Showing posts with label Bitcoin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bitcoin. Show all posts

Thursday, December 4, 2025

Bitcoin is a technology that's required to help mankind on the next evolutionary steps

Throughout history, humanity's greatest evolutionary leaps have been catalyzed not by biological mutations, but by technological and social innovations that fundamentally transformed how we organize, communicate, and exchange value. From the invention of writing to the printing press, from the steam engine to the internet, each breakthrough has expanded our collective capabilities and reshaped civilization itself. Today, we stand at another inflection point, where Bitcoin—a decentralized, cryptographically secured monetary protocol—may represent the next essential tool for humanity's continued evolution.

This claim may seem grandiose, even audacious. Yet when we examine Bitcoin through the lens of historical patterns, current global challenges, and future possibilities, a compelling case emerges that this technology addresses fundamental human needs that have plagued societies for millennia: the need for trustworthy money, freedom from centralized control, and a neutral system for storing and transferring value across time and space.

The Historical Context: Money as Social Technology

To understand Bitcoin's evolutionary significance, we must first recognize that money itself is humanity's most important social technology. As Yuval Noah Harari argues in Sapiens, money is "the most universal and most efficient system of mutual trust ever devised." Before money, human cooperation was limited by the constraints of barter and the boundaries of tribal trust. Money enabled strangers to cooperate, cities to flourish, and civilizations to scale beyond the Dunbar number—the cognitive limit of approximately 150 individuals with whom we can maintain stable social relationships.

However, throughout history, this crucial technology has been repeatedly corrupted. Empires from Rome to Weimar Germany debased their currencies, destroying the savings of citizens and destabilizing entire societies. The Roman denarius, once nearly pure silver, was diluted to less than 5% silver content by the third century CE, contributing to economic chaos and the empire's eventual collapse. In more recent memory, the hyperinflation of 1920s Germany saw prices doubling every few days, wiping out the middle class and creating conditions that enabled totalitarian rise.

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist, wrote in The Art of War: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." In the context of monetary systems, governments have long subdued their populations not through direct combat, but through the invisible taxation of inflation—a weapon wielded without the political cost of raising explicit taxes. Bitcoin, in this framework, represents a shield against this ancient form of economic subjugation.

The Present Challenge: A Crisis of Trust

We live in an era of unprecedented monetary experimentation and, paradoxically, unprecedented monetary fragility. Since the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971, fiat currencies have been unmoored from any physical constraint. Central banks have expanded money supplies at rates that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend dramatically—the U.S. Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet from roughly $4 trillion to $9 trillion in a matter of months, an increase of 125%.

The consequences ripple through society. Asset prices have inflated dramatically while real wages stagnate. A home that cost 2-3 times annual household income in the 1960s now costs 7-10 times that amount in many developed nations. Educational costs have exploded. The wealth gap has widened to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. Young people face the disturbing reality that they may be the first generation in modern history to be poorer than their parents.

Meanwhile, in authoritarian regimes and failing states, citizens face even more dire monetary circumstances. In Venezuela, hyperinflation destroyed the bolívar, with inflation rates exceeding 1,000,000% at its peak. Citizens lost their life savings overnight. In China, despite rapid economic development, citizens face strict capital controls that prevent them from protecting their wealth by moving it abroad. In Nigeria, Africa's largest economy, citizens must navigate currency restrictions that limit their ability to participate in the global economy.

Einstein, though never speaking directly about cryptocurrency, offered wisdom particularly relevant to our current predicament: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." The problems of centralized monetary control—inflation, censorship, exclusion, political manipulation—cannot be solved by tweaking the existing centralized system. They require a fundamentally different architecture.

Bitcoin: An Evolutionary Technology

Bitcoin, created in 2009 by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, offers precisely such a different architecture. At its core, Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger maintained by a global network of computers, secured by cryptographic proof rather than institutional authority. No single entity controls it. No government can inflate it beyond its predetermined supply schedule. No bank can freeze it. No border can stop it.

These properties are not merely technical curiosities—they represent evolutionary advantages for human cooperation and flourishing.

Scarcity and Sound Money

Bitcoin's supply is capped at 21 million coins, programmatically enforced by mathematics rather than institutional promises. This makes it the first genuinely scarce digital asset in human history. As the ancient principle holds: "Hard money makes for sound societies." When money maintains its value over time, it encourages saving, long-term planning, and capital accumulation—the foundations of prosperity.

Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, argued in The Denationalization of Money that government monopoly over currency was neither necessary nor desirable, and that competitive private currencies could better serve society. Bitcoin realizes Hayek's vision in digital form—not as a replacement imposed from above, but as an alternative that individuals can voluntarily adopt.

Decentralization and Resilience

Bitcoin's decentralized architecture makes it antifragile—it actually grows stronger through adversity and attack. When China banned Bitcoin mining in 2021, removing an estimated 50% of the network's computing power overnight, the network automatically adjusted and continued operating seamlessly. Miners relocated to other countries, and the network emerged more geographically distributed and resilient than before.

This resilience echoes evolutionary principles found throughout nature. Centralized systems, like monocultures in agriculture, are vulnerable to single points of failure. Distributed systems, like diverse ecosystems, can withstand shocks and adapt. Bitcoin's architecture embodies this biological wisdom in digital form.

Accessibility and Financial Inclusion

Perhaps Bitcoin's most profound evolutionary contribution is its potential to extend financial access to the billions of people excluded from the traditional banking system. According to the World Bank, approximately 1.4 billion adults globally remain unbanked. They cannot save securely, access credit, or participate fully in the digital economy. Bitcoin requires only internet access—increasingly available even in developing regions—and no permission from gatekeepers.

In El Salvador, which adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021, the experiment demonstrated both promise and challenges. While implementation faced obstacles, it showed that alternative monetary systems are no longer mere theoretical exercises but lived reality. In Nigeria, where the government restricted access to traditional cryptocurrency exchanges, peer-to-peer Bitcoin trading flourished, demonstrating the technology's resistance to censorship.

Historical Parallels: The Printing Press and the Internet

To appreciate Bitcoin's evolutionary significance, consider two historical precedents: the printing press and the internet.

When Johannes Gutenberg invented movable-type printing around 1440, the Catholic Church initially viewed it as a threat to their control over knowledge and religious doctrine. They were correct. Within decades, the printing press enabled the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. It democratized information, broke institutional monopolies on knowledge, and fundamentally restructured society.

The church could have banned the printing press. Some tried. But the benefits were too compelling, the technology too useful. It spread anyway, and societies that embraced it flourished while those that resisted it stagnated.

The internet represents a more recent parallel. In the 1990s, many dismissed it as a toy for academics and technologists. Paul Krugman famously predicted in 1998 that "by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." Today, the internet is the infrastructure upon which modern civilization operates. It has created trillions of dollars in value, connected billions of people, and transformed every industry.

Both technologies shared key characteristics with Bitcoin: they were decentralized protocols, not centrally controlled platforms. They empowered individuals by removing intermediaries. They faced skepticism and resistance from established powers. And they were ultimately unstoppable because they were useful.

Bitcoin follows this pattern. It removes intermediaries from value transfer just as the internet removed them from information transfer. It empowers individuals just as the printing press empowered readers. And it faces similar resistance from institutions whose power depends on the old system.

Present Applications: From Theory to Practice

Bitcoin is not merely theoretical promise—it is actively being used today to solve real problems:

In Authoritarian Regimes: During the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Canada, the government invoked emergency powers to freeze the bank accounts of protesters and donors without due process. Bitcoin donations to the protesters could not be similarly frozen, demonstrating its resistance to financial censorship. In Russia, after international sanctions limited access to the SWIFT payment system, citizens turned to Bitcoin to preserve wealth and maintain international transactions.

In Developing Economies: In countries experiencing currency collapse, Bitcoin provides a lifeline. Lebanese citizens, watching their banks impose arbitrary withdrawal limits during the country's financial crisis, used Bitcoin to preserve savings. Argentinians, facing chronic inflation and currency controls, increasingly adopt Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as stores of value.

In Remittances: Migrant workers sending money home face fees averaging 6-7% through traditional services like Western Union. Bitcoin and Lightning Network transactions can reduce these costs to near-zero, allowing workers to send more of their hard-earned money to their families. For the $700 billion annual global remittance market, even small percentage savings translate to tens of billions of dollars returned to recipients.

In Energy Systems: Bitcoin mining has found an unexpected application in energy markets. Because mining operations can instantly turn on or off, they can absorb excess renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted, helping to stabilize electrical grids and make renewable energy projects more economically viable. In Texas, Bitcoin miners provide grid flexibility, shutting down during peak demand to prevent blackouts.

Future Implications: The Next Evolutionary Steps

Looking forward, Bitcoin's role in human evolution may extend far beyond current applications:

Interplanetary Commerce

As humanity expands beyond Earth—with serious proposals for Mars colonies from SpaceX and others—we will need monetary systems that can operate across vast distances where communication delays make real-time transaction verification impossible. Bitcoin's programmatic nature and eventual integration with offline transaction protocols could make it ideal for interplanetary commerce. As Carl Sagan might have appreciated: we need a cosmic perspective on money, just as we need a cosmic perspective on our place in the universe.

AI and Algorithmic Commerce

As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, AI agents will need ways to transact automatically without human intervention. Bitcoin's programmable nature makes it well-suited for machine-to-machine payments. Autonomous vehicles could pay for charging, AI assistants could purchase services, and smart devices could negotiate and settle transactions—all without human involvement. This represents an evolutionary step beyond human-scale economic interaction.

Time Preference and Civilization

Perhaps most profoundly, Bitcoin may help humanity develop lower time preference—the ability to delay gratification and plan for the long term. When money reliably holds value, people save for the future rather than consuming immediately. This shift in collective behavior could address some of civilization's most pressing challenges, from environmental sustainability to infrastructure investment.

As Einstein observed: "Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn't, pays it." Bitcoin makes earning compound interest on sound money possible for everyone, not just those with access to sophisticated financial systems.

Digital Sovereignty

In an age where our digital lives are controlled by mega-corporations and surveillance states, Bitcoin offers a form of digital sovereignty—the ability to own and control digital value absolutely, without permission or oversight. This represents an evolutionary adaptation to digital existence, asserting property rights in cyberspace just as our ancestors developed property rights in physical space.

Counterarguments and Challenges

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging Bitcoin's limitations and the serious criticisms leveled against it:

Energy Consumption: Bitcoin mining currently consumes significant electrical energy, though estimates vary widely and the percentage derived from renewable sources continues to increase. Critics argue this energy use is wasteful; proponents counter that securing a global monetary network is a worthy use of energy, comparable to the energy costs of maintaining the traditional financial system (bank branches, ATMs, armored vehicles, etc.).

Volatility: Bitcoin's price volatility makes it currently unsuitable as a unit of account or medium of exchange for everyday transactions. This may diminish as adoption increases and market depth grows, but it remains a significant present limitation.

Regulatory Uncertainty: Governments worldwide are still determining how to classify and regulate Bitcoin, creating legal uncertainty that inhibits adoption.

Technological Barriers: Using Bitcoin securely requires technical knowledge that many people lack. Loss of private keys means permanent loss of funds—a harsh reality incompatible with human fallibility. User experience must improve dramatically for mass adoption.

Environmental Concerns: Beyond energy consumption, the electronic waste generated by mining hardware poses environmental challenges that must be addressed.

These challenges are real and substantial. Yet they may represent growing pains rather than fatal flaws. The internet faced similar criticisms in its early decades—too slow, too complex, too dangerous for commerce, lacking regulation. Evolutionary processes are messy, and transformative technologies typically require decades to mature.

Wisdom from the Ages

Throughout history, visionaries have articulated principles that illuminate Bitcoin's potential significance:

Sun Tzu taught: "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." Bitcoin represents preparation—building alternative infrastructure before the need becomes desperate, before the existing system fails catastrophically.

Einstein warned: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We have tried centralized monetary control for centuries, with repeated failures. Bitcoin offers something genuinely different.

Benjamin Franklin observed: "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Bitcoin challenges even this cynical wisdom—it creates space for economic activity beyond the reach of taxation and control, restoring some balance between individual liberty and state power.

And Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin's mysterious creator, wrote in the genesis block: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." This timestamp captures Bitcoin's founding purpose: to provide an alternative when traditional financial institutions fail and governments bail them out at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Conclusion: An Evolutionary Imperative

Human evolution has never been purely biological. Our greatest evolutionary leaps have come through our unique ability to create tools, develop language, and build social technologies that extend our capabilities. Money is one such technology—perhaps the most important for enabling cooperation at scale.

Bitcoin represents the next iteration of this ancient technology, adapted for a digital, globalized, interconnected world. It addresses fundamental problems that have plagued monetary systems throughout history: centralized control, arbitrary inflation, censorship, and exclusion. It does so not through benevolent leadership or institutional reform, but through mathematical certainty and distributed consensus.

Whether Bitcoin ultimately succeeds in becoming a global reserve currency or remains a niche asset for those seeking alternatives, it has already demonstrated that decentralized digital money is possible. It has proven that money can exist without government decree. It has shown that financial systems can operate without banks or intermediaries. These proofs of concept cannot be undone.

As we face the challenges of the 21st century—climate change, resource scarcity, technological disruption, geopolitical tension—we need every tool available to navigate successfully. We need systems that empower individuals while enabling cooperation. We need money that cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. We need alternatives when institutions fail.

The question is not whether humanity needs to evolve its monetary systems—the failures of the current system make this clear. The question is whether Bitcoin, specifically, is the technology that enables this evolution. History suggests that the answer may be yes. Technologies that decentralize power, that remove intermediaries, that give individuals greater control—these technologies have repeatedly proven to be on the right side of history.

Sun Tzu wrote: "Opportunities multiply as they are seized." Bitcoin presents an opportunity for humanity to seize control of one of civilization's most essential tools. Whether we are wise enough to take it, and patient enough to nurture it through its maturation, will help determine whether our next evolutionary steps lead toward greater freedom and prosperity, or whether we remain bound by the limitations of systems designed for a bygone era.

The choice, as always in human evolution, is ours to make.

Monday, November 24, 2025

Imagine the world today if Bitcoin hadn't been invented

In January 2009, an anonymous figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first Bitcoin block, embedding within it a pointed message: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." This moment marked the birth of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. But what if that genesis block had never been created? What would our financial, technological, and social landscape look like today without Bitcoin's influence?

The Financial System: Stability or Stagnation?

Without Bitcoin, the traditional banking system would have faced less disruption but also less innovation pressure. The 2008 financial crisis would have prompted reforms, but the fundamental architecture of centralized financial institutions would have remained largely unchallenged. Major banks might have continued their gradual digitization without the urgent need to respond to decentralized alternatives.

On one hand, this could mean greater stability. The cryptocurrency boom-and-bust cycles that have wiped out fortunes—from Bitcoin's peak of nearly $69,000 in 2021 to subsequent crashes—would never have occurred. Retail investors wouldn't have lost billions in exchange collapses like Mt. Gox or FTX. Regulators wouldn't be scrambling to create frameworks for digital assets, and financial crime investigators wouldn't be tracking ransomware payments through blockchain explorers.

On the other hand, monopolistic inefficiencies might have persisted longer. International remittances would still cost an average of 6-7% through traditional channels, taking days to settle. Millions of unbanked individuals in developing nations would lack the alternative financial infrastructure that cryptocurrency has provided. The financial system's gatekeepers would face less competitive pressure to reduce fees or improve services.

Technological Innovation: A Different Trajectory

Bitcoin's underlying blockchain technology has spawned applications far beyond currency. Without it, distributed ledger technology might have emerged eventually, but likely much later and in different forms. IBM's supply chain tracking systems, Estonia's digital government infrastructure, and countless enterprise blockchain projects drew direct inspiration from Bitcoin's proof-of-concept.

The venture capital landscape would look dramatically different. Billions of dollars that flowed into blockchain startups since 2013 would have been allocated elsewhere—perhaps accelerating progress in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or biotechnology instead. The initial coin offering (ICO) boom of 2017-2018, which raised over $20 billion despite being largely fraudulent, simply wouldn't have happened. This represents both avoided waste and foregone legitimate innovation.

Smart contract platforms like Ethereum, which launched in 2015 building on Bitcoin's foundation, might never have materialized. This means no decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols, no NFT marketplaces, and no decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Whether this represents a loss depends on one's perspective—these innovations have enabled both remarkable experiments in digital ownership and spectacular scams.

Geopolitical Implications: Power Structures Preserved

Bitcoin emerged as a form of financial resistance to centralized control. Without it, authoritarian governments would face less challenge to their monetary sovereignty. Citizens in Venezuela, where hyperinflation destroyed the bolivar, or in Argentina, where currency controls restrict economic freedom, would lack one tool for preserving wealth. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine, cryptocurrency enabled millions in donations to flow directly to defenders; this avenue for financial activism wouldn't exist.

However, these same properties have enabled illicit activities. Without Bitcoin, ransomware attacks would be far more difficult to monetize—criminals couldn't demand untraceable payments as easily. The Silk Road darknet marketplace, which facilitated over $1 billion in illegal drug sales before its 2013 shutdown, relied entirely on Bitcoin. North Korea's state-sponsored hackers wouldn't have stolen billions in cryptocurrency to fund their weapons programs.

The U.S. dollar's position as the global reserve currency might be even more entrenched without cryptocurrency alternatives. China's central bank digital currency project was explicitly developed as a response to Bitcoin and private cryptocurrencies; without that impetus, digital yuan development might have proceeded more slowly. The entire conversation around monetary sovereignty in the digital age would be fundamentally different.

Cultural and Social Impacts: Dreams Deferred

Bitcoin created a unique subculture—one that blends libertarian economics, technological utopianism, and anti-establishment sentiment. The "crypto bro" stereotype wouldn't exist, for better or worse. Online communities like Reddit's r/Bitcoin and countless Discord servers dedicated to cryptocurrency trading would never have formed. Millions of people wouldn't identify as "Bitcoiners" with a shared ideological framework.

The "get rich quick" narratives that have characterized cryptocurrency would be absent. Young people wouldn't have stories of turning thousands into millions through early Bitcoin investments, but they also wouldn't have tales of life savings lost in cryptocurrency collapses. The wealth inequality created by Bitcoin's distribution—where early adopters and miners hold enormous advantages—wouldn't exist, though traditional wealth inequality certainly would remain.

Educational institutions and career paths have also been shaped by Bitcoin's existence. University blockchain programs, cryptocurrency research institutes, and entire job categories from blockchain developers to crypto tax accountants wouldn't exist. This represents thousands of diverted careers and educational resources that might have been applied elsewhere.

The Economic Debate: Value Created or Destroyed?

Critics argue that without Bitcoin, enormous amounts of energy and human capital wouldn't have been wasted. Bitcoin mining now consumes roughly as much electricity annually as entire nations like Argentina. Thousands of brilliant programmers and entrepreneurs who built cryptocurrency infrastructure might have instead worked on climate solutions, medical research, or poverty reduction.

Proponents counter that Bitcoin demonstrated the viability of decentralized systems and inspired innovation in cryptography, distributed systems, and economic mechanism design. The talent attracted to cryptocurrency has advanced computer science in ways that may yield benefits far beyond finance. Moreover, Bitcoin has functioned as intended for those who needed censorship-resistant money, even if that population is smaller than early advocates imagined.

Looking Forward from an Alternate Present

In a world without Bitcoin, we would likely be having different conversations about the future of money—perhaps focused more on central bank digital currencies developed without the competitive pressure of cryptocurrencies, or on incremental improvements to existing payment systems like faster bank transfers and lower credit card fees.

Technology giants like Facebook (with its abandoned Libra project) wouldn't have attempted to create private currencies. Governments wouldn't be wrestling with how to tax, regulate, and monitor cryptocurrency transactions. The 2021 El Salvador experiment of making Bitcoin legal tender wouldn't have happened, along with its subsequent economic difficulties.

Yet something else would have filled Bitcoin's cultural niche. The desire for financial alternatives to traditional institutions, the appeal of get-rich-quick schemes, and the drive for technological disruption are all enduring human impulses. Without Bitcoin, perhaps gold would have experienced an even stronger revival, or peer-to-peer payment systems would have evolved differently, or some other form of alternative finance would have emerged.

Conclusion: Progress, Regress, or Simply Different?

Judging whether the world would be better or worse without Bitcoin requires weighing incommensurable values. We would have avoided cryptocurrency's substantial harms: the scams, the environmental costs, the ransomware epidemic, and the billions lost in failed exchanges. But we would also lack its innovations: a proven decentralized digital currency, blockchain technology's demonstrated applications, and a financial alternative for those failed by traditional systems.

Perhaps the most honest assessment is that the world would simply be different—neither utopian nor dystopian, but shaped by other technologies and other choices. Bitcoin's invention was not inevitable, and the paths not taken always carry their own possibilities. Whether we're better off in this timeline than in one without Satoshi Nakamoto's creation remains a question without a definitive answer, dependent on which values we prioritize and whose perspective we adopt.

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

This Bitcoin Cycle Is Different: The ETF and Trump Factor

The 2024-2025 Bitcoin cycle represents a fundamental departure from previous market cycles, driven by two unprecedented catalysts: the January 2024 approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs and Donald Trump's return to the presidency with an explicitly pro-crypto agenda. These factors have transformed Bitcoin from a predominantly retail-driven, speculative asset into an institutionally-accessible investment vehicle backed by regulatory momentum at the highest levels of government.

Historical Context: Previous Bitcoin Cycles

To understand why this cycle differs, we must first examine the patterns of previous cycles:

2011-2013 Cycle: Bitcoin rose from $1 to $1,100, driven primarily by early adopters and libertarian idealists. The collapse of Mt. Gox in 2014 exemplified the infrastructure immaturity.

2015-2017 Cycle: Bitcoin surged from $200 to nearly $20,000, fueled by ICO mania and retail FOMO. Institutional participation remained minimal, with most traditional finance viewing Bitcoin skeptically.

2018-2021 Cycle: Bitcoin recovered to reach $69,000 in November 2021. This cycle saw the first major institutional adopters (MicroStrategy, Tesla) and the emergence of institutional custody solutions. However, investment remained direct purchases, requiring companies to hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets—a regulatory and accounting burden that limited widespread adoption.

Each previous cycle followed a similar pattern: halving event, retail enthusiasm, parabolic rise, 80%+ drawdown, and institutional skepticism. Regulatory hostility or ambiguity characterized the environment, with governments viewing Bitcoin as a threat rather than an opportunity.

The ETF Revolution: Democratizing Institutional Access

The Approval That Changed Everything

On January 10, 2024, the SEC approved 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs simultaneously, including offerings from BlackRock (iShares Bitcoin Trust - IBIT), Fidelity (Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund - FBTC), and Grayscale (converted from GBTC). This approval marked the end of a decade-long regulatory battle and represented the SEC's implicit endorsement of Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class.

Record-Breaking Adoption Metrics

The impact was immediate and unprecedented:

  • Fastest ETF Launch in History: BlackRock's IBIT gathered $10 billion in assets within seven weeks, shattering records previously held by gold ETFs that took years to reach similar milestones.

  • Total AUM Growth: By mid-2024, Bitcoin ETFs collectively held over $60 billion in assets, with net inflows consistently ranging from $200-500 million daily during strong market periods.

  • Institutional Allocation: Financial advisors, pension funds, and wealth management platforms that were previously barred from Bitcoin exposure can now allocate with a simple ticker symbol. A typical portfolio manager can now add BTC exposure alongside SPY and AGG without custody concerns, security risks, or regulatory complications.

Why ETFs Change the Game

The structural advantages of ETFs over direct Bitcoin ownership include:

Regulatory Clarity: ETFs operate within established SEC frameworks, providing legal certainty for institutional investors bound by fiduciary duties.

Operational Simplicity: No need for cold storage, private key management, or specialized custody solutions. Bitcoin exposure trades like any equity.

Tax Efficiency: ETFs offer potential tax advantages over direct ownership, particularly for retirement accounts (401k, IRA) where Bitcoin ETFs can now be held tax-deferred.

Liquidity and Price Discovery: With billions in daily trading volume, ETFs provide deep liquidity and tighter spreads than many cryptocurrency exchanges.

Mainstream Distribution: ETFs are available through every major brokerage—Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard—bringing Bitcoin to hundreds of millions of investors who would never open a Coinbase account.

The Numbers Don't Lie

Previous cycles saw institutional adoption measured in dozens of companies. This cycle has seen:

  • Over 1,000 institutional investors filing 13F forms disclosing Bitcoin ETF holdings
  • State pension funds (Wisconsin Investment Board) allocating to Bitcoin ETFs
  • Major hedge funds (Millennium Management, Citadel) taking positions totaling billions
  • Traditional asset managers recommending 1-5% Bitcoin allocations in balanced portfolios

This represents a 100x increase in institutional accessibility compared to the previous cycle.

The Trump Factor: Political Tailwinds Replace Headwinds

From Hostile to Champion

Previous Bitcoin cycles occurred under administrations ranging from indifferent to hostile toward cryptocurrency:

  • The Obama administration's focus on AML/KYC led to aggressive enforcement actions
  • The Trump administration (2017-2021) saw Treasury Secretary Mnuchin warn against Bitcoin's use in illicit activities
  • The Biden administration's approach through 2024 was characterized by enforcement-heavy regulation via agencies like the SEC under Gary Gensler

Trump's 2024 Pro-Bitcoin Transformation

Donald Trump's 2024 campaign marked an extraordinary reversal. At the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, Trump pledged to:

  • Make the United States "the crypto capital of the planet"
  • Fire SEC Chair Gary Gensler (viewed as crypto-hostile)
  • End the regulatory "war on crypto"
  • Create a strategic Bitcoin reserve for the U.S. government
  • Prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

Policy Implications

With Trump's January 2025 inauguration, the regulatory environment has shifted dramatically:

Personnel Changes: The appointment of crypto-friendly regulators signals a departure from enforcement-first approaches. Reports suggest potential SEC leadership that understands blockchain technology.

Legislative Momentum: Republican control of Congress increases the likelihood of comprehensive crypto legislation, including stablecoin frameworks and clear custody rules.

Strategic Reserve Concept: While controversial, Trump's proposal to establish a U.S. Bitcoin reserve would represent unprecedented sovereign legitimization. Even if not fully implemented, the discussion alone validates Bitcoin's role as a monetary asset.

Global Competition Narrative: Trump's framing of crypto leadership as a national competitiveness issue changes the conversation from "should we allow this?" to "how do we win this?"

Historical Parallel: Gold in 1971

The closest historical parallel may be President Nixon's 1971 decision to end dollar-gold convertibility. While that severed the link to gold, it recognized gold's role in the monetary system. Trump's embrace of Bitcoin could represent a similar inflection point—not returning to a gold standard, but acknowledging Bitcoin's emergence as "digital gold" in a multipolar monetary system.

Quantitative Differences: This Cycle vs. Previous Cycles

Supply Dynamics

Previous Cycles: Bitcoin traded primarily on crypto-native exchanges with limited fiat on-ramps. Supply and demand were driven by retail speculation.

This Cycle:

  • ETF inflows absorb 5,000-10,000 BTC weekly during strong periods
  • Post-April 2024 halving, only 450 BTC are mined daily (approximately 3,150 weekly)
  • Simple math: demand exceeds new supply by 2-3x, creating structural scarcity

Volatility Profile

Historical Bitcoin volatility exceeded 80% annualized during previous cycles. Early data from 2024 suggests:

  • 30-day realized volatility averaging 40-50% with ETF flows
  • Deeper liquidity cushioning extreme moves
  • Institutional participation reducing panic selling

While still volatile by traditional asset standards, the trend toward lower volatility makes Bitcoin more palatable for risk-managed institutional portfolios.

Market Structure

Previous Cycles:

  • 90%+ retail participation
  • Thin order books
  • Weekend/after-hours gaps common
  • Manipulation concerns (whale wallets, exchange manipulation)

This Cycle:

  • 40-50% institutional participation estimated
  • 24/7 crypto markets now integrated with regulated ETF markets
  • Improved custody and reporting standards
  • Reduced manipulation risk through regulated products

Counter-Arguments and Risks

A balanced thesis must acknowledge significant counter-arguments:

"This Time Is Different" Is Dangerous

Financial history is littered with "this time is different" proclamations preceding crashes. The 2000 dot-com bubble and 2008 housing crisis both featured narratives of fundamental change that proved illusory. Bitcoin's fundamental value proposition—decentralized, censorship-resistant money—hasn't changed. Perhaps the cycle dynamics remain intact, and we're simply experiencing a larger version of previous patterns.

Regulatory Risk Remains

Despite Trump's rhetoric, actual policy implementation is uncertain:

  • Congress may not pass meaningful crypto legislation
  • Courts could overturn favorable regulatory changes
  • A future administration could reverse course
  • Global regulatory coordination (EU, China) may constrain U.S. policy

Market Maturation May Mean Lower Returns

ETFs and institutional adoption may signal Bitcoin's maturation from a high-risk/high-reward speculation to a moderate-risk/moderate-reward asset. Previous cycles saw 10x-100x gains. This cycle may see more modest 2x-5x appreciation as Bitcoin's market cap approaches $2-3 trillion, making parabolic gains mathematically harder.

Centralization Concerns

ETFs introduce custodial centralization—the antithesis of Bitcoin's core ethos. BlackRock and Fidelity now control hundreds of thousands of BTC. This concentration creates:

  • Regulatory capture risk
  • Potential government seizure points
  • Dilution of Bitcoin's censorship-resistance properties

Trump Administration Uncertainty

Political promises often diverge from political reality. Trump's attention may shift to other priorities. His administration may face constraints from:

  • Federal Reserve independence on monetary policy
  • Congressional gridlock
  • International pressure from allies concerned about dollar stability

Synthesis: A Structurally Different Cycle

Despite valid counter-arguments, the evidence supports the thesis that this cycle is fundamentally different:

Institutional Infrastructure: The ETF approval represents 10+ years of custody, security, and regulatory evolution. This infrastructure didn't exist in previous cycles and cannot be easily undone.

Political Legitimacy: Regardless of Trump's policy success, the president of the United States publicly championing Bitcoin marks a Rubicon crossing. No previous cycle had top-level political support; most had opposition.

Demand Profile: Institutional treasurers, pension funds, and wealth advisors operate on multi-year time horizons with fiduciary obligations. This "patient capital" differs markedly from retail traders chasing momentum.

Supply Shock Mechanics: With ETF demand potentially absorbing 2-3x new Bitcoin issuance weekly, the supply-demand imbalance is mathematically more severe than previous cycles, even accounting for slower demand growth.

Reduced Binary Risk: Previous cycles faced existential questions: "Will Bitcoin survive?" "Will governments ban it?" "Is it a scam?" These questions aren't fully resolved, but they're substantially de-risked by institutional adoption and political support.

Implications and Predictions

If this cycle is indeed structurally different, several implications follow:

Price Trajectory

Rather than the 80%+ drawdowns of previous cycles, this cycle may experience:

  • Shallower corrections (40-50% maximum)
  • Extended consolidation periods rather than sharp crashes
  • Higher cycle lows (potentially $40,000-50,000 range)
  • More modest but sustainable gains

Adoption Curve

Bitcoin may transition from the "early adopter" phase to "early majority" on the technology adoption curve:

  • 1-2% portfolio allocations becoming standard practice
  • Sovereign wealth funds following ETF entry points
  • Central banks acknowledging Bitcoin in reserve discussions (even if not holding)
  • Emerging markets using Bitcoin for cross-border settlement

Regulatory Endgame

This cycle may establish the regulatory framework that governs crypto for decades:

  • Clear custody and taxation rules
  • Stablecoin legislation creating dollar-backed digital rails
  • DeFi regulations distinguishing decentralized protocols from securities
  • International coordination on crypto standards

Market Evolution

Bitcoin may increasingly trade based on macroeconomic factors rather than crypto-specific narratives:

  • Correlation with tech stocks and risk assets
  • Sensitivity to Federal Reserve policy and inflation data
  • Integration into multi-asset portfolio optimization models
  • Derivatives markets (options, futures) providing sophisticated hedging tools

Conclusion

This Bitcoin cycle is different—not because Bitcoin itself has changed, but because the infrastructure around it and the political environment supporting it have transformed. The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs created institutional accessibility that didn't exist in any previous cycle, bringing patient capital and regulatory legitimacy. Donald Trump's presidency provides political tailwinds replacing the headwinds that characterized previous administrations.

These are not merely incremental improvements; they represent structural changes to Bitcoin's market dynamics. However, "different" does not mean "immune to cycles" or "guaranteed success." Bitcoin remains volatile, speculative, and subject to regulatory and technological risks.

The most balanced conclusion: this cycle likely exhibits lower highs, higher lows, and a maturation of Bitcoin from a fringe speculation to a recognized—if controversial—component of the global financial system. The dramatic 100x gains of early cycles are probably behind us, but so too may be the existential crises that threatened Bitcoin's survival.

For investors, this suggests a more nuanced approach than "diamond hands" or "HODL" mantras of previous cycles. This is the cycle where Bitcoin either consolidates its position as "digital gold" with a permanent seat at the institutional table, or reveals itself as a temporary financial phenomenon. The ETF and Trump factors have stacked the odds in Bitcoin's favor, but the outcome remains to be written.

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

Friday, October 10, 2025

Bitcoin Node on Millions of Mobile Phones

Could a new Bitcoin software node and or validating node be made so small to enable millions of people to have their mobile phone as a node?

Yes, but only as a light/validated mobile client today (not a full archival validating node) unless Bitcoin’s consensus layer is changed to add succinct state proofs or UTXO commitments. Practically, to get millions of phones to act as honest, low-resource “nodes” you combine these techniques: header-only sync, compact block filters (Neutrino / BIP157/158), probabilistic verification (FlyClient / NiPoPoW ideas), pruning and on-demand block fetch, and careful mobile engineering (minimal client, small DB, low-power networking). Several of these are already specified or researched; others require protocol-level changes. Below I explain the how, trade-offs, and a realistic implementation roadmap.


Key building blocks (what to use now)

  1. Header-only sync (headers-first)  phones download only block headers (80 bytes each) and validate PoW chain of headers. This gives strong consensus security without storing blocks. (80 bytes × 800,000 blocks = 64,000,000 bytes ≈ 64 MB of headers a feasible one-time download).

  2. Compact block filters (BIP157/BIP158, “Neutrino”) nodes download tiny probabilistic filters per block to know if a block contains transactions relevant to the user and only fetch full blocks or proofs when needed. This preserves privacy much better than old bloom filters.

  3. Pruned / on-demand block fetch keep only recent block data and fetch historical blocks from peers when required (and then discard), reducing storage.

  4. Probabilistic/succinct verification (FlyClient / NiPoPoW family) research protocols let a client verify chain history with very small downloads (kB–MB) by sampling blocks and using an MMR commitment. These need some consensus support or special commitments to be fully secure.

  5. Efficient networking / compact block relay use compact block relay and compressed protocols to reduce bandwidth and latency. (Existing work: compact blocks / Xthin / header compression.)


Why a true full validating node on a phone today is hard

A full validating node must maintain and update the full UTXO set to validate incoming blocks/transactions locally. The UTXO set is large (many GB), and keeping it current requires continuous disk/CPU and bandwidth. Without a cryptographic commitment to the UTXO set in block headers (which Bitcoin does not currently include), a tiny client cannot fully and trustlessly verify every spend without downloading a lot of data. Proposals exist (UTXO commitments, MMR/TXO commitments, or zk-state proofs), but they require consensus changes (soft-fork/hard-fork) to provide trustless, succinct proofs.

Practical architectures for mobile-phone “nodes”

Below are progressively stronger designs from conservative (deployable today) to ambitious (needs protocol changes).

A  Best-practical light validating client (deployable now)

  • Headers + BIP157/158 (Neutrino): validate PoW via headers, fetch compact filters and only download blocks/txs that match filters.

  • Fetch SPV proofs for transactions (Merkle proofs) when you need to prove history.

  • Prune aggressively (keep only a small cache of recent blocks).

  • Run background sync opportunistically (Wi-Fi, charging) and use delta updates.
    Trust model / tradeoffs: trustless for chain work but not for UTXO completeness  susceptible to some privacy leaks and targeted withholding by a malicious full node. Still much stronger than old Bloom-filter SPV.

B  Hybrid mobile “validating” node with trusted snapshot

  • Same as (A) but the client occasionally downloads a signed UTXO snapshot (compact, compressed) from a set of well-known providers and verifies it with cross-checks (e.g., compare snapshot roots from several providers). This reduces trust to an assumption that a majority of snapshot providers are honest.
    Tradeoffs: much smaller storage / fast validation, but introduces trust in snapshot providers.

C  Succinct/Probabilistic verification (research / soft-forks)

  • Implement FlyClient (or NiPoPoW variants) where small probabilistic samples + an MMR allow a client to verify chain state cheaply. Some chains have adopted similar patterns; Bitcoin would need header commitments or a small consensus change to make certain proofs safe. This can reduce sync size to sub-MB for strong validation.

D  Full trustless tiny validating node (requires protocol change)

  • Introduce a UTXO commitment or zk-SNARK/validity proofs in block headers so a client can verify a succinct proof of the full UTXO set and correctness of each block without storing everything. This is the ideal long-term goal but demands consensus-level work and careful backward compatibility design.


Mobile engineering details (to make the client tiny)

  • Language & build: write minimal mobile-native core (Rust/Swift/Kotlin) with aggressive link-time optimization, strip debug, avoid heavy dependencies (GUI and networking separated). Knots/Core show C++ codebase size can be reduced by removing optional features (wallet, RPC, test harness).

  • DB choices: use lightweight key-value stores, compressed indexes, and compact on-disk formats (e.g., pack filters in an append-only file).

  • Storage target: realistic goal ~50–200 MB for app + chain metadata + caches (headers+filters+small UTXO cache). (Headers alone ≈ 64 MB if you store raw 80-byte headers for ~800k blocks: 80 × 800,000 = 64,000,000 bytes.)

  • Battery & data: sync only on Wi-Fi or charging; use HTTP/2 or QUIC to request filters; incremental updates; delta compression.

  • Privacy: fetch filters from multiple peers, use Tor/VPN if desired, avoid revealing addresses by querying for output scripts rather than address lists when possible.


Security & attack surfaces (what to watch for)

  • Eclipse / Sybil attacks: light clients relying on a few peers can be fed a fake view of chain; mitigate by connecting to many diverse peers and using DNS seeds + hardcoded trusted peers.

  • Filter false positives/negatives: filters are probabilistic; you must handle false positives (download unnecessary blocks) and rare false negatives carefully.

  • Privacy leaks: requesting proofs or addresses can reveal ownership use BIP157 filters and privacy-preserving APIs to avoid leaking the wallet’s bloom.


Concrete roadmap to build a mobile node product

  1. Prototype: implement a minimal header-chain verifier + BIP157 client. Use existing libraries (BDK, libsecp256k1) for crypto. Validate with a known testnet.

  2. Add compact filters + selective fetch: implement BIP158 filter parsing and block fetch on matches. Test privacy and bandwidth. 

  3. Optimize storage: store headers in compressed form; pack filters; enable pruning. Aim for <200 MB on first install.

  4. Add probabilistic proofs support: experiment with FlyClient proofs (research implementation) and measure proof sizes and verification cost. 

  5. Hardening: protect against eclipse, add peer diversity, implement cross-checking of headers via multiple sources.

  6. Optional advanced features: offer signed UTXO snapshots (hybrid trust), or if the community adopts UTXO commitments/zk proofs, implement client support for succinct proofs and drop dependence on snapshots.


Recommended near-term strategy for “millions of phones”

  • Deploy a high-quality Neutrino/BIP157 client embedded in popular wallets (Android + iOS), plus:

    • An open reference implementation (Rust) for mobile.

    • A scalable, privacy-respecting filter-serving infrastructure (HTTP/2/QUIC) operated by diverse entities (wallet teams, infra providers) so phones can fetch filters cheaply (projects like “Neutrum” propose similar ideas).

  • Encourage Bitcoin research and discussion toward FlyClient / MMR / UTXO commitments / succinct proofs so a truly trustless, tiny validating client becomes possible via a consensus change.


Final takeaway (one paragraph)

Today you can build very small, highly secure light validating clients for phones by combining headers + compact block filters (Neutrino/BIP157/158), pruning, and careful mobile engineering that can enable millions of phones to participate as privacy-respecting light nodes. But if your goal is every phone to be a full, trustless validating node with no extra trust assumptions, that requires protocol-level additions (UTXO commitments, MMR/ FlyClient style commitments, or succinct zk-proofs) and therefore broader consensus changes.


Source: ChatGPT

Thursday, October 9, 2025

Bitcoin One Million: The Final Chapter of Fiat by Fred Krueger and Ben Sigman

I highly recommend getting and reading this book by Fred Krueger and Ben Sigman!

The book goes in to depth regarding the Bitcoin Power Law which is a must read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0FTS78RFB/

Bitcoin One Million: The Final Chapter of Fiat

Here's the wording from Amazon:

The purpose of this book is to present a clear, math- and logic-based argument for why Bitcoin is on the path to $1 million. Inside, you’ll find the data and reasoning that will not only strengthen your own conviction but also give you the tools to confidently explain Bitcoin’s trajectory to others.

We examine all the major asset classes - stocks, bonds, gold, and real estate - and show why Bitcoin will outperform them. You’ll see Bitcoin’s relationship to other assets laid out with mathematical precision, while also gaining insight into the psychology of holding through volatility. Practical tools like the Kelly Criterion are introduced to help you automatically manage allocation and risk.

Finally, we look ahead-10 years, 20 years into the future - and ask: What does the world look like when Bitcoin reaches $1 million? What’s the path that gets us there? And how probable is that outcome given the trends already in motion?

Saturday, October 4, 2025

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Bitcoin Power Law code in TradingView

I can't remember who posted this for the Bitcoin Power Law code. Anyway, here is the code to be used with TradingView:

***************************************************************************

// This Pine Script™ code is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License 2.0 at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/

//@version=6

indicator("Power Law", overlay=true)


// Days X-Axis Value

start = time == timestamp(2010, 7, 18, 0, 0)

days = request.security('INDEX:BTCUSD', 'D', ta.barssince(start))

offset = 561 // days between 2009/1/3 and "start"

d = days + offset


a = input(-17.668, 'Power Law Intercept',group = "Power Law Settings")

b = input(5.926, 'Power Law Slope',group = "Power Law Settings")


price_power_law_0 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d))

price_power_law_1 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d+1*365))

price_power_law_2 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d+2*365))

price_power_law_3 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d+3*365))

price_power_law_4 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d+4*365))

price_power_law_5 = math.pow(10, a + b * math.log10(d+5*365))


p0 = plot(price_power_law_0, color=#ffffffaa, title='Power Law',linewidth = 1)

p1 = plot(price_power_law_1, title='Power Law 1',linewidth = 1, color=bar_index % 2 == 0 ? #ffffffaa : #00000000)

p2 = plot(price_power_law_2, title='Power Law 2',linewidth = 1, color=bar_index % 2 == 0 ? #ffffffaa : #00000000)

p3 = plot(price_power_law_3, title='Power Law 3',linewidth = 1, color=bar_index % 2 == 0 ? #ffffffaa : #00000000)

p4 = plot(price_power_law_4, title='Power Law 4',linewidth = 1, color=bar_index % 2 == 0 ? #ffffffaa : #00000000)

p5 = plot(price_power_law_5, title='Power Law 5',linewidth = 1, color=bar_index % 2 == 0 ? #ffffffaa : #00000000)


***************************************************************************

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Farage and Bailey = Bitcoin Strategic Reserve?

Farage is also expected to challenge Bailey over cryptocurrency. He believes the Bank is behaving like “dinosaurs” over what he has described as the “crypto-revolution” and has urged it to store bitcoin in a strategic reserve.

Source: The Times (25/09/2025)

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Bitcoin Power Law (by ChatGPT 5)

1) Tell me about the Bitcoin power law. Give me example graphs:



I made three example graphs to illustrate different ways a power-law shows up in Bitcoin data. 

• Power law = a relationship where P(X ≥ x) ∝ x^{-α} for large x (heavy tails). On log–log axes a pure power law is a straight line.
• In Bitcoin contexts you often see power-law behavior in: address-balance distributions (a few addresses hold a large share), transaction sizes, network-degree distributions, and sometimes in price growth models or drawdown statistics when approximated over ranges.
• Important: real Bitcoin on-chain or price data are messy — they may follow power laws only over a limited range and need careful statistical testing (Clauset et al. methods) to claim a true power-law.

What I produced

  1. Histogram of synthetic Bitcoin address balances (log–log) — shows a heavy tail.

  2. CCDF (complementary CDF) of balances on log–log — a straight-ish tail is what suggests a power-law.

  3. Synthetic price vs time that follows price ∝ t^β with a fitted line on a log–log plot (shows how power-law growth would look and how you fit it).


2) With the halving event for Bitcoin supply, tell me all about that. Show tables and graphs:



Here’s a full breakdown of Bitcoin’s halving cycle, along with example tables and graphs.

Key facts

  • Bitcoin starts with a 50 BTC reward per block (2009).

  • Every 210,000 blocks (~4 years), the block reward halves.

  • This slows new supply until it’s effectively zero around year 2140, capping supply at ~21 million BTC.

  • Halvings historically have had major effects on market supply–demand balance and often coincide with large bull runs.


Table of Halving Events (past + future)

Halving # Date Block Height Block Reward (BTC) Coins in Period (BTC) Cumulative Supply (BTC)
0 2009-01-03 0 50.0000 50 50
1 2012-12-31 210,000 25.0000 5,250,000 5,250,050
2 2016-12-28 420,000 12.5000 2,625,000 7,875,050
3 2020-12-26 630,000 6.2500 1,312,500 9,187,550
4 2024-12-23 840,000 3.1250 656,250 9,843,800
5 2028-12-20 1,050,000 1.5625 328,125 10,171,925
6 2032-12-18 1,260,000 0.7813 164,063 10,335,988

Graphs

  1. Block Reward Over Time (log scale) — clearly shows the halving “steps” that cut issuance in half each cycle.

  2. Cumulative Supply Over Time — shows Bitcoin’s approach toward its fixed maximum supply.


3) Is the having supply event every 4 years an example of a powerlaw?

Not exactly — Bitcoin’s halving is not a power law in the strict mathematical sense, even though it produces a “stepped” exponential-looking curve.

Here’s why:

Power law definition

A power law says something scales like:

yxαy \propto x^{-\alpha}

or in growth form:

yxαy \propto x^\alpha

On a log–log plot, a true power law is a straight line.


Bitcoin halving pattern

  • The block reward halves every fixed number of blocks (210,000), so it follows:

Reward at halving n=50×(12)n\text{Reward at halving } n = 50 \times \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n

  • That’s exponential decay, not a power law.

  • On a semi-log plot (log y vs. linear x), halvings produce a straight line.

  • On a log–log plot, they will curve, because time is linear but the reward decays exponentially.

Why people sometimes confuse the two

In Bitcoin price models, you sometimes see “power-law” charts where price \propto (time since launch)α^\alpha. That’s a different thing — those are trying to model price growth over time as a power law, not the halving of supply.

So:

  • Halving schedule → exponential decay (not a power law)

  • Some price models → may fit a power law over certain time ranges




Here you go — two views of the same halving schedule:

  1. Semi-log plot (log y vs. linear x) → straight line, showing exponential decay of block rewards.

  2. Log-log plot (log y vs. log x) → curved line, meaning not a true power law.

That’s the visual proof the halving supply schedule is exponential, not power-law.

Bitcoin is a technology that's required to help mankind on the next evolutionary steps

Throughout history, humanity's greatest evolutionary leaps have been catalyzed not by biological mutations, but by technological and soc...