Over the course of 3 years
@tecate has pointed to the lightning network roughly 60 times as the solution to scaling issues. The mention of LN delivery is often to reject criticism tabled, and support the case for BTC. However, by Tecates own admission it is only as of June 2021 that the LN is beginning to "make some impact".
Fact Check: I referred to LN on an ongoing basis and over most of that time, I referred to it being in development. I didn't say that it
was a solution to scaling - I referred to it repeatedly as having potential to resolve the issues of excessive transaction cost, excessive transaction time and restricted transaction through-put. Despite the potential that I believed it had/has, throughout those years, I acknowledged that bitcoin had limitations with regard to its use as a medium of exchange.
The motivation of El Salvador - and its plans surrounding bitcoin center entirely around the use of lightning network. It's still early days - LN is still in development - and I expect that there are and there will be technological challenges and difficulties it has to overcome yet. However, the view I expressed early on - when nobody else ever mentioned LN or layer 2 solutions - has been vindicated. I'm not just talking about LN but the use of layer 2 solutions generally - across the sector.
On the other hand, we've had one of the 'approved media' that you direct people towards over and above all other sources - outline recently that the use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange is farcical because of scaling issues - completely ignoring LN. We've had other naysayers do exactly the same here - including you. You're so diligent in pointing out my reference to the LN (even if there's literally nothing related to me and my input here you can possibly present in a factually correct manner ). Lets talk of your own lack of knowledge on the subject. Had you spent two minutes investigating the El Salvador project you would have known that LN is central to it. You didn't because you had no clue.
In those three years we have seen BTC rise from $18,000 to $60,000 without Lightning Network. Thus, BTC price movements can and have moved independently to enhancements of the underlying network.
I was here during the depths of the 2018 bear market. There was practically no other folk positive about bitcoin/crypto knocking around back then ( there were a few that preceded me - but they'd long since been chased off ). I saw with my own two eyes what was happening in terms of real development in the space - and I posted on that basis. These are the posts that you claimed to be rhetoric when you dropped-by much, much later. They were real life examples of tangible development. Now they're coming so fast that its practically impossible to keep up with what's going on in the space. People that I pay heed to in this space - who I could only dream of having a fraction of their knowledge - have said themselves - pick certain projects and know them. Even they can't possibly keep on top of what's being developed.
The price during that bear market had no correlation to fundamentally sound developments that were going on back then - just like someone sneezing on twitter is over-exaggerated to the upside in this and previous bull markets.
LN has taken an age to develop and it's far from finished (even though it is in effect a live and workable solution that is being used this very day). If you're saying that it's not 'priced-in', that may very well be. That in no way surprises me given its only starting to show its promise right now.
In my investment analysis thread, I suggest that to make an investment decision on Bitcoin an investor does not to put much emphasis on future enhancements. What I mean and will clarify is that an investor should not base their decision on information / price predictions based on potential future enhancements of BTC that are guaranteed.
You're free to use whatever parameters you want for your thread. I have no intention or desire to stand in your way. However, I do have an opinion and I'm free to express it should I choose to do so. Over the course of the 3-4 years that you referred to above, time and time again I listened to the argument that bitcoin doesn't do jack - it's been around for donkeys years - ergo...I'm calling it as bs and a waste of time. You and anyone else are entitled to take that view - entirely up to yourself. However, I believe it to be completely wayward with regard to the innovation that's in front of us. The point that you make with regard to LN completely underscores my own point. Development within the space as a whole - validates my view. Whilst you have repeatedly reminded us of your expertise in this area, I have repeatedly pointed out that I have none. However of the little that I do know, I respect people that do detailed analysis as macro investors. I respect their thesis - which is that anticipating how this is all going to unfold is incredibly powerful from an investment viewpoint should someone get it right.
Seeing as we're having a look at what I've posted going back years, another line item for you is that I have always maintained that every individual is responsible for their own choices and arriving at their own conclusions. That's first and foremost. Secondly, over the course of those years, anything I've posted here has been my opinion - and solely my opinion. It wasn't advice. In the few instances where we got close to that line, I repeatedly made the case for the existence of merit in taking a btc position of no more than a few percent of an overall portfolio. NO-ONE from the naysayer or (alleged) neutral side of the fence agreed with me on that point.
