Bitcoin - Never Meant To Be Decentralized?/$800 btc floor

Hey you, welcome back to the channel. And guys, today we want to ask the question or entertain the question, was Bitcoin really meant to be decentralized? And of course, um, you know, the idea of decentralization has pretty much been a huge driving force and why people have adopted Bitcoin, right? And so a lot of, uh, interesting statements came from an interview done a few days ago. It came from one of the most hated men in crypto right now, uh, Dr. Craig Wright, uh, you know, who has been, uh, you know, pretty much described as a person who doesn't tell the truth, person who lied about being Satoshi. And he goes on in this interview to talk about how Bitcoin was never meant to be decentralized, right? So let's explore that a little bit. Of course, if that turned out to be true, uh, I, I think that would be as devastating to cryptocurrency as what you get with a kid at Christmas who finds out Santa Claus is real. So, and I know a lot of people aren't, you know, specifically in this space isn't interested with what Dr. Craig Wright had to say, but at the same time, I think it's quite easy to validate and find out if what he was saying is true or lends itself over to the truth. So Um, in the interview, you know, he went on to talk about— he went on to talk about, uh, excuse me, I always drop my mic. I was trying to kind of get a blow up here on his token here. Now looking like it's in the number 9 spot, so now it's a top 10 cryptocurrency from this fork. And, um, Earlier, it looks like it was at position 7. But anyway, his argument was that Bitcoin was never meant to be decentralized, that in absolutely none of Satoshi's posts or commentary or anything did he ever use terms like decentralization or push any of that. Um, Of course, I haven't read all of Satoshi's posts and information to confirm or deny that. However, he also went on to say that the idea of people just sitting at their house with their own equipment mining Bitcoin was also really not how it was designed to work, that it was all supposed to be done in data centers. Um, and of course, you know, you know, with him owning these mining operations and various things like that and his partnerships, uh, as a business, you know, it would obviously be more advantageous if Satoshi's vision is that way, as he has a business that makes money in this way. But whether what he's saying is true or not, What we did get to see in this fork and what we are seeing is that the way these mining operations play out, the influence they have, it does kind of feel like this centralized concentration of power well beyond that of, you know, what an average group of people using Bitcoins can get. You know, he went on to talk about how what Bitcoin has become is a type of socialist paradise, mythological ideology about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. His idea, or what he, what he seemed to be saying Satoshi was trying to say, it was supposed to be about competition on levels to generate money. Unlike, you know, what some may believe about Bitcoin and these ideology of freedom and various things like that. But getting back to my earlier point, as a realist, I think whether he's telling the truth or he's lying about it, we have seen what the concentration of this power can do. And I don't think from a realistic standpoint it's made me feel that idea of like Bitcoin is totally decentralized and that is bringing freedom to people. You know, on the contrary, since recent times here, just struck a lot of fear in many people, and people have lost a great deal of money, um, and, uh, it just doesn't give you that comfort feeling of that idea that many of us push Bitcoin to be. Um, and so, uh, you know, if that's the truth, that's interesting how to think about Bitcoin. You know, in that case, I would think that forks would be necessary for some because I would imagine what would happen is the people who do want Bitcoin to be the idea of what we've built it up to be, um, you know, they would probably still want that type of Bitcoin. And the only way they'd probably be able to get it is creating another Bitcoin, a Bitcoin fork or something to that degree. Um, and, uh, you know, like with us, like, uh, my personal operation here, I created BitcoinMYK And that's because, you know, I felt that how we're handling the cryptocurrency space can be done much easier, right? How we're, um, you know, uh, trying to adopt crypto over the last 10 years just isn't been as effective to me as I thought it should have been. And it just almost seems, you know, don't want to become a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like there have been direct sabotaging of the growth of Bitcoin for whatever reason. We can get into a million reasons why some think that is, but it, to me, I have a feel for that. And I talk about why Bitcoin NYK makes more sense by providing easy gateway into use of social media, which people are addicted to, and entertainment, which people need, and introducing people into cryptocurrency that way, this very simplified understanding of how they can see value, because, uh, many people understand now how Facebook got such a high valuation, right? It's not argued anymore. I remember when they first IPO'd and everybody was saying, this is ridiculous, this a social network, there's no way it should be valued this high, hundreds of billions of dollars. But now people don't struggle with that so much, do they? And I think that's because they do see through the operation of Facebook and their need to use it every day. I think they do understand and see value. Why wouldn't you adopt a cryptocurrency that way? Why do all this complicated— you hold your wallet here and then you got all these big mining operations mining all the Bitcoin and dumping the Bitcoin or buying more of the Bitcoin. And another idea about decentralization that generally comes to mind or when I think of it working in a proper decentralized way is the idea that the concentration of power and money in that particular coin is spread out better, right? Whereas you have it in a lot of people's hands across the network, right? And it's distributed, it's out so well and distributed that even if you did have conglomerates and entities and syndicates or mining pools or whatever you want to call it, want to dump on the public, it would be so decentralized, the effects of that wouldn't be as dramatic. So to me, that's why BitcoinNYK, uh, in my mind anyway, makes way more sense than Bitcoin and many of these other cryptocurrencies, with the exception of the social media type based ones. And then of course their problem is many of them don't market Many of them, uh, don't have a, uh, crypto-to-fiat gateway, which means they're going to have difficulty getting money. That means people will have to go through Bitcoin to get money into that space. So many things to look at there. Um, tell me all what you think in the comment section. Is it a false narrative that Bitcoin is decentralized or was ever meant to be? Um, moving on from that to a recent set of theories. It just seems like I'm playing conspiracy theorist here quite a bit today, something I don't like to do. Never been much of a conspiracy theorist myself. I like to deal with realistic, uh, information, uh, you know, that's plausible and things that, uh, I, you know, you can make clear-cut determinations for yourself on. Instead of endless conspiracy theories. But this isn't really a conspiracy theory. This is why many believe Bitcoin's floor or bottom is $800. And of course, if Bitcoin goes to $800, that's going to devastate a lot of people. But according to a lot of these viewpoints on the case for the $800 Bitcoin, it, you know, makes more sense. Is that— excuse me, just excuse me one second, guys. I got a person at the gate here. One second. Sorry about that, guys. I'm back. Um, but to describe the case for the $800 Bitcoin. What happens is they go to the area of the best use cases of Bitcoin and when Bitcoin operated at its, um, when, when Bitcoin, um, I'm sorry, guys, again, operated at its most efficient way. And that's to give some examples, that's primarily dealing with countries that, um, were either dealing with some type of hyperinflation or people in certain countries trying to get their money out where they would use Bitcoin for that. In the case of which, some would determine that a type of, um, money laundering, but maybe not a negative one as some countries would restrict people from leaving the country or getting their money out the country. Right. And so I guess you can kind of say that might've been one of the, if it's ever such thing as a good case or reason of money laundering or kind of a, a, a more accepted way to money launder, you know, You're not, you know, laundering for terrorism or anything like that. You maybe you're in a, um, in an oppressive country and you're just trying to get your money out. People, a lot of people are using Bitcoin for that, right? And so these are all like cases where people needed to use Bitcoin, right? This is before the subsidies in China for miners and those various things when price went up from there. It was around $800, and that seemed to be a kind of stable place it functioned at. And many people believe Bitcoin is going to reach that level and reach a more, uh, more accurate true value to where it functions best at. And that's why some feel they'll get that $800 floor on Bitcoin. Um, And now, you know, again, I think going back to just like if it's true that Bitcoin wasn't meant to be decentralized, or if it's true that it will function better at a bottom or to hit its bottom at $800, and that's when you're going to have the, uh, you know, a more better use for Bitcoin in that price range. Um, you know, again, people don't agree with those ideas or a coin that is better in that area, they have the ability to create some other version of that token, or, or, you know, like in the case that we mentioned earlier, forks, or they have, you know, the choice to use a completely different coin outside of Bitcoin. But I think what does have to be considered at this point is that, you know, if those— are those things true? And what's the evidence for them? Well, the evidence for them, I guess, is where the price of Bitcoin is now. And, and, you know, looking back into its past, verifying if that data and that information lines up with the case for $800 Bitcoin bottom. So found out that very interesting, guys. Um, something to think about exactly, you know, uh, or, or some, you know, we should think about. And, and if, uh, we, we will see a Bitcoin as low as $800. So, um, we will see. Uh, give me your comments in the comment sections if you think any of this information is true or, or valid. Guys, if you like content like this, don't forget to like, subscribe, and until next time, take care.