vmception 5y ago
Because Mirceau made their trust issues with institutions to be pretty clear I think he was aware of technological solutions native to Bitcoin, but I just dont think he would have put them in place unless he was terminally ill and had some lead time to do it. This has nothing to do with being a billionaire and is distinct from drowning on vacation as an in shape 41 year old He’s had an objectively gargantuan sum of money for a very long time, everything you said is true for single digit millionaires too Or a thousandaire in Romania
- keymone 5y ago
  becoming a billionaire most likely changes your perspective a lot. and he became billionaire 7 years ago. that's plenty of time to think of how to preserve bitcoins such that they aren't lost when one passes away. and since you say he was technical - well there are tehnical solutions to do that, multisigs, sharded keys, etc.
  - vmception 5y ago
    > I think he was aware of technological solutions native to Bitcoin
    - keymone 5y ago
      sorry, i misread your comment.