BTCUSDT20240329C42000
Bitcoin / Tether USD Mar 29 2024 42000.00 Call
crypto

"Miners pay for power in fiat, not BTC. So if fees stay at 1%, the price has to roughly double every four years just to keep miner revenue flat in dollar terms. Bitcoin has historically done that. The honest position is that a maturing asset shouldn't be expected to keep doing it forever."  
Is it really still true? Will that happen indefinitely?

“Won’t matter in 5 yrs” is easy to say about a fund that’s literally never existed for 5 yrs lol. Realistically this is how it plays out: BTC eventually has a real run, XBCI caps you out of most of it cause that’s the whole mechanism, and you’re still chasing breakeven while spot holders are sitting on multiples. These things don’t usually blow up loud, they just slowly become irrelevant, AUM dries up, fund gets restructured or closed, and you’re left holding something that doesn’t even look like what you bought anymore.
The IBIT comparison only works if BTC just sits there and does nothing. That’s like the one scenario where this actually wins. Any real move up or a crash-then-rip and you’re worse off than just holding spot.

Welcome to the BTC ride. Just zoom out.

I got the standard answers when I started, and none of them held up when I pushed on them. Putting the working here in case someone else is stuck at the same place.
First, the Ponzi thing, because it comes up in every one of these threads. A Ponzi has four features: promised high returns with little risk, a central operator, old investors paid out of new investor money, and concealed flows. Bitcoin has none of them. It's volatile with nobody promising anything, there are over 10,000 nodes and no operator, nobody is paid a return, and the entire transaction history since 2009 is public. That question is settled and I don't think it's interesting anymore.
The one I couldn't get a straight answer on is the security budget.
Miners are paid two ways: the block reward and transaction fees. The reward is 3.125 BTC and halves every 210,000 blocks, roughly every four years. Next halving is around April 2028, taking it to 1.5625. Fees are currently around 1% of what miners earn.
Miners pay for power in fiat, not BTC. So if fees stay at 1%, the price has to roughly double every four years just to keep miner revenue flat in dollar terms. Bitcoin has historically done that. The honest position is that a maturing asset shouldn't be expected to keep doing it forever.
The usual response is "that's a 2140 problem". I don't think it is. It's a next-decade problem, and it resolves one of three ways: fee share climbs off 1%, price keeps doubling, or miners start leaving.
The part that made me more comfortable, not less, is what happens in that third case. Nothing breaks. Difficulty adjusts every two weeks based on the hash power actually on the network. Miners leave, difficulty falls, and the ones who stayed earn more. Hash rate has climbed through every dip so far, which is decent evidence the economics still work.
But I'd rather have a test than a vibe, so here's mine. Watch two things over the next few years. Hash rate rising and fee share climbing meaningfully off 1% means the security model is fine. Both falling together means the bear case is real.
Related: bitcoin has to be used, not only held, for fees to develop. Satoshi made this point back in 2010. As it stands there's no shortage of use — roughly $25 trillion in bitcoin moved on chain in 2025 per Glassnode, more than Visa and Mastercard volume. What matters going forward is whether that activity keeps settling on chain rather than migrating entirely to custodians and ETFs, because that's where the fee market comes from.
If someone has a solid counter to the fee-market case I'd genuinely like to read it. The permabull version of this answer is "fees will rise", which isn't an argument.

Oh I dont doubt the price will drop but I dont know about any ATHs or what "Total $LTC Victory" means. Also what chart should I be looking at because this is a ai generated picture of a countdown to the halving not a chart. If you meant the LTC/BTC chart well that doesnt look like accumulation to me. I would say it looks more like almost 15 years of continuously trending towards zero but I'm not sure if we are looking at the same charts.

Technically, there’s no such thing as intrinsic value. All value, in the economic sense, is subjective. BTC has a lot of that subjective value as the first mover and proof of concept for crypto. It could be surpassed by another coin, but so far that hasn’t happened. I don’t think BTC is the only currency or store of value worth owning. I have fiat, precious metals, stocks, real estate, numismatics, all of them a valid part of my net assets and good for different uses.

Why is BTC special? Why not Doge Coin? Or sea shells? There is no intrinsic value to bitcoin. There is no use for it that is more convenient than accepted fiat, unless you want to buy drugs. If the government wants your bitcoin, they 100% can steal it, just ask Iran. Your bitcoin can be knocked off any day by a new and improved imaginary coin that doesn't take an absurd amount of computing power to maintain.

watch BTC be back to $65k when i wake up. this thing more volatile than mf

Nano is the new BTC

Native BTC > wrapped IOU every time.

July has been a grind. Price chops sideways for two days, then a wick takes out both sides of the book in ninety seconds and everything goes back to where it started. Nothing about that market rewards conviction sizing.
What changed for me is boring. Every perp position now gets its own margin allocation and I treat that number as already spent. If the trade needs more room, the answer is a smaller position, not more margin. I run four or five setups at once and none of them can reach the others. On BYDFi I set the mode per position when I open it, so the alt trades never touch the collateral behind the BTC leg.
That got tested during the wicks earlier this month. Two alt longs went to zero on the same candle. Annoying, and I was wrong on both, but the BTC position that mattered never moved and I was still in it the next morning.
The part nobody mentions is the cost. Isolated margin will take you out of trades that a shared pool would have carried through a normal retrace. I have been stopped out at the exact low twice this month on positions that recovered within the hour, and both times the pooled version of me would have survived. That is the trade I made on purpose. I would rather lose small repeatedly than explain a single overnight wipe to myself again.
If you are running one position at a time, none of this matters much. It starts mattering the moment you hold three or four uncorrelated things at once and one of them turns out to be the wrong side of a headline.

ETH is a settlement layer, a beacon chain.
If we look at ETH transaction volume, we get to about 1.5-2 million transactions daily, or 15-25 TPS, on L1.
If we take into account just L2's, that number grows to 25 *million* transactions daily. If we add in L3's, we get another 5-15 *million* transactions daily.
Pushing total *daily* transaction volume past 50 million at times.
To put this in perspective, total BTC transaction volume is sitting around 600,000-750,000, daily.
Credit where credit is due though, Solana seems to take the cake here in volume. However, this is mostly high-frequency DEX trading.

KOSPI makes BTC look like a treasury

That's nothing compared to the 2nd largest exchange globally going insolvent.  In fact, the Saylor buying helped prop up BTC for most of the year.

The big event was Saylor borrowing billions to smash buy BTC and pump it to ATHs. Thats over

I've realized over the last year that I spend an unreasonable amount of time thinking about how money moves.
Part of my income comes in fiat, part of it comes from crypto, and I've ended up running Revolut, Wise, and Keytom in parallel for longer than I'd like to admit.
Wise is still hard to beat when it comes to international transfers. If someone is paying me from another country, it usually does exactly what I need it to do with minimal friction. The downside is that it feels completely disconnected from the crypto world.
Revolut sits somewhere in the middle. I've used it for years, the app is great, and I like having traditional banking and crypto exposure in the same place. But at the end of the day, the crypto side still feels like an investment feature rather than something designed to be used. Every time I want to spend crypto, there's still an extra conversion step involved.
The interesting one for me has been Keytom. I started using it because I wanted to stop treating crypto as something separate from the rest of my finances. Being able to hold assets like BTC, ETH, or USDC and spend from the same balance feels much closer to what I thought "crypto adoption" would look like years ago.
What I've found is that none of these apps are really competing with each other directly. Wise solves international banking. Revolut solves everyday convenience. Keytom solves the crypto-to-real-world problem.
The funny part is that after years of hearing that crypto would replace traditional finance, I still find myself using a combination of both almost every day.
Maybe that's what adoption actually looks like. Not one app replacing everything else, but traditional finance and crypto slowly becoming indistinguishable from one another.
At this point, I'm less interested in which company wins and more interested in where we're headed over the next five years. The gap between crypto and traditional banking feels a lot smaller today than it did when I bought my first BTC.

It’s much easier to make more sand than it is to make more BTC. It’s also a lot easier to transport and divide BTC than sand. You’ll never know if someone sneaks up and takes a bit of your sand. There’s millions of copies of a permanent record of who has BTC and who they transferred it to.

I love BTC, and have been investing previously off and on for about 10 years... But with quantum computing progressing it will inevitably be less valuable and prone to be exploited. Happy to be wrong here if someone wants to convince me (with sources).

Your boy Saylor was a major factor in BTC going up last cycle. Now that he’s tapped out , well other tokens will outpace BTC next cycle for sure. ETH is the most likely candidate.

I shouldn’t necessarily call mine boomer even, but majority of my allocation is NFLX, NKE, ORCL, some BTC etf, TU, and DIA