mathus

[mathus @mathushold]

@DBATTAGLIAYtube @PajaronPaz X2

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

https://t.co/yeG4PgpjEq

[semillabtc @semillabtc]

Las wallets multifirmas o multicamino con miniscript habilitan funciones que con una billetera simple no tienes:
-eliminan punto de fallo único
-permiten automatizar herencia
-te acercan a evitar el temido ataque de llave inglesa
Entre otras virtudes más para dormir 😴

Hilo🧵

[mathus @mathushold]

¿Recuerdas cuándo te uniste a X? ¡Yo sí! #MiAniversarioDeX

[Libertario 🟨⬛ @QuotesforGoal]

“Quisiera que entendieran los impuestos como robo, los políticos como ladrones y todo el aparato y burocracia del estado como una mafia”

Hans Hermann Hoppe

[Libertario 🟨⬛ @QuotesforGoal]

"La mejor manera de ayudar a los pobres es reducir los impuestos y permitir que el ahorro, la inversión y la creación de empleos continúen sin obstáculos"

Murray Rothbard

[Estado Mínimo @xestadominimo]

"Cuando la ley ya no te protege de los corruptos, sino que protege a los corruptos de ti, sabes que tu nación está condenada".

- Ayn Rand -

[Reinaldo Villalba V. @ReynaldVillalba]

Excelente. Sobre la estupidez humana

[Daniel Jeffries @Dan_Jeffries1]

AI will create more jobs than any other technology in history.

The doomers' fundamental error isn't just the lump of labor fallacy. It's deeper than that.

They assume a finite problem space.

This is the fundamental error of AI and job doomers. They look at the economy and see a fixed amount of work to be done, a pie that can only be sliced thinner as machines take bigger bites. They see humans a competitive resource for a finite amount of work and a finite amount of problems to solve that must be eliminated.

This is fundamentally, totally and completely wrong.

The pie isn't fixed. It never was. And the reason it isn't fixed is baked into the very nature of technology itself.

Technology is nothing but abstraction stacking. And abstraction stacking is infinite. Therefore the work is infinite.

The hammer didn't reduce the amount of work. It moved the work up the stack. And the new work was more complex, more varied, and more interesting than the old work.

Complexity breeds more complexity and more variety.

Once you have houses instead of mud huts, you have a cascade of new problems that didn't exist before. Plumbing. Wiring. Insulation. Roofing materials that don't rot. Drainage systems so the foundation doesn't flood. Fire codes so your neighbor's bad wiring doesn't burn down the whole block.

Each of those problems becomes a job. A plumber. An electrician. An insulator. A roofer. A civil engineer. A building inspector. None of those jobs existed when we lived in mud huts.

They exist because we solved the mud hut problem.

Think of all of human technological development as a stack of abstraction layers, each one built on top of the ones below it.

At the bottom: raw survival. Finding food. Building shelter. Making fire. These are the base-layer problems.

Each major technology wave solved a base-layer problem and in doing so created an entirely new layer of problems above it:

Agriculture solved "how do we reliably eat?" — and created problems of land ownership, irrigation, crop rotation, storage, trade, taxation, and governance.

Writing solved "how do we remember things across generations?" — and created problems of literacy, education, record-keeping, law, bureaucracy, and literature.

The printing press solved "how do we spread knowledge at scale?" — and created problems of intellectual property, censorship, journalism, publishing, public opinion, and democratic discourse.

The steam engine solved "how do we generate mechanical power without muscles?" — and created problems of factory design, worker safety, urban planning, railroad engineering, coal mining, labor relations, and environmental pollution.

Electricity solved "how do we deliver energy anywhere?" — and created problems of grid design, power generation, appliance manufacturing, electrical safety codes, utility regulation, and an entire consumer electronics industry.

The Internet solved "how do we connect all human knowledge?" — and created problems of cybersecurity, digital privacy, online commerce, content moderation, network infrastructure, cloud computing, social media dynamics, and an entire digital economy that employs tens of millions.

Notice the pattern?

Each solution didn't just solve a problem.

It created an entirely new problem space that was larger, more complex, and more varied than the one it replaced.

The stack grows. It never shrinks.

It's turtles all the way down and all the way up.

[Jameson Lopp @lopp]

The next few years will bring a sharp increase in the amount of vulnerabilities found, systems breached, and data leaked.

The importance of cold storage self custody for your bitcoin will become even more obvious.

[mathus @mathushold]

@PlactonG @oguardingo @juanrallo Si. Es sorprendente la paciencia de @juanrallo

[mathus @mathushold]

@oguardingo

[mathus @mathushold]

@alberto_mera Jajajajaja

[Pablo Malo @pitiklinov]

"Una de las nociones más destructivas en la historia del pensamiento humano es la utopía. La idea de que puedes formar una sociedad perfecta, ya sea en esta vida o en otra posterior, es muy destructiva. Porque la consecuencia es que no importa si has matado a un millón de personas por el camino: el objetivo es la perfección y eso disculpa cualquier crimen. Es una fantasía que ha tenido sus equivalentes seculares, en el comunismo soviético, por ejemplo, y también en los nazis. La idea de la redención, una idea milenaria, siempre requiere enemigos.”

-Ian McEwan

[Lyn Alden @LynAldenContact]

Multiple things are simultaneously true:
1) Foreign public sector (central banks) are not buying US treasuries for over a decade, led by China.
2) Foreign private sector is still buying treasuries.
3) Foreign buying is not keeping up with issuance, so more is domestically-funded.

[Mason @MasonFoard]

- The dollar loses 7% a year.
- AI is coming for white-collar work.
- Robots are 10 years out.

@saylor just laid out what young people should actually do about it.

12 lessons:

[Decentralized @decentralized_b]

⚠️ SCAM ALERT sobre @bisq_network

Está circulando un mensaje que anuncia una “nueva app de Bisq” para escritorio
Es phishing. NO es el sitio oficial de Bisq

🚨
- Dominio falso (el oficial https://t.co/QBTDz3rFPf)
- Lenguaje alarmista sobre “vulnerabilidades”

Mucho cuidado!!!

[Libertario 🟨⬛ @QuotesforGoal]

"Todo el evangelio de Karl Marx puede resumirse a una sola frase:
'Odia a quien esté mejor que tú' "

Henry Hazlitt

[MSTR Today with JLD @MSTR_Today]

How my 'MSTR Today' AI agent interprets this:

Absolutely. Here’s what Saylor is saying, line by line, with the jargon untangled.

“Bitcoin has won.”

He means Bitcoin has already emerged as the dominant digital asset. In his view, the big battle is over.

Not “will Bitcoin survive?” and not “which crypto will win?” He’s saying Bitcoin is the winner of that contest.

What he’s really implying:

Bitcoin has the strongest brand

the largest network effect

the most institutional attention

the most credibility as a long-term store of value

So “has won” does not mean it cannot fall in price.

It means he believes the market has already chosen Bitcoin as the main digital monetary asset.

“Global consensus is that $BTC is digital capital.”

This is his way of saying the world is increasingly treating Bitcoin like a new form of capital storage, kind of like pristine collateral, reserve value, or a superior savings asset.

Why he uses “digital capital” instead of just “money”:
“money” makes people think of spending

“currency” makes people think of daily transactions

“capital” makes people think of wealth preservation, treasury reserves, investment allocation, and balance sheets

So he’s saying Bitcoin is being recognized less as internet cash for buying coffee, and more as a serious asset for preserving and compounding wealth.

“The four-year cycle is dead.”
This is a huge claim.

Traditionally, Bitcoin people talk about a four-year cycle tied to the halving:

halving happens

supply growth drops

price eventually surges

bubble forms

big crash follows

repeat

Saylor is saying that old rhythm matters less now.

Why? Because he believes Bitcoin is no longer mainly driven by retail speculation and miner supply shocks.

He thinks it’s increasingly driven by larger, steadier, more powerful capital pools:

ETFs

corporations

sovereign or quasi-sovereign adoption

credit markets

institutional treasury strategies

So when he says the cycle is dead, he means Bitcoin may be maturing out of its old, wild, predictable halving-era pattern and into something more influenced by global finance.

Important caveat:

He is making a bold opinion, not stating a proven law of nature. Plenty of people would argue the cycle is weakened, not dead.

“Price is now driven by capital flows.”

This is the engine room of the whole tweet.

He’s saying Bitcoin’s price is increasingly determined by how much money is flowing into it, from where, and through what financial pipes.

Examples of capital flows:

money entering spot Bitcoin ETFs

corporations buying Bitcoin for treasury
institutions reallocating portfolios into Bitcoin

new debt or equity issuance used to buy Bitcoin

wealthy individuals moving savings from bonds, real estate, or cash into Bitcoin

This is a more Wall Street framing than a crypto-native framing.

Instead of asking:

“What’s the halving doing?”

“What are retail traders doing?”

He’s saying ask:

“Where is the big money moving?”

“How much institutional demand is arriving?”

“What structures make it easier to allocate capital into Bitcoin?”

In plain English: Bitcoin price is becoming a flow story, not just a scarcity story.

“Bank and digital credit will determine Bitcoin’s growth trajectory.”
This line is dense, but very important.

He’s saying Bitcoin’s future growth depends on the credit system built around it.

“Bank credit” means the traditional financial system:
banks lending against assets

institutional financing

custody-backed lending

financial products that let big pools of money access Bitcoin

“Digital credit” likely means newer Bitcoin-linked financial instruments:

preferred shares

convertibles

structured products

Bitcoin-backed lending

digital asset credit markets

capital market vehicles that channel money into Bitcoin exposure

Why this matters:

Big assets do not just grow because people like them. They grow because the financial system builds ramps, bridges, and flywheels around them.

He’s basically saying:

if banks and capital markets can finance Bitcoin-related strategies

and if digital credit products expand

then much more money can flow into Bitcoin

and that will shape its long-term upward path

This is very consistent with how he views Strategy: not just as a buyer of Bitcoin, but as a machine that converts capital market access into Bitcoin accumulation.

“The biggest risk is bad ideas driving iatrogenic protocol changes.”

This is the most technical line.

“Iatrogenic” is a medical word. It means harm caused by the treatment itself. Like a doctor trying to fix something and accidentally making it worse.

So “iatrogenic protocol changes” means:
Bitcoin’s biggest danger is not outside attack, but insiders making “helpful” changes to the Bitcoin protocol that unintentionally damage it.

What kind of “bad ideas” he could mean:

changing Bitcoin’s core monetary rules
altering the supply model

making protocol changes that weaken decentralization

pushing features that increase complexity or security risk

changing Bitcoin so much that it loses the qualities that made it valuable in the first place

His underlying belief is that Bitcoin’s strength comes from:

stability

predictability

simplicity

conservatism

not being easily changed

So he’s warning that the biggest threat is not competition, not government fear, not volatility, but people “improving” Bitcoin into a worse version of itself.

The tweet in one clean translation

Saylor is basically saying:

Bitcoin has already become the world’s dominant digital store of value.

Its future is no longer mainly about halving cycles and retail hype.

It will now rise or fall based on how much institutional money and credit infrastructure flow into it.

The biggest thing that could derail that future is messing with the Bitcoin protocol in foolish ways.

What he is really communicating strategically

This tweet is doing three things at once:
1. Reframing Bitcoin as a mature asset

He wants people to stop thinking of Bitcoin as a speculative toy and start thinking of it as digital reserve capital.

2. Reframing price drivers
He wants attention on institutional adoption, ETFs, treasury strategies, and credit markets, not just halving memes.

3. Reframing risk
He wants people to believe the main threat is self-inflicted protocol meddling, not lack of adoption.

Where people might push back

Critics would challenge several parts:

saying the four-year cycle is “dead” may be overstated

capital flows matter, but macro liquidity, regulation, and sentiment still matter too

“global consensus” is probably too strong, since many institutions and governments still do not agree
protocol conservatism is important, but some would argue careful improvements are healthy, not dangerous

So this is classic Saylor: part thesis, part signal flare, part narrative weapon.