How many of you keep a portion of your bitcoin with a custodian (I know that’s not MY Bitcoin) to hedge against doing something idiotic with self custody because you don’t 100 percent trust yourself not be a dumbass? I do. I think I always will. I run a node, I hold majority in self custody, but I feel better holding some with a custodian too. Thoughts? Concerns? Comments? Insults?
Pretty Wild right? I love having convos with Chat GPT.
So I am running bitcoin core and looks like my chain is up to date.. so I literally have a copy of the entire history of bitcoin? So if every other node disappeared except mine, the network would in theory be ok?
ChatGPT said:
Yep, that's exactly right! Since you're running Bitcoin Core and your chain is fully synced, you have a complete copy of every transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network. That means if every other node in the world disappeared except yours, the network could, in theory, be rebuilt from your copy.
Of course, for Bitcoin to function, you'd need other nodes to eventually come back online and miners to produce new blocks. But your node would still contain the entire, verified history of Bitcoin, ensuring that the true state of the blockchain isn't lost.
Pretty wild, right? You're literally holding a complete, decentralized financial history on your machine.
Explain the fallacy between comparing inflation and high interest rates now compared to the 70's highlighting the 37 trillion dollars worth of debt we have. Relate it to one person as if that was the economy and dumb it down so a 14 year old could undertand
ChatGPT said:
Alright, let’s break this down in a way that even a 14-year-old can understand.
The 1970s vs. Today: Why It’s Different
A lot of people compare today’s inflation and high interest rates to the 1970s, but that’s a bad comparison. The biggest reason? Debt.
Back in the 70s, the U.S. government had way less debt. Today, we have $37 trillion in debt, which changes everything.
Imagine This as a Person
Let’s say the U.S. economy is like a guy named Joe who has a job and pays his bills.
Joe in the 1970s
He has a little bit of credit card debt but nothing crazy.
When prices go up (inflation), it’s annoying, but he can deal with it.
If interest rates go up, his credit card payments go up a bit, but it's manageable.
Joe Today (2024)
Joe is now $37 TRILLION in debt! (Imagine 37 maxed-out credit cards.)
Now, when interest rates go up, he's drowning because his monthly debt payments skyrocket.
Even if Joe gets a raise (the economy grows), most of his money just goes toward paying off the interest on his debt instead of improving his life.
The Big Problem
In the 70s, raising interest rates helped slow down inflation, and the country could handle it. Today, raising interest rates means we have to pay insane amounts just to cover our debt—before we even think about spending money on anything else.
So, saying “we survived high interest rates in the 70s, so we’ll be fine now” ignores how much worse our debt situation is today. It’s like saying, “I used to carry a 10-pound backpack, so carrying a 1,000-pound backpack should be no problem.”
The U.S. government is Joe—except instead of just ruining his own life, he’s dragging the whole country down with him.
You said:
The difference being that Joe doesn't have a cash machine in his basement to counterfeit money.. he can only make more money or default. The US can introduce more currency units whenever it wants. In your opinion, does that mean we have to introduce more money in some round about way (qe or something like it), otherwise we risk falling into a debt spiral and the whole system collapse? And if that is true, doesn't that mean inflation HAS TO STAY AND GET WORSE OVER TIME?
ChatGPT said:
Exactly. Joe (the regular person) has to either make more money, cut spending, or default on his debt. But the U.S. government has a cheat code—it can print more money.
Do We Have to Print More Money to Avoid Collapse?
Pretty much. If the government doesn't introduce more money in some roundabout way (like QE or lower interest rates), then:
Debt payments keep growing → More tax revenue would have to go toward just paying interest.
The economy slows down → Businesses struggle, people lose jobs, tax revenue drops.
Debt spiral begins → More borrowing is needed just to pay off old debt.
If this spiral goes too far without intervention, the system could collapse, meaning mass defaults, government spending cuts (Social Security, military, etc.), and a financial crisis. To prevent that, the government is almost guaranteed to print more money in some form.
Does That Mean Inflation Has to Stay and Get Worse?
Yes—over the long term, inflation has to stay and probably get worse.
If they print more money, each dollar is worth less (inflation).
If they raise rates to fight inflation, debt payments get unbearable, forcing them to print money anyway.
This is why comparing today to the 70s is flawed. Back then, we could raise rates to fight inflation without worrying about a $37 trillion debt bomb. Now, we’re trapped. The government will always need some level of inflation to make debt easier to pay off in the future (because they can repay it with "cheaper" dollars).
The Endgame
The U.S. will likely:
Keep inflation running higher than they admit.
Find sneaky ways to inject more money (QE, stimulus, bailouts, etc.).
Keep people distracted from realizing their savings and wages are losing value.
This is why assets like Bitcoin, gold, and real estate are so appealing. They hold value while the dollar slowly burns. The only question is how fast the fire spreads
AI Art. What do you feel?
