Oh nah, it just always happens to be an “event” conveniently at the time the behavior shows up. But I honestly don’t put much stock in some particular thing actually causing a big move rather than it being a catalyst for natural pressures going one way or the other. There are exceptions of course, but mostly I think Bitcoin does what it does.

The general political instability snd the wars are always a wild card tho.

lol I don’t have PTSD about it, it’s just what Bitcoin has done for the 15 years I’ve been here. It’s quite entertaining actually 😂

I’m looking for another sharp leg down, that sets a higher RSI on a long chart like the weekly.

It certainly doesn’t have to do that, but it does often enough that I usually am waiting to see it. Used to happen on the daily chart but we’re in the “those things happen on the weekly now” era.

There should be all the basic incentives of the market.

• Want someone to store your stuff to always be available? Pay them some sats
• Want to store some of your recent stuff on your friends setup? Share a portion of your storage with him.
• Want to have your content publicly available to your audience? They can be the host for you, your listeners become your seeders.

The incentives of the internet are already aligned economically, they just aren’t aligned when it comes to content worship and control. Fix the latter and add decentralized frictionless money to the former, and I think this problem is conceptually simpler than most make it out to be.

There’s no reason for a “distributed decentralized file storage network” where you are storing other people’s files for them. I think this is another major problem people conceptually have with the idea of P2P, there’s nothing wrong with servers if the server doesn’t own or control the content. They just become arbitrary seeders. Pay them if you need them, otherwise don’t. But they don’t need to be some huge, novel, complicated network architecture, they just need to be basic servers that have essentially *zero* barrier to entry. Want to be a seeder, then join someone’s collection/space and download the files. If they want to pay you to do it privately, they send you a blinded key to do the same thing without visibility.

Otherwise you just have your own files on your own devices. The much bigger and more simple problem, is that getting files from one device to another is a pain in the ass and it shouldn’t be. It should be easy, and importantly it should be *fun to do.* if you solve the UX problem of getting your devices to talk, and solve the huge barriers to being a “provider,” you just don’t need a huge distributed consensus network of data.

The internet is already our decentralized storage layer. The UX for the file sharing parts of it just blows dick.

Sun thing is what you get when you lay out a 10 step plan to make P2P file sharing and distribution fun and workable for the whole world, and then you stop at step 0.7 and say “I think this is good.”

It works, but 99.9% of the people I know will never be using it.

lol, banned immediately

Not killed, just past its time. It’s still “old trusty” BitTorrent, but it’s a tiny percent of its peak era.

I think they made 2 critical and fundamental errors:
• There is zero need to create a token for storage. For the exact same way we don’t have “car tokens” to buy cars. It defeats the purpose of money if you need new money for every use case, money is the universal weighing system that only works because it’s used to weight everything in the economic network, if you have separate money for separate industries or products, it only means it doesn’t work as money. (Imagine we used kilograms for weighing trucks and pounds for weighing gas, but the pounds changed based on how much gas you produced today and the kilogram weight changes based on how many trucks are on the road. Now weigh a truck and subtract its kilograms to get how much gas it’s carrying, if you think that sounds like a ridiculous problem, using separate monies for every food is actually worse than that)
• File storage did not need global consensus. In fact we don’t *want* global consenus, we want segmentation, control, and privacy. That means a blockchain is antithetical to our purposes, not beneficial.

Put these two problems together and the outcome of Storj and Filecoin only had one logical path. And it seems to have played out as expected.