Dan Held

speaker

605 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Jul 2026 last heard 13 Jul

Dan Held’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

Recordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Bankless · Is Bitcoin Going According to Plan? Gold, Saylor, Satoshi | Dan Held · 13 Jul 2026 podcast

Thinking of proof of stake protocol, that'd be very worrisome.

And a proof of work protocol, it's a little less worrisome.

Granted, with someone with that much capital, they could also buy a lot of miners.

But, you know, proof of work basically functions.

You have all this CapEx, you buy these machines, and the only thing these machines can do is print money, which is Bitcoin.

So if you buy too many of them and then people perceive the network as being centralized, and then you act in a bad manner, like doing 51% attacks, you would essentially destroy the machines that print the money and you've already spent upfront capital.

Proof of work is provably burning capital to purchase machines upfront.

And so anyways, even if they had a concentration of the miners, they would have to be willing to burn the money and be willing to destroy all of their invested capital

if they wanted to manipulate the network in their favor.

Yeah.

I mean, first, I'm actually quite surprised that China and other like Russia and China didn't try to buy as much Bitcoin as they could.

I mean, Russia right now is dealing with the consequences of that.

With the Ukraine war, they've had a lot of their assets frozen.

So the fact that they didn't perceive Bitcoin as kind of a safe store of value is quite bizarre, especially with how fluid they could pay their partners with it.

I'm not exactly sure why adoption didn't occur there.

Granted, you know, Bitcoin is pseudonymous, so we don't know exactly how much the Russian government could own and they could make a very concentrated effort to keep it semi-private-ish and just, you know, have it in a bunch of different wallets and distribute it in a way where we wouldn't know true ownership.

But yeah, I mean, for me, Bitcoin is a critically neutral asset.

There is a potential negative merit of being associated with both the United States and a certain party.

I think the party is more troublesome than the United States being associated with it.

The United States has the largest gold reserves in the world, so much so that it's larger than I believe.

Showing 181–200 of 605 · page 10 of 31