Justin Drake

What you do is you short 100,000 BTC that locks in your profit of 100,000 BTC.

And then no matter what the price of Bitcoin does, it goes up or down, you've locked in your profit, which could be tens of billions of dollars.

Just to be clear, my prediction around the burn winning out is a prediction of what I think is most likely.

It's not what I would do if I would actually just not touch Bitcoin and embrace the property rights.

Just because I have...

I don't have this short time preference.

And I think many Bitcoiners will agree with me.

But unfortunately, Michael Saylor has such a strong influence that in some sense, Bitcoin has been centralized at the social layer.

And that comes with great power and great responsibility.

One advantage that Ethereum has is that there isn't the 5% of supply controlled by one person, Satoshi, which is kind of thought to be lost.

The other advantage in some sense is that Ethereum is less vulnerable

old and it had a price from day one.

So there was a reason to take care of your ether from the very beginning.

Whereas in the early days of Bitcoin, it was just monopoly money and people just didn't really have very good hygiene with their private keys.

And so it's much more likely that the 1.7 that Nick Carter was talking about are actually truly, truly lost.

Now, when I was with the ultrasound project, one of the things that we were trying to do is calculate the amount of known loss coins so that we could add it to the dashboard in addition to the burn.

And it was just such a negligible amount that we didn't even bother doing it.

Yes, very good point.

So that was like the number one item in the list.

But it so happens that this is a brick small contract, which is not vulnerable to quantum computers.