Comments by "SAL" (@SAL-fs1mr) on "Bitcoin will hit $1 million in 2026 | Anthony Pompliano and Lex Fridman" video.

Over ten years of thousands of altcoins and none of them has come close to replacing bitcoin. I think people broadly understand that bitcoin is scarce, altcoins are not.
14
Bitcoin has been averaging out +200% per year for the last ten years. 80 doesn't seem so far fetched.
11
Bitcoin developers don't control bitcoin. Any code changes they make have no effect unless the users specifically decide to run the code. The users running nodes are the gatekeepers. The users have the most control, more than devs, and more than miners. A 51% attack is pretty limited in scope and there are several ways in which it can be negated by the users. Such an attack isn't economically feasible to begin with. Xrp developers definitely can change the xrp supply quite easily. The ripple company has full control of the xrp network because ripple controls the unique node list (UNL) of network consensus. It's definitely at least million times easier and cheaper to do a one company attack on the xrp network than it is to do a 51 percent attack on bitcoin.
6
Correct, it's just meant to be money.
4
@randompianist8359 for the usecase of treasury reserve asset, global store of value, pristine collateral, bitcoin is best suited for the job. Proof of stake would not be compatible with these usecases because of the drastic trade-offs proof of stake makes, such as trading the objective proof of work with the subjectivity of those holding coins and the anticompetitiveness of simply holding coins.
2
@randompianist8359 to get robust immutability of the asset and base protocol, you have to have real tangible expenditure. This is what is achieved with proof of work on bitcoin. So it shouldn't be viewed as energy expended per transaction as it is energy use scaling/growing for settlement assurance for greater and greater value over time. Each one transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain will ultimately be a settlement transaction that is backing tens to hundreds of thousands of smaller transactions, or viewed another way, it is the most valuable transactions of the world that will end up on the base layer of the Bitcoin blockchain. Proof of stake might be suited for some usecases, but there is a trade-off because it introduces a vector of control because whales with the coins will be in a position to alter the protocol. They'll point to how the majority of coins are voting a certain way to alter the protocol so all the small players have to follow along with what they want. Proof of stake is too similar to what we have in our legacy financial systems.
2
That's not quite right as value and wealth are not zero sum games.
1
@settledown5392 hashgraph depends on a 2-3 dozen governing nodes. And the consensus code is proprietary (centrally controlled) which is why it can guarantee no fork/shard. Not exactly decentralized at all.
1
@settledown5392 yes when governance it strictly limited to a few nodes, that's centralization, or maybe on the centralization end of the spectrum. You are right about developers controlling many systems (especially true for ones that have proprietary code), but not in bitcoin, as any changes by developers are meaningless unless adopted by the users running the nodes.
1
Upgrade to quantum resistant encryption. Problem solved.
1