Bitcoins are produced when the content of the "block" of transactions combined with another number produces a sufficiently small SHA-256 hash value.
I have no idea about the energy independence of this, but his actual words were "energy dominant." I don't know what that means, either, but basically he's betting that BTC will increase in value, thus benefitting America/Americans. In the event of a stratospherically high value increase, that would be a huge win for the US.
A counterargument is that Bitcoin could be disruptive enough that it would undermine or jeopardize American monetary or financial interests (e.g. reserve currency status).
Why do you presume I am voting for this person? I am not claiming to support (Woah! Support, understand, under stand, to stand under. Look, I'm a free choice of word salad!) this guy or what he says.
Thank you for the link to his Truth Social post from five years ago. It looks like he's learned a lot in the past five years. I'm still waiting for his explanation on "energy dominan[ce]." It's probably laughable, but I'm listening.
The title of this post is a direct quote. I think that is the best way to post links to social media posts.
I'm sick of screenshots with post titles that misrepresent or distort the entire meaning of what's there. I've decided that when I see it happen, I may choose to post a proper link to the material if it is related to an actual conspiracy. This one, in my view, does relate to the conspiracy among people like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and others to suppress Bitcoin. Evidence of this conspiracy can be found in the sockpuppet posts on this very forum.
Who you want people to vote for is the very least of my concerns.
Bitcoins are produced when the content of the "block" of transactions combined with another number produces a sufficiently small SHA-256 hash value.
I have no idea about the energy independence of this, but his actual words were "energy dominant." I don't know what that means, either, but basically he's betting that BTC will increase in value, thus benefitting America/Americans. In the event of a stratospherically high value increase, that would be a huge win for the US.
A counterargument is that Bitcoin could be disruptive enough that it would undermine or jeopardize American monetary or financial interests (e.g. reserve currency status).
So you have no idea what he means but it is a reason for you to parrot his words and vote for him.
Kek
Why do you presume I am voting for this person? I am not claiming to support (Woah! Support, understand, under stand, to stand under. Look, I'm a free choice of word salad!) this guy or what he says.
Thank you for the link to his Truth Social post from five years ago. It looks like he's learned a lot in the past five years. I'm still waiting for his explanation on "energy dominan[ce]." It's probably laughable, but I'm listening.
Literally the first three words of your thread title.
The title of this post is a direct quote. I think that is the best way to post links to social media posts.
I'm sick of screenshots with post titles that misrepresent or distort the entire meaning of what's there. I've decided that when I see it happen, I may choose to post a proper link to the material if it is related to an actual conspiracy. This one, in my view, does relate to the conspiracy among people like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and others to suppress Bitcoin. Evidence of this conspiracy can be found in the sockpuppet posts on this very forum.
Who you want people to vote for is the very least of my concerns.