I guess it’s a good thing I’ll be going on vacation this week. After all, I haven’t missed a day of publishing since CGC’s launch 14 months ago – nearly all of it, for free. I’d say I won’t write, but the odds are very strongly that I will, given what’s afoot in the crypto markets. That said, even if I didn’t, my advice will not change – whether it gets worse this week; improves; on in the best case scenario, shows signs of a definitive bottom. Which is, to HODL Bitcoin on offline hardware devices – which from my experience, Trezor is the top product.
I have written exhaustively about Bitcoin, and the relentless hurdles crossing its path, for the past three years. Today it has a rather big one in front of it – not so much from a fundamental perspective, but the sentimental impact…which will continue as long as the price remains depressed. Not just Bitcoin, of course, but the entire crypto space.
What Craig Wright’s true motivation is is unclear – though the “game” he talks is of taking over BCash…and subsequently, Bitcoin. Everything we have learned tells us big blocks don’t work – and essentially, all he has done is replace BCash’s big blocks with SV’s MONSTER ones, despite the fact it’s been proven they can’t scale.
Like Roger Ver, Wright also claims Bitcoin is not for saving, but spending – despite the fact Bitcoin could never be widely “used” unless it is proven to reliably preserve capital in a world with no other viable options to outpace inflation…and of course, is large enough to provide scale. Moreover, his socialistic leanings are even more pronounced than Ver’s, claiming no one should profit from Bitcoin – but instead, spend it in commerce.
Additionally, his maliciousness is as large as his ego, in that he apparently will do anything to win “control” of Bitcoin - starting with his Hash War against BCash; comical claim that SegWit is flawed; recruitment of a rogue billionaire to attack the crypto markets; and threat to sell all of SV’s mined Bitcoin, for years on end, to fund his BCash Hash War. Which again, has had the maximum impact principally due to the timing of the attack – during a powerful bear market; as opposed to the substance of his claims, which are in many ways delusional.
As I write, BCash; SV; and the “third BCash” – BStash; are fighting a bloody “hash war” that may last some time, resulting in one or more being permanently destroyed. How much capital CSW (Wright) actually has to burn is a big question – as just as Bitmain learned, there is a limit to how much financial ammunition one has versus the immutable, unstoppable Bitcoin network. I have no doubt this will end badly for those in the BCash camps, it’s just a matter of which suffers most. As for Bitcoin, it’s protocol has never been more secure – and the BCash Hash War will only strengthen it further, just as 2017’s scaling debate and dozens of other hurdles put in its path. SV has no better chance of usurping it than ABC (the original BCash), and the Hash War will only demonstrate further the weaknesses of centralized altcoins – particularly those “managed” by madmen.
Regarding the Hoffman Line, it is a significant event that the $100 billion market cap level was broken – as clearly, it is both a major technical “fault line” and key psychological level. I’m quite confident Wright and his billionaire partner Calvin Ayre were targeting it when they launched the BCash Hash War last week – and make no mistake, it will erode confidence to a degree in the space. I’m greatly saddened that Bitcoin could not hold this level, which appeared an increasingly likely event after having done so for 13 months. However, crypto is still an extremely nascent market, with many more growing pains to go through before going mainstream. Thus, the fact that Bitcoin does “what it always does” should not be a big surprise – just as it won’t be when it inevitably rebounds, like it “always does.”
Where Bitcoin bottoms will tell us a lot – both absolutely, and relative to altcoins. It’s difficult to believe major institutions will not arrive shortly, once they realize CSW’s attacks are based on comically flawed assumptions – particularly if Bakkt, SolidX/VanEck, and other institutional products/exchanges are approved as expected. In a world of fiat money printing gone mad; where even the “old store of value king” gold appears to have died; it’s unfathomable to believe Bitcoin’s powerful use cases, and Hash power, can be undermined by anything – let alone, the disgraced Fake Satoshi, and a hare-brained big blocks BCash fork.
hard times -> strong men
strong men > good times
good times -> weak men
weak men -> hard times
Firstly, let me state here that I don't like Craig Write on a personal level. I find him crude, rude obnoxious and abrasive. I also think he may be even a borderline sociopath. The trouble is his personal failings don't matter as whenever I hear him, I'm persuaded by his arguments. From what I hear, his main talking points are:
Developing the idea of big blocks not being a problem. I've not heard a compelling case for keeping the block size low. The worry, I think is centralisation, both from the users and the miners point of view. From a miners point of view, I believe that the main driver in centralisation is the difficulty of making a block, not it's size. Only people who can afford beefy rigs can mine, and even then, they still need to centralise around one pool, or another. From a users' perspective, the concern is big blocks will price out regular users from being a full node. I'm unconvinced that being a full node gives you any more control than that of a spectator. Only minors have the power. As long as I can control my private keys (this is essential), and that they follow an open standard, who cares who transmits my transactions.