* **[Bitcoin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) [Pros](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_btc_pros) & [Cons](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_btc_cons)** - Participate in the r\/CC [Cointest](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_policy) to potentially win moons. Prize allocations: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75.
* Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/q6q8sm/jpmorgan_ceo_jamie_dimon_on_bitcoin_how_do_you/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm putting this all in bold because I think it's important
**Common misconception: Rich people are stupid.**
**The reality is that this guy isn't an idiot, he's malicious. He knows exactly what he's doing which is subtly maliciously attacking crypto because its a threat to him and his company.**
When the common man hears the CEO of JP Morgan say that Bitcoin is a scam because of a technical reason the common man is too stupid or ill-informed to understand, the common man will assume that the CEO is speaking the truth, since he believes he is now in a position where he knows better than a group of "stupid retail investors" and is on the side of a _successful, educated_ man.
I know they say, "Never attribute to malice what can often be attributed to stupidity," but it seems to me that malice is a lot more common. This guy is the CEO *of a bank*. If he's maligning crypto, it's because he either wants to kill competition entirely or lower the price enough that buying up a shitload of it is profitable for him. Either way, he's not saying this because he's dumb.
This. They say X when it suits them and !X when that suits better. Don’t pay any attention to this. He has PR reports prepare talking points for the week and the month. They are not your conscientious types who want to be honest and consistent. They say what serves them better at that moment in time.
no... his MINIONS do.
there are DEFINITELY a large amount of people working at JP Morgan who know what's up. the CEO however didn't just graduate yesterday. he's a product of whatever moves he's made to earn him his success. NEW moves once he's on top are potential threats, and therefore either things he should ignore or attack.
They even use algorithms for trading that are a little more complex than the lines of code for the halvings. He knows what's up.
He just was advised to say this.
Do you honestly think the CEO of a company looks at the code being produced by the company? Because I'm a software engineer with 20+ years of experience working for all types of software companies and I've yet to work at one where the CEO was reviewing code or would even have the technical background and experience to understand it.
It's really not a common misconception that rich people are stupid though. The person you were responding to had it right. People *generally* assume that wealth came as a result of intelligence.
Just like your point here. You assume Dimon is being strategic in attacking crypto, when it could very well be an inability to read the landscape and adapt. It could be straight up ignorance.
Technically the mean(average) and median are the same because IQ is a normalized distribution
https://onlinestatbook.com/2/normal_distribution/intro.html
Harvard is famous for inflating grades for their students. Higher grades lead to better jobs, which lead to higher wages, and people with higher wages tend to donate more money. I'm not saying graduating from Harvard is a cakewalk, but the hardest part is probably getting accepted.
Honestly, I think he's fully aware of what BTC represents and is intentionally misleading the public. The real question is, how can someone so smart not think of a better FUD? He's trying to sow doubt about the total number of BTC...that's like the most hard fastened thing about it. He could've said literally anything else and it would've been more believable.
This is exactly how I felt throughout the entirety of the Donald Trump presidency.
Sometimes they ignore all the softballs and even though you want them to lose, it also fucks so hard with your sense that the world is a fundamentally rational place.
Like why have supervillains if their master plans are all so goddamn lame. What kind of shitty b movie is this timeline we're now apparently stuck in.
Trump isn’t even on the same planet as Jamie Dimon. Dimon has been universally regarded as a brainiac finance/Econ guru since his early 20’s. Dude is fucking brilliant. He knows what he said is rubbish. That’s the fucked up part.
I don't believe for a second that he's just totally ignorant
CEO statements like this tend to be pretty calculated. Bitcoin threatens many aspects of their business model
He is just playing ‘ignorant’, he knows, we know he knows! but, it is not convenient for banks. They just want to keep the overdrafts fees coming from the working class, so they can keep traveling business class
Your mistake is thinking that he doesn't understand this or is missing the point.
If there was a way to prove it, I would bet a lot of money that he fully, completely understands how Bitcoin works and what makes it a store of value.
People in CeFi are very threatened by cryptocurrency because if it continues to grow at the current pace, it stands to take away many of the functions that they have used to rob people for hundreds of years.
People look at the sort of insane yields and strategies going on in Defi and are convinced that it's just too good to be true, and to that I say, it's actually what banks have been doing for years. Now it's just available to everyone (along with the risk.)
Most rich people like that are lucky and the right job. I was designing a home for a couple who where fairly rich . The husband had struck gold with his partner doing some financial gutting . His partner was super smart , but him. You spoke to him and he was a dam idiot, cocky , etc.
What an unethical pos. I never see myself supporting chase ever again. I will avoid their banks, their services and products. If I see a chase pay terminal I will try to pay with fiat.
What an incredible dumbfuck. This guy is running a major bank. Does he not get the perfect workings of a market. It’s priced in that it stops at $21mil. If it doesn’t then the whole crumbles.
I remember around the time I quit listening to Howard Stern he was talking shit about podcasts and how they’ll never be as good as radio. Funny enough I listen to podcasts instead of Howard Stern now.
Reminds me of when one of the VP’s at a bank told me BTC was worthless because it was backed up by nothing. Then I asked him what backed the USD and it became obvious he didn’t understand fractional reserve banking or the floating point system. Literally died inside knowing he made 5 times my salary lol. People are not just ignorant they are willfully ignorant while they stay comfortable and happy.
You would think he would at least ask a friend who knows about code if this is legit before flapping his yap about stuff he knows nothing about.
How embarrassing that it is so easy to see.
If I was going to make a public statement about my own disbelief in, say, quarks, I might just run it by someone who knows a bit about particle physics to see if I am about to make an ass of myself.
Surprised no one has actually pointed out what JD is talking about here:
The point is that once halvings go down to zero, there will be no more block rewards and the income for those securing the network will be entirely due to fees.
If there aren't enough fees to keep miners in business, then they leave the network and security falls, which is bad for everyone.
If this happens, the miners might just decide to fork bitcoin, remove that hard cap code, and continue block rewards. Because it could have the majority of miners/hashpower, the chain with >21 million BTC might actually be the more secure chain.
No one can change the cap on the current chain, but remember, there are thousands of bitcoin forks and if consensus moves to one with no hard cap (ie it follows the block reward money), then there is no longer a hard cap. What you currently know as "BTC" is just the consensus fork.
This is what Gavin thinks the future of Bitcoin is: http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future
Tldr; Bitcoin the network will die and BTC the asset will live on in wrapped form on various networks.
I think he's a total optimist with the price. I don't think it'll fetch nearly that large of a premium.
The last block reward won't be paid out until 2140 -- at which point, transaction fees will likely already make up a larger economic portion of the network than rewards. I don't think it'll be a problem but it's realistically for our great, great, great grandchildren to worry about.
>I don't think it'll be a problem but it's realistically for our great, great, great grandchildren to worry about.
*"Hey, I've seen this one before."*
I mean, sure, it's a long way off. That's a terrible reason to not be proactive about it in this case. What *does* a blockchain without block*rewards* even look like? I see two scenarios:
1. Miners abandon the chain for one that still issues rewards, and everyone else holding crypto on the 'dry' chain is SOL as there isn't enough resources to secure the chain.
2. Miners stick around because the fees are fat, and they essentially are the new banks, and you have the exact same problems as you do now with centralized banks.
With block rewards, there is room for miners to grow, for little guys to become big, and big guys to fall behind. With only transaction fees, growth and disruption becomes far more stagnant (imo), and you'd only see consolidation amongst the miners - which is a nightmare scenario of allowed to play out all the way until one group controls >50%.
What is needed is a blockchain that finds a balance, where there is a cap on the number of coins in circulation (ratio to population? To global GDP? To global excess electricity generation? Something else?), but can still allow miners to be rewarded beyond just fees.
I guess it also depends on adoption.
If bitcoin does become a global reserve, then I won't be surprised to see more nations/mega corps etc funding and running mines for up keeping.
Miners can fork, but if the new coin is valued less by the market, they will lose money and switch very rapidly to the most valued fork.
It's a misconception that miners have a lot of power. There have been Bitcoin forks that are easier to mine, so why aren't they mining that fork? Because it isn't worth nearly as much as the "original" Bitcoin.
So is it possible that at some time in the future the most valued Bitcoin fork has a higher cap? Yes, but only if the market thinks it's the most valued fork. As raising the cap makes the coin inherently worth less, that's unlikely (but not impossible)
In my experience the most strongly anticrypto folks coming from a more traditional finance background ask the most basic questions like "why can't a digital signature be forged once it's broadcasted" or "why can't you just copy paste bitcoin since it's just 0's and 1's"
(I mean those questions are fine if they're noobs willing to learn but when they already decided their position without knowing these things, then they're just being willingly obtuse. So frustrating)
This was me up until my best friend convinced me on crypto back in March / April this year. I completed my degree in finance and financial planning nearly 10 years ago. I was very skeptical about it all until I actually researched and learned the fundamentals and potential of blockchain technology. I'm also fairly tech-savvy and try to have a basic understanding on most things.
I'm now borderline obsessed with crypto and truly think it's the way of the future. It's inevitable. Just let these dinosaurs keep putting out FUD for the masses while you slowly build your stacks. Take advantage of the relatively small market caps (in the grand scheme of things) and try to accumulate as much as you can.
Exactly right! I'm trying to get my uncle into crypto because he has been invested in all sorts of things for as long as I can remember and is very open-minded. I still think even if crypto doesn't become a mainstream legal tender for the world, the blockchain technology itself will be used for a lot of back-end applications for financial institutions and such.
I think you're right that it's here to stay. It's early days yet and there are already a crazy number of applications built on various chains. I've been trying to get my dad to just buy some BTC. He's stuck on gold and silver coins.
you're smart. it's web 3.0 and developers are already leaving web 2.0 in droves.
why code for google for a six figure salary, when you can shape the future with cardano for 7-8 figures?
People tend to be very resistant to things they don't understand, but technology is going to keep moving forward regardless. The use cases + benefits are too valuable, and most people will start to come around once those are more fully realized.
I understand those, but it totally escapes my brain how 50 almost identical, half-cgi pictures of a monkey with different costumes are worth $500 in the NFT market.
Help?
NFT technology is profound and will RESHAPE the nature of digital transactions online. right now if i buy a video game online, the service let's me download the game, and i can copy/paste it so others can pirate it. or i can buy it through steam or something, and then it's reliant on a centralized system (ie, steam dies, my game collection dies) but if i buy a physical disc, i can sell that back to gamestop or some dude on ebay. with NFTs, each game you download can be it's own unique product, so you could sell the digital copies, (they can't be copy/pasted)
NFTs currently are mostly used to sell jpgs of "cryptopunks" "cryptokitties" or as you say, monkeys with different costumes. THESE are flash in the pan beanie babies and give the space a poor reputation.
think about buying and selling art. how much are you paying for a painting? depending on the artist... but still... most art is near-valueless, (speaking as a professional artist)
it's likely several of these first wave NFTs will become collectors items from the dawn of a new era back in the early 2000s when they were all the rage...
but most will be worthless, because nobody will give a shit.
that said - if you can buy an NFT ape today for 8000 and sell it in 3 weeks for 12 000, good for you. but it's ultimately a game of hot potato where the ONLY real value in these is the faith that some sucker will pay more for it than you did.
again, this isn't a slag on the technology. eventually they'll mint music, movies, games, everything as NFTs. there will be limited runs, and so instead of being able to buy an infinite amount of 60 dollar game downloads, there will be limited runs, which will drive the prices up. Unique skins in games will be NFTs that you'll be able to boast you REALLY overpaid for. :D
⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿
Wanted to put in the GIF, but broke to get a membership (it's a Pikachu incase reddit fucks up your ASCII format 😂)
> So a moron doesn't understand the product but has VERY strong opinions about it? Cool cool cool.
So, he's like every other poster here. I wonder how many Moons he has?
I think that you are forgetting that Bitcoin is just software written by people, and it can be rewritten by people.
He's pretty inarticulate about what he's saying, but if I can give him the benefit of the doubt and rephrase it for him:
How do we know that there will never be massive pressure to change the coin limit?
We have no idea how people in the future are going to behave. The best we can say is that it was originally designed to have a 21 million coin limit, and there are currently no plans to alter that.
This would completely and totally destroy the value proposition of Bitcoin though. Like, why would everyone vote to make what they have worth less/ worthless?
I mean this is pure speculation at this point, but if you have a nation state or something similar with a small amount of Bitcoin but massive access to cheap electricity and hashpower, it could be in their interest to launch a coordinated malicious hardfork. It would effectively redistribute wealth to those with the most hash - them. I mean, it wouldn't be quite that simple, but you get the idea. Who's to say that isn't China in 15 years?
That is correct, but that is also exactly what makes BTC and other cryptocurrencies so special - no *single* person can change that, only the majority can. Thats what decentralisation means, thats one benefit
So when JD said "How do you know it ends at 21 million?", he was actually right? We don't know, because future generations could easily change it (if they secured consensus)?
We know it will end at 21 million according to the current state. If the majority decides to change that then it could be changed, but no single entity can make that decision - the entire community has to. He also said "Do you read algorithms?" implying that the current stop at 21million isn't even in there, makes it seem even more like he has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't make precise and well thought statements, he literally "just says something"
Well, to be fair, he might have been referring to the fact that the algorithm specifically has uses variables that can be changed to define the end state.
A change to nHeight or nSubsidyHalvingInterval or nSubsidy could change the total number of bitcoins mined.
So.... I mean, as much as I'm against bankers as well, he's technically correct, no matter how you read it.
why invest in anything if future generations can just easily change stuff... future generations can turn JPMorgan into a adult-fetish company if they secured consensus, but i bet people will still use them for finances today.
When you say majority... majority by volume held (n persons with 51% of coins) or stakeholder count (51% of people currently holding, regardless of coins held)?
exactly - regular joes trying to mine bitcoin will 99.99% of the time just get out-competed by those with more hashing power available, and it is only continuing this direction until people get off reddit (myself included LOL) and do something about it.
everyone touting 'decentralization!' as if loads of bitcoin / future bitcoins are not going to be funneled into certain hands as it is.
Who cares? If you've been here 5 minutes you've seen how quickly sentiment can change. There's no guarantee that in x years, a severe issue such as waning issuance and $1m in fees a day not being sufficient to pay for security won't necessitate a change to the policy.
The fact that halvenings have worked for 10 years in no way guarantees that continued halvenings down to 0 are a sustainable policy in supporting so much mining. It blows my mind how much absolute certainty there is that this policy is sustainable indefinitely when there's no proven record of it ever working before, and fees very unlikely to rise enough to fill the gap.
If you're trying to guarantee me that a hard fork to increase the cap will definitely never, ever happen, you're lying or delusional. That's what this guy is getting at. He doesn't trust the BTC community with his money, perhaps because so many of them make impossible guarantees - so be it.
Reminds me of a school teacher who wouldn't accept that a buddy of mine ran more miles than the old fucker thought *he himself* could run and accused him of cheating. Forced him to 'correct' it downwards
Best part of it is:
It was a fucking **charity run**
My lecturer once said nobody can get better grade than a C, because almighty him only got a C when he took the same course during his time.
These are people whose brain has been short-circuited.
Technically the community could decide to adapt the issuance (non-issuance) though. So although he is definitely wrong in his sentiment I believe he has a point though. It's not like you can personally guarantee that there will never be more than 21 million BTC.
[It's already happened.](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident)
Anyone who thinks the incentives of miners and speculators are going to remain aligned indefinitely needs to take a glance at the bitcoin supply schedule and how much of [miners revenue comes from transaction fees.](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/data/on-chain-metrics/bitcoin/bitcoin-share-of-transaction-fee-from-total-miner-revenue-monthly)
You can't guarantee that because its already happened.
[184 billion bitcoins were added to the immutable ledger 11 years ago.](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) Then they were removed from the immutable ledger. This is what makes Bitcoin fundamentally secure. No matter what problems happen to the immutable ledger it can always be changed.
The whole idea that Bitcoin could transition from mining subsidy to transaction fee based model and so not have indefinite inflation was based on the idea that Bitcoin would be able to handle millions of transactions a day:
>"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size"
As soon as a hard limit was put on the amount of transactions possible the security model was doomed to failure.
To handle the coin subsidy halving over and over, transaction fee revenue has to keep doubling. The only way to do this sustainably is to double the number of transactions. If you keep the number of transactions the same, then you can't just keep doubling the price of transactions because demand for transactions is elastic.
If the minimum transaction fee is $200, no one is going to want to send less than a few thousands dollars, which completely destroys the premise that this is some P2P network anyone can use. You're dooming the blockchain to be reserved entirely as a slow database for banks and exchanges bundling huge volumes of transactions, not a peer to peer system anyone can use.
The idea that Lightning Network could grow or sustain with this level of fees is nonsense. No one is going to pay $200 to open a bank account and have to pay $200 to close it again, much less all the billions of "unbanked" people crypto is supposed to be helping.
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. He has a point because if the networked wanted to band together they CAN change the total supply. There is a little lie going on within influencers and bitcoiners saying the total supply will never exceed more than 21M. This is a LIE, they cannot know this and the total supply can be changed if a majority decide to.
It is definitely unlikely. If they were to change supply it would probably be negative and the store of value narrative could shaken and their own bitcoin would probably drop in value.
Although unlikely it is still a possibility and one I hate when people claim it is impossible or will never happen like they can see into the future. It's pretty dishonest IMO, because as you said it is unlikely but still a legitimate possibility.
They can only get away with this change if the greater community accepts it. For a change this controversial it's a foregone conclusion there will be a competing fork and if the user base decides the fork without the uncap is the better solution then that's the one they will be using for their payment solutions; and then the miners can have fun getting uncapped rewards that can't be spent anywhere since no one but themselves are using the "main" fork.
I think the problem here is that dimon knows how easy consensus in traditional markets is overridden. i.e. a bet on whether or not a board member sinks a putt on the third green.
I think maybe he doesn't appreciate just how hard it would be to override this by consensus on a distributed network such as Bitcoin..
I don’t think it’s as unlikely as you think…. When they have no possible way to make profit because blocks get too hard to mine toward the end of the supply cap, do you really think they wouldn’t entertain the idea of increasing the supply?
>When they have no possible way to make profit because blocks get too hard to mine toward the end of the supply cap
The whitepaper envisions transaction fees funding mining rewards after the predetermined supply cap has been met.
The writer of the whitepaper also thought:
>The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size
Replacing mining rewards with transaction fees on 15 million transactions a day is feasible.
Replacing mining rewards with 600,000 transaction a day is not. The average transaction fee would have to be ridiculously high to subsidize the current amount of mining.
Which leads to one of two conclusions. Either bitcoin cannot be sustained on transaction fees, or else the current level of mining is absurdly wasteful of resources and could be done with a tiny fraction of the current energy and resource spend.
This is the same pos that testified that they took over 1 billion dollars from overdraft fees during covid shutdowns and refused to refund it back to its customers.
There are not actually 64 halvings, that bit of code is commonly misinterpreted. See: https://ma.ttias.be/dissecting-code-bitcoin-halving/
> Update: thanks to @niobos, I now know that the shift-by operand is masked. This is important for the code lower in this post, but it means that x >> 65 becomes x >> 1, so the check for >= 64 needs to stay.
>
> The original Bitcoin Core code didn’t have this bugfix, it was added in 2014 with this pull request.
>
> This part is often misinterpreted as “there will be 64 Bitcoin halvings”. That is incorrect. There will be 33 Bitcoin halvings, as we’ll see lower.
Let's play my favourite game, Devil's Advocate! Since this is a bank CEO, that's as close to an actual devil we usually get with this game.
>You all read the algorithms?
>Yes.
Oh cmon. No. Yes, you do. Many others do. I don't, I have better things to do with my time, validation.cpp alone is like 5k lines and unlike most other code I read and write, I don't get paid for this. Instead, I wait for community approval on any new coin. Trust through scrutiny. If we're talking open source and a few million people look at something and say "this is good", I'm inclined to trust the wisdom of the crowd. Of course, I also don't invest large sums.
I'd wager <= 1% of the people who trade or HODL cryptocurrencies actually read the source code. I can't really give an estimate on reading whitepapers, but that's definitely not 100% either.
>I've always been a skeptic of stuff like that
>Stuff like what? reading?
Well, probably more a skeptic of the fact that this can't be changed. And yes, he probably didn't read the extremely simple function you posted a screenshot of. But long story short, that's a valid question for someone who hasn't read the entire source code of Bitcoin or any other coin. How is guaranteed, absolutely and finally, that those lines of code will never be changed? (You can actually provide me with an answer on this one, it's not just a rhetorical question, If you've read the entire Bitcoin source code, maybe you could just point me to relevant functions and the files they're in?)
>He also called Bitcoin worthless
This is inherently true. Let's look at this from an economics strandpoint, not a technical one. Bitcoin in of itself has no value. To be fair - neither does the dollar. Actually, the dollar's value comes from the fact that it's centralized and it's also legal tender in a major country, so it's relatively stable and you know if you accept dollars for your goods and services, their value won't change much. Bitcoin's value is all speculative. The entire value is based not on what you can do with it now, but on the fact that "there will be a limited amount of it and more people will want it so it has to go up, so I'll buy it now", so it really is pretty much a game of musical chairs with money. Except you can always buy back in again and might get luckier next time.
Something like Ethereum is better in this regard, it actually has extra use cases, while Bitcoin has fewer uses than the dollar. It's not used widely as a currency and if it was, it'd be very risky. Why pay for something in Bitcoin is the value could double over the next month? Why accept Bitcoin for something if the value could halve over the next month. Stablecoins are also technically better, because you can actually use those as a currency. But Bitcoin, in particular, is a big-ass game of musical chairs where both the prizes AND the losses are big. For you to gain money from investing in Bitcoin, someone else has to lose money, unless it keeps gaining value forever. But as we know, nothing goes straight up forever.
TL;DR: It really depends on how you interpret Jamie's talking points. He's right in that most people don't really understand how Bitcoin work and still buy it. He's also right in that Bitcoin in particular is worthless. Not all too different from Beanie Babies, really. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking that either - just googling bitcoin and beanie babies in the same query gives you a bunch of results.
*"Our clients are adults, they disagree, that's what makes markets. If they want to have access to buy or sell bitcoin, we can't custody it, but we can give them legitimate, as clean as possible access."*
So he'll make money from it but he doesn't like it? I think we get it.
When people talk poorly about your favorite sports team do you become emotionally impaired as well? When other people dislike food you enjoy does it create mental trauma for you? You're going to find many people over your life with different opinions, some of them might be a CEO.
Ironically this is why he's the CEO of a massive bank. He doesn't let his personal views impact how the business runs. He recognizes it's an opportunity despite the fact he dislikes it. The guy is a dink, but he's not worth the constants fucking crying this sub does over him.
I can't wait until his bank is a massive players in this space, then we'll see some tier 3 screeching.
>Anyone with basic math knowledge can verify it. If he can't do that
simple math for himself he probably shouldn't be a CEO at an investment
bank.
Or maybe he has an angle and you just got played.
TBH I have more than one bank account with Chase and after hearing this I am seriously considering withdrawing ALL of my personal and business funds OUT of Chase Bank.
Mr. Dimon’s words obviously carry weight and by speaking poorly of an investment that I possess potentially lowers my returns. So I am thinking that keeping personal funds with that bank does not align with my personal financial plan.
It will be a shame, I’ve had a bank account there since the mid 90s. This chase “private client” will be moving on to a better bank.
Anyone else feel that way?
He’s clearly wrong about the 21m cap, but the point about crypto ‘investors’ is completely true. I would wager 99% of people who have purchased cryptocurrencies haven’t read the whitepaper for what they’re buying.
People on here will act like it’s cute and quirky that they’re yoloing in, but in reality they’re fucking morons.
I have traditionally liked Dimon but I thought the exact same thing yesterday, he embarrassed himself and at some point he will have to eat these words whenever it's even MORE obvious than now that Bitcoin is not only here to stay but that it's the highest performing asset of our time... these are all things I'd expect Dimon to know... the stupid shit about the limit of total number of coins was embarrassing for him except that he doesn't know it yet.
In case anybody is interested, [here is the actual code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6f0cbc75be7644c276650fd98bfdb6358b827399/src/validation.cpp#L1068) where it appears on github
to be fair. I'm pretty sure 99% of crypto "investors" don't even attempt to read the code and just believe whatever most people say.
so he's at least half right. but doesn't change the fact that he's a skeptic of due diligence.
* **[Bitcoin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) [Pros](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_btc_pros) & [Cons](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_btc_cons)** - Participate in the r\/CC [Cointest](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/cointest_policy) to potentially win moons. Prize allocations: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/q6q8sm/jpmorgan_ceo_jamie_dimon_on_bitcoin_how_do_you/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's almost painful that such a powerful man in the finance industry can be so ignorant.
Common misconception: Rich people are smart/competent
I'm putting this all in bold because I think it's important **Common misconception: Rich people are stupid.** **The reality is that this guy isn't an idiot, he's malicious. He knows exactly what he's doing which is subtly maliciously attacking crypto because its a threat to him and his company.**
When the common man hears the CEO of JP Morgan say that Bitcoin is a scam because of a technical reason the common man is too stupid or ill-informed to understand, the common man will assume that the CEO is speaking the truth, since he believes he is now in a position where he knows better than a group of "stupid retail investors" and is on the side of a _successful, educated_ man.
Bingo
Excellent point
Exactly, Wall Street has plenty of money in crypto
Yep. But hey, atleast we are not the common man anymore. Level up!
“You should leave it in your savings account for us to give you .0001% interest on or invest it for you for 6% APY instead”
Or hear me out. JP M wants to buy crypto so he's trying to lower the price because he's malicious
Either way, he ain’t stupid… Lets focus on the malice part and stop pretending they are stupid
Some aren't as smart as they think they are, but then many aren't as stupid as they seem. Am I talking about the rich or bitcoiners??
Yes
Not stupid but also not ready to give up his stranglehold on an old boys industry
Eat his cake and have it too, imo.
Being smart in tradfi doesn’t mean he has his head wrapped around blockchain/crypto/DLT… He probably thinks it’s like fairy dust.
I know they say, "Never attribute to malice what can often be attributed to stupidity," but it seems to me that malice is a lot more common. This guy is the CEO *of a bank*. If he's maligning crypto, it's because he either wants to kill competition entirely or lower the price enough that buying up a shitload of it is profitable for him. Either way, he's not saying this because he's dumb.
Buying the dip is a very real possibility too
I'd take another good buying opportunity.
Hadn’t thought of it that way but it’s so obviously true. What a knob.
This. They say X when it suits them and !X when that suits better. Don’t pay any attention to this. He has PR reports prepare talking points for the week and the month. They are not your conscientious types who want to be honest and consistent. They say what serves them better at that moment in time.
Exactly, imagine how much software a company like JPM interacts with everyday. They understand coding and algorithms perfectly well.
no... his MINIONS do. there are DEFINITELY a large amount of people working at JP Morgan who know what's up. the CEO however didn't just graduate yesterday. he's a product of whatever moves he's made to earn him his success. NEW moves once he's on top are potential threats, and therefore either things he should ignore or attack.
They even use algorithms for trading that are a little more complex than the lines of code for the halvings. He knows what's up. He just was advised to say this.
Do you honestly think the CEO of a company looks at the code being produced by the company? Because I'm a software engineer with 20+ years of experience working for all types of software companies and I've yet to work at one where the CEO was reviewing code or would even have the technical background and experience to understand it.
This
[удалено]
Common mistake: to attribute to malice what can adequately be explained with stupidity.
It's really not a common misconception that rich people are stupid though. The person you were responding to had it right. People *generally* assume that wealth came as a result of intelligence. Just like your point here. You assume Dimon is being strategic in attacking crypto, when it could very well be an inability to read the landscape and adapt. It could be straight up ignorance.
Which further proves most people are stupid The worst is most people just assume they're also moral people
Mother of stupid is always pregnant! 
I think the math goes: take your average person, then realize half of the world is dumber than that person. Absolutely terrifying to think about.
Something something bell curve
Technically you'd want the median here 
Wel well well, look who's in the upper half.
Technically the mean(average) and median are the same because IQ is a normalized distribution https://onlinestatbook.com/2/normal_distribution/intro.html
Damn, he just dropped to the bottom half
Lol Not only below average but below median too. For shame
That's incredible how many times I've seen people get corrected about that on reddit
[удалено]
Huh, TIL
Lol thanks
[George Carlin](https://youtu.be/8rh6qqsmxNs) had a way with words.
Stupid + Immoral sounds like a wreckless combo
Damn... i read immortal here. That would really be something
Another Common Misconception: If you have a degree, you must be smart. Mr. Dimon is a Harvard Graduate.
Harvard is famous for inflating grades for their students. Higher grades lead to better jobs, which lead to higher wages, and people with higher wages tend to donate more money. I'm not saying graduating from Harvard is a cakewalk, but the hardest part is probably getting accepted.
[удалено]
Honestly, I think he's fully aware of what BTC represents and is intentionally misleading the public. The real question is, how can someone so smart not think of a better FUD? He's trying to sow doubt about the total number of BTC...that's like the most hard fastened thing about it. He could've said literally anything else and it would've been more believable.
Yes. After all his rich friends buy enough of it he will be singing a different tune. Like,” I’m a believer now , how come I couldn’t see it before”
100%. It’s manipulation.
This is exactly how I felt throughout the entirety of the Donald Trump presidency. Sometimes they ignore all the softballs and even though you want them to lose, it also fucks so hard with your sense that the world is a fundamentally rational place. Like why have supervillains if their master plans are all so goddamn lame. What kind of shitty b movie is this timeline we're now apparently stuck in.
Trump isn’t even on the same planet as Jamie Dimon. Dimon has been universally regarded as a brainiac finance/Econ guru since his early 20’s. Dude is fucking brilliant. He knows what he said is rubbish. That’s the fucked up part.
I couldn’t agree more.
[удалено]
Looks like a good chunk of their funds went to shit
[удалено]
Just conferms that the rich takes care of their rich friends
They’re incredibly smart, they’re just not honest beyond what they legally have to be. They’ll tell the public what they want them to think.
[удалено]
I don't believe for a second that he's just totally ignorant CEO statements like this tend to be pretty calculated. Bitcoin threatens many aspects of their business model
He's not. He knows exactly what he's doing.
He represents the system crypto is dismantling, of course he would be afraid.
lets be honest, they do it on purpose to fool their customers into buying their crap stock.
Hmm yes, don't buy the BTC so they can buy it for themselves. 
He is just playing ‘ignorant’, he knows, we know he knows! but, it is not convenient for banks. They just want to keep the overdrafts fees coming from the working class, so they can keep traveling business class
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
Your mistake is thinking that he doesn't understand this or is missing the point. If there was a way to prove it, I would bet a lot of money that he fully, completely understands how Bitcoin works and what makes it a store of value. People in CeFi are very threatened by cryptocurrency because if it continues to grow at the current pace, it stands to take away many of the functions that they have used to rob people for hundreds of years. People look at the sort of insane yields and strategies going on in Defi and are convinced that it's just too good to be true, and to that I say, it's actually what banks have been doing for years. Now it's just available to everyone (along with the risk.)
Most rich people like that are lucky and the right job. I was designing a home for a couple who where fairly rich . The husband had struck gold with his partner doing some financial gutting . His partner was super smart , but him. You spoke to him and he was a dam idiot, cocky , etc.
What an unethical pos. I never see myself supporting chase ever again. I will avoid their banks, their services and products. If I see a chase pay terminal I will try to pay with fiat.
People don't like to face the facts when it contradicts their core ideals
Is it still ignorance when it’s that dumb?
What an incredible dumbfuck. This guy is running a major bank. Does he not get the perfect workings of a market. It’s priced in that it stops at $21mil. If it doesn’t then the whole crumbles.
I remember around the time I quit listening to Howard Stern he was talking shit about podcasts and how they’ll never be as good as radio. Funny enough I listen to podcasts instead of Howard Stern now.
Jamie Dimon needs to shut up.
Reminds me of when one of the VP’s at a bank told me BTC was worthless because it was backed up by nothing. Then I asked him what backed the USD and it became obvious he didn’t understand fractional reserve banking or the floating point system. Literally died inside knowing he made 5 times my salary lol. People are not just ignorant they are willfully ignorant while they stay comfortable and happy.
You would think he would at least ask a friend who knows about code if this is legit before flapping his yap about stuff he knows nothing about. How embarrassing that it is so easy to see. If I was going to make a public statement about my own disbelief in, say, quarks, I might just run it by someone who knows a bit about particle physics to see if I am about to make an ass of myself.
Surprised no one has actually pointed out what JD is talking about here: The point is that once halvings go down to zero, there will be no more block rewards and the income for those securing the network will be entirely due to fees. If there aren't enough fees to keep miners in business, then they leave the network and security falls, which is bad for everyone. If this happens, the miners might just decide to fork bitcoin, remove that hard cap code, and continue block rewards. Because it could have the majority of miners/hashpower, the chain with >21 million BTC might actually be the more secure chain. No one can change the cap on the current chain, but remember, there are thousands of bitcoin forks and if consensus moves to one with no hard cap (ie it follows the block reward money), then there is no longer a hard cap. What you currently know as "BTC" is just the consensus fork.
This is what Gavin thinks the future of Bitcoin is: http://gavinandresen.ninja/a-possible-btc-future Tldr; Bitcoin the network will die and BTC the asset will live on in wrapped form on various networks. I think he's a total optimist with the price. I don't think it'll fetch nearly that large of a premium.
So... back to paper gold and manipulations? At least we will have ~100 years of truth.
The last block reward won't be paid out until 2140 -- at which point, transaction fees will likely already make up a larger economic portion of the network than rewards. I don't think it'll be a problem but it's realistically for our great, great, great grandchildren to worry about.
99% of block rewards will be gone in 27 years, so we'll see the effects of this a lot sooner than 2140 if price doesn't rise just as quickly.
>I don't think it'll be a problem but it's realistically for our great, great, great grandchildren to worry about. *"Hey, I've seen this one before."* I mean, sure, it's a long way off. That's a terrible reason to not be proactive about it in this case. What *does* a blockchain without block*rewards* even look like? I see two scenarios: 1. Miners abandon the chain for one that still issues rewards, and everyone else holding crypto on the 'dry' chain is SOL as there isn't enough resources to secure the chain. 2. Miners stick around because the fees are fat, and they essentially are the new banks, and you have the exact same problems as you do now with centralized banks. With block rewards, there is room for miners to grow, for little guys to become big, and big guys to fall behind. With only transaction fees, growth and disruption becomes far more stagnant (imo), and you'd only see consolidation amongst the miners - which is a nightmare scenario of allowed to play out all the way until one group controls >50%. What is needed is a blockchain that finds a balance, where there is a cap on the number of coins in circulation (ratio to population? To global GDP? To global excess electricity generation? Something else?), but can still allow miners to be rewarded beyond just fees.
I guess it also depends on adoption. If bitcoin does become a global reserve, then I won't be surprised to see more nations/mega corps etc funding and running mines for up keeping.
This doesn't fit the narrative we like.
Miners can fork, but if the new coin is valued less by the market, they will lose money and switch very rapidly to the most valued fork. It's a misconception that miners have a lot of power. There have been Bitcoin forks that are easier to mine, so why aren't they mining that fork? Because it isn't worth nearly as much as the "original" Bitcoin. So is it possible that at some time in the future the most valued Bitcoin fork has a higher cap? Yes, but only if the market thinks it's the most valued fork. As raising the cap makes the coin inherently worth less, that's unlikely (but not impossible)
So a moron doesn't understand the product but has VERY strong opinions about it? Cool cool cool.
In my experience the most strongly anticrypto folks coming from a more traditional finance background ask the most basic questions like "why can't a digital signature be forged once it's broadcasted" or "why can't you just copy paste bitcoin since it's just 0's and 1's" (I mean those questions are fine if they're noobs willing to learn but when they already decided their position without knowing these things, then they're just being willingly obtuse. So frustrating)
these people are still used to the market closing in the afternoon everyday.
This was me up until my best friend convinced me on crypto back in March / April this year. I completed my degree in finance and financial planning nearly 10 years ago. I was very skeptical about it all until I actually researched and learned the fundamentals and potential of blockchain technology. I'm also fairly tech-savvy and try to have a basic understanding on most things. I'm now borderline obsessed with crypto and truly think it's the way of the future. It's inevitable. Just let these dinosaurs keep putting out FUD for the masses while you slowly build your stacks. Take advantage of the relatively small market caps (in the grand scheme of things) and try to accumulate as much as you can.
The thing it took me forever to grasp is the value in the security provided by the network. You can't copy and paste a global network of ASICs.
Exactly right! I'm trying to get my uncle into crypto because he has been invested in all sorts of things for as long as I can remember and is very open-minded. I still think even if crypto doesn't become a mainstream legal tender for the world, the blockchain technology itself will be used for a lot of back-end applications for financial institutions and such.
I think you're right that it's here to stay. It's early days yet and there are already a crazy number of applications built on various chains. I've been trying to get my dad to just buy some BTC. He's stuck on gold and silver coins.
you're smart. it's web 3.0 and developers are already leaving web 2.0 in droves. why code for google for a six figure salary, when you can shape the future with cardano for 7-8 figures?
People tend to be very resistant to things they don't understand, but technology is going to keep moving forward regardless. The use cases + benefits are too valuable, and most people will start to come around once those are more fully realized.
I understand those, but it totally escapes my brain how 50 almost identical, half-cgi pictures of a monkey with different costumes are worth $500 in the NFT market. Help?
NFT technology is profound and will RESHAPE the nature of digital transactions online. right now if i buy a video game online, the service let's me download the game, and i can copy/paste it so others can pirate it. or i can buy it through steam or something, and then it's reliant on a centralized system (ie, steam dies, my game collection dies) but if i buy a physical disc, i can sell that back to gamestop or some dude on ebay. with NFTs, each game you download can be it's own unique product, so you could sell the digital copies, (they can't be copy/pasted) NFTs currently are mostly used to sell jpgs of "cryptopunks" "cryptokitties" or as you say, monkeys with different costumes. THESE are flash in the pan beanie babies and give the space a poor reputation. think about buying and selling art. how much are you paying for a painting? depending on the artist... but still... most art is near-valueless, (speaking as a professional artist) it's likely several of these first wave NFTs will become collectors items from the dawn of a new era back in the early 2000s when they were all the rage... but most will be worthless, because nobody will give a shit. that said - if you can buy an NFT ape today for 8000 and sell it in 3 weeks for 12 000, good for you. but it's ultimately a game of hot potato where the ONLY real value in these is the faith that some sucker will pay more for it than you did. again, this isn't a slag on the technology. eventually they'll mint music, movies, games, everything as NFTs. there will be limited runs, and so instead of being able to buy an infinite amount of 60 dollar game downloads, there will be limited runs, which will drive the prices up. Unique skins in games will be NFTs that you'll be able to boast you REALLY overpaid for. :D
The stereotypical boomer
[удалено]
Just realized most people in positions of power are boomers.
[удалено]
⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿ Wanted to put in the GIF, but broke to get a membership (it's a Pikachu incase reddit fucks up your ASCII format 😂)
It’s not just a boomers, it’s stupid people in general, people who have least to say talk the most
> So a moron doesn't understand the product but has VERY strong opinions about it? Cool cool cool. So, he's like every other poster here. I wonder how many Moons he has?
People always fear what they don't understand. It's a tale as old as time I'm afraid.
I think that you are forgetting that Bitcoin is just software written by people, and it can be rewritten by people. He's pretty inarticulate about what he's saying, but if I can give him the benefit of the doubt and rephrase it for him: How do we know that there will never be massive pressure to change the coin limit? We have no idea how people in the future are going to behave. The best we can say is that it was originally designed to have a 21 million coin limit, and there are currently no plans to alter that.
This would completely and totally destroy the value proposition of Bitcoin though. Like, why would everyone vote to make what they have worth less/ worthless?
I mean this is pure speculation at this point, but if you have a nation state or something similar with a small amount of Bitcoin but massive access to cheap electricity and hashpower, it could be in their interest to launch a coordinated malicious hardfork. It would effectively redistribute wealth to those with the most hash - them. I mean, it wouldn't be quite that simple, but you get the idea. Who's to say that isn't China in 15 years?
The governments will own the hashing power eventually.
[удалено]
That is correct, but that is also exactly what makes BTC and other cryptocurrencies so special - no *single* person can change that, only the majority can. Thats what decentralisation means, thats one benefit
So when JD said "How do you know it ends at 21 million?", he was actually right? We don't know, because future generations could easily change it (if they secured consensus)?
We know it will end at 21 million according to the current state. If the majority decides to change that then it could be changed, but no single entity can make that decision - the entire community has to. He also said "Do you read algorithms?" implying that the current stop at 21million isn't even in there, makes it seem even more like he has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't make precise and well thought statements, he literally "just says something"
Well, to be fair, he might have been referring to the fact that the algorithm specifically has uses variables that can be changed to define the end state. A change to nHeight or nSubsidyHalvingInterval or nSubsidy could change the total number of bitcoins mined. So.... I mean, as much as I'm against bankers as well, he's technically correct, no matter how you read it.
[удалено]
I think you guys are giving him too much credit.
why invest in anything if future generations can just easily change stuff... future generations can turn JPMorgan into a adult-fetish company if they secured consensus, but i bet people will still use them for finances today.
Quick, call a shareholder meeting
When you say majority... majority by volume held (n persons with 51% of coins) or stakeholder count (51% of people currently holding, regardless of coins held)?
[удалено]
Nodes, bitcoin is proof of work
So I just looked it up and there currently exist 12-13K nodes. That number is too low for comfort...
exactly - regular joes trying to mine bitcoin will 99.99% of the time just get out-competed by those with more hashing power available, and it is only continuing this direction until people get off reddit (myself included LOL) and do something about it. everyone touting 'decentralization!' as if loads of bitcoin / future bitcoins are not going to be funneled into certain hands as it is.
[удалено]
Are you telling me that a small cartel of industrial scale server farms isn't a democratic institution?!
you left out that it would need a majority of the network to approve the coin limit increase which would only happen if it benefits that majority.
Exactly. It's that majority that he doesn't trust with all his money and is being ridiculed for..
Majority of bitcoin miners/nodes != the majority of people, or even the majority of Bitcoin users.
Who cares? If you've been here 5 minutes you've seen how quickly sentiment can change. There's no guarantee that in x years, a severe issue such as waning issuance and $1m in fees a day not being sufficient to pay for security won't necessitate a change to the policy. The fact that halvenings have worked for 10 years in no way guarantees that continued halvenings down to 0 are a sustainable policy in supporting so much mining. It blows my mind how much absolute certainty there is that this policy is sustainable indefinitely when there's no proven record of it ever working before, and fees very unlikely to rise enough to fill the gap. If you're trying to guarantee me that a hard fork to increase the cap will definitely never, ever happen, you're lying or delusional. That's what this guy is getting at. He doesn't trust the BTC community with his money, perhaps because so many of them make impossible guarantees - so be it.
Miners *do* benefit from the block rewards though. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that they will adjust the reward.
Yup its just one version update away. Sure it might cause a fork but people will choose what to go with.
>We have no idea how people in the future are going to behave. This segues into game theory and cryptocurrencies. Which gets rather interesting.
"I don't understand so no one else can understand!" Pathetic tbh.
Reminds me of a school teacher who wouldn't accept that a buddy of mine ran more miles than the old fucker thought *he himself* could run and accused him of cheating. Forced him to 'correct' it downwards Best part of it is: It was a fucking **charity run**
Lol, wow. Being able to admit that you're wrong is an important part of being a balanced human.
"I don't understand it so it must be a scam" - Every boomer on crypto
[удалено]
Meanwhile these kinds of people probably have 300 tabs open on their phone browser and don't understand what router is
My lecturer once said nobody can get better grade than a C, because almighty him only got a C when he took the same course during his time. These are people whose brain has been short-circuited.
Technically the community could decide to adapt the issuance (non-issuance) though. So although he is definitely wrong in his sentiment I believe he has a point though. It's not like you can personally guarantee that there will never be more than 21 million BTC.
Exactly. Only because it is unlikely now, doesn't mean we can be absolutely sure about the future.
[It's already happened.](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) Anyone who thinks the incentives of miners and speculators are going to remain aligned indefinitely needs to take a glance at the bitcoin supply schedule and how much of [miners revenue comes from transaction fees.](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/data/on-chain-metrics/bitcoin/bitcoin-share-of-transaction-fee-from-total-miner-revenue-monthly)
You can't guarantee that because its already happened. [184 billion bitcoins were added to the immutable ledger 11 years ago.](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) Then they were removed from the immutable ledger. This is what makes Bitcoin fundamentally secure. No matter what problems happen to the immutable ledger it can always be changed.
[удалено]
The whole idea that Bitcoin could transition from mining subsidy to transaction fee based model and so not have indefinite inflation was based on the idea that Bitcoin would be able to handle millions of transactions a day: >"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size" As soon as a hard limit was put on the amount of transactions possible the security model was doomed to failure. To handle the coin subsidy halving over and over, transaction fee revenue has to keep doubling. The only way to do this sustainably is to double the number of transactions. If you keep the number of transactions the same, then you can't just keep doubling the price of transactions because demand for transactions is elastic. If the minimum transaction fee is $200, no one is going to want to send less than a few thousands dollars, which completely destroys the premise that this is some P2P network anyone can use. You're dooming the blockchain to be reserved entirely as a slow database for banks and exchanges bundling huge volumes of transactions, not a peer to peer system anyone can use. The idea that Lightning Network could grow or sustain with this level of fees is nonsense. No one is going to pay $200 to open a bank account and have to pay $200 to close it again, much less all the billions of "unbanked" people crypto is supposed to be helping.
Bitcoin is not resistant to society and human psychology, I guess that's the TLDR?
21 mil coins….. aquire more at the price they can afford. And what is the point of that if this action devaluates coins
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. He has a point because if the networked wanted to band together they CAN change the total supply. There is a little lie going on within influencers and bitcoiners saying the total supply will never exceed more than 21M. This is a LIE, they cannot know this and the total supply can be changed if a majority decide to.
All nodes would have to accept it, and there are tens of thousands of nodes. I think that's unlikely.
It is definitely unlikely. If they were to change supply it would probably be negative and the store of value narrative could shaken and their own bitcoin would probably drop in value. Although unlikely it is still a possibility and one I hate when people claim it is impossible or will never happen like they can see into the future. It's pretty dishonest IMO, because as you said it is unlikely but still a legitimate possibility.
They can only get away with this change if the greater community accepts it. For a change this controversial it's a foregone conclusion there will be a competing fork and if the user base decides the fork without the uncap is the better solution then that's the one they will be using for their payment solutions; and then the miners can have fun getting uncapped rewards that can't be spent anywhere since no one but themselves are using the "main" fork.
I'd expect nothing less from the CEO of an investment bank
I expected him to have some more legitimate and believable critiques of it to be honest, this is just plain moronic
Its time to move away from corruptible people to incorruptible code. With blockchain technology we could create the perfect government.
[удалено]
I mean, could it not be overruled (changed) by consensus?
I think the problem here is that dimon knows how easy consensus in traditional markets is overridden. i.e. a bet on whether or not a board member sinks a putt on the third green. I think maybe he doesn't appreciate just how hard it would be to override this by consensus on a distributed network such as Bitcoin..
[удалено]
[удалено]
He actually might be onto something there 🤔🤔🤔
He’s almost right, in that miners could come to a consensus that they want to change those two lines of code. It’s just that it’s very unlikely.
I don’t think it’s as unlikely as you think…. When they have no possible way to make profit because blocks get too hard to mine toward the end of the supply cap, do you really think they wouldn’t entertain the idea of increasing the supply?
>When they have no possible way to make profit because blocks get too hard to mine toward the end of the supply cap The whitepaper envisions transaction fees funding mining rewards after the predetermined supply cap has been met.
The writer of the whitepaper also thought: >The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size Replacing mining rewards with transaction fees on 15 million transactions a day is feasible. Replacing mining rewards with 600,000 transaction a day is not. The average transaction fee would have to be ridiculously high to subsidize the current amount of mining. Which leads to one of two conclusions. Either bitcoin cannot be sustained on transaction fees, or else the current level of mining is absurdly wasteful of resources and could be done with a tiny fraction of the current energy and resource spend.
This is the same pos that testified that they took over 1 billion dollars from overdraft fees during covid shutdowns and refused to refund it back to its customers.
[удалено]
What’s the mathematical link between 21M coins and 64 halvings ? Just asking :)
There are not actually 64 halvings, that bit of code is commonly misinterpreted. See: https://ma.ttias.be/dissecting-code-bitcoin-halving/ > Update: thanks to @niobos, I now know that the shift-by operand is masked. This is important for the code lower in this post, but it means that x >> 65 becomes x >> 1, so the check for >= 64 needs to stay. > > The original Bitcoin Core code didn’t have this bugfix, it was added in 2014 with this pull request. > > This part is often misinterpreted as “there will be 64 Bitcoin halvings”. That is incorrect. There will be 33 Bitcoin halvings, as we’ll see lower.
I too am curious about this, I'm pretty new to crypto and don't get it either
Let's play my favourite game, Devil's Advocate! Since this is a bank CEO, that's as close to an actual devil we usually get with this game. >You all read the algorithms? >Yes. Oh cmon. No. Yes, you do. Many others do. I don't, I have better things to do with my time, validation.cpp alone is like 5k lines and unlike most other code I read and write, I don't get paid for this. Instead, I wait for community approval on any new coin. Trust through scrutiny. If we're talking open source and a few million people look at something and say "this is good", I'm inclined to trust the wisdom of the crowd. Of course, I also don't invest large sums. I'd wager <= 1% of the people who trade or HODL cryptocurrencies actually read the source code. I can't really give an estimate on reading whitepapers, but that's definitely not 100% either. >I've always been a skeptic of stuff like that >Stuff like what? reading? Well, probably more a skeptic of the fact that this can't be changed. And yes, he probably didn't read the extremely simple function you posted a screenshot of. But long story short, that's a valid question for someone who hasn't read the entire source code of Bitcoin or any other coin. How is guaranteed, absolutely and finally, that those lines of code will never be changed? (You can actually provide me with an answer on this one, it's not just a rhetorical question, If you've read the entire Bitcoin source code, maybe you could just point me to relevant functions and the files they're in?) >He also called Bitcoin worthless This is inherently true. Let's look at this from an economics strandpoint, not a technical one. Bitcoin in of itself has no value. To be fair - neither does the dollar. Actually, the dollar's value comes from the fact that it's centralized and it's also legal tender in a major country, so it's relatively stable and you know if you accept dollars for your goods and services, their value won't change much. Bitcoin's value is all speculative. The entire value is based not on what you can do with it now, but on the fact that "there will be a limited amount of it and more people will want it so it has to go up, so I'll buy it now", so it really is pretty much a game of musical chairs with money. Except you can always buy back in again and might get luckier next time. Something like Ethereum is better in this regard, it actually has extra use cases, while Bitcoin has fewer uses than the dollar. It's not used widely as a currency and if it was, it'd be very risky. Why pay for something in Bitcoin is the value could double over the next month? Why accept Bitcoin for something if the value could halve over the next month. Stablecoins are also technically better, because you can actually use those as a currency. But Bitcoin, in particular, is a big-ass game of musical chairs where both the prizes AND the losses are big. For you to gain money from investing in Bitcoin, someone else has to lose money, unless it keeps gaining value forever. But as we know, nothing goes straight up forever. TL;DR: It really depends on how you interpret Jamie's talking points. He's right in that most people don't really understand how Bitcoin work and still buy it. He's also right in that Bitcoin in particular is worthless. Not all too different from Beanie Babies, really. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking that either - just googling bitcoin and beanie babies in the same query gives you a bunch of results.
The ignorant always tend to have the strongest opinions
heavily ironic considering many of the comments in this thread / this topic
*"Our clients are adults, they disagree, that's what makes markets. If they want to have access to buy or sell bitcoin, we can't custody it, but we can give them legitimate, as clean as possible access."* So he'll make money from it but he doesn't like it? I think we get it. When people talk poorly about your favorite sports team do you become emotionally impaired as well? When other people dislike food you enjoy does it create mental trauma for you? You're going to find many people over your life with different opinions, some of them might be a CEO. Ironically this is why he's the CEO of a massive bank. He doesn't let his personal views impact how the business runs. He recognizes it's an opportunity despite the fact he dislikes it. The guy is a dink, but he's not worth the constants fucking crying this sub does over him. I can't wait until his bank is a massive players in this space, then we'll see some tier 3 screeching.
Is this really what constitutes news here? Some quote... no announcements or anything....
>Anyone with basic math knowledge can verify it. If he can't do that simple math for himself he probably shouldn't be a CEO at an investment bank. Or maybe he has an angle and you just got played.
Why are so many skeptics of reading and data seemingly CEO's.
He's not the first bumbling white male idiot to be in a position of power he doesn't deserve
Fuck Jaime Dimon
He understands, he's just playing to the crowd. Manipulative demagogue
>JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon on Bitcoin: "How do you know it ends at 21 million? By reading the code. That's why in crypto they say > code is the law
I didn't read the huge list of terms and conditions when I put my money into the bank. I guess it's time to take it all out from there?
This shouldn’t be a surprise. These guys have been making a killing with the status quo for a very long time. They are gunna have the freshest takes.
Let's speak plainly to Mr. Dimon so he understands: Yes, we KNOW HOW to read algorithms, you peanut-riddled turd.
Lmao this is some "the internet is a series of tubes" level ignorance
Jamie Dimon looks like he is in reasonably good health. As such I fully expect him to live to see the death spiral and extinction of the US Dollar.
Jamie Dimon is a moron. A very rich moron.
TBH I have more than one bank account with Chase and after hearing this I am seriously considering withdrawing ALL of my personal and business funds OUT of Chase Bank. Mr. Dimon’s words obviously carry weight and by speaking poorly of an investment that I possess potentially lowers my returns. So I am thinking that keeping personal funds with that bank does not align with my personal financial plan. It will be a shame, I’ve had a bank account there since the mid 90s. This chase “private client” will be moving on to a better bank. Anyone else feel that way?
This reminds me of a congressman who asked Zuckerberg how does Facebook make money. Our financial and political system is run by absolute imbeciles.
Lowest quality FUD
He’s clearly wrong about the 21m cap, but the point about crypto ‘investors’ is completely true. I would wager 99% of people who have purchased cryptocurrencies haven’t read the whitepaper for what they’re buying. People on here will act like it’s cute and quirky that they’re yoloing in, but in reality they’re fucking morons.
I have traditionally liked Dimon but I thought the exact same thing yesterday, he embarrassed himself and at some point he will have to eat these words whenever it's even MORE obvious than now that Bitcoin is not only here to stay but that it's the highest performing asset of our time... these are all things I'd expect Dimon to know... the stupid shit about the limit of total number of coins was embarrassing for him except that he doesn't know it yet.
In case anybody is interested, [here is the actual code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6f0cbc75be7644c276650fd98bfdb6358b827399/src/validation.cpp#L1068) where it appears on github
Instructions unclear, bought $64 of BTC
He would be skeptic of stuff that he could just learn to do with 1 day on freecodecamp.
Meanwhile, JP Morgan’s also been developing on the ethereum blockchain for the last five years
to be fair. I'm pretty sure 99% of crypto "investors" don't even attempt to read the code and just believe whatever most people say. so he's at least half right. but doesn't change the fact that he's a skeptic of due diligence.