刘教链 · 860

Liu Jiaochain｜The starting point of the 80,000 dollar bull market? The second half of the year is the decisive battle: the ultimate battle between the four-year cycle and the power law model

1. BTC returned to the 80,000 dollar market and once again stood at the 80,000 US dollar mark. According to Bitstamp data, BTC reached a maximum of over 80,500 US dollars [2]. Some are shouting back the cow, and others are waiting for confirmation. Cointelegraph's analysis indicates that the cost base for short-term holders is $81,486 [1]. Only when the daily revenue is stable above 81,500 US dollars will those who have entered the market in the last five months count as a group release. Only after taking this step can 80,000 US dollars change from resistance to support. However, the teaching chain feels that although these short-term signals are lively, they are not really something worth paying attention to. What really makes people think carefully and is the ultimate dark battle that is about to come in the second half of 2026. 2. At least one of the two sets of coordinate systems will die in the second half of 2026 to break out of short-term fluctuations and lengthen the line of sight, and we will find that the two completely different coordinate systems are violently colliding. One set is the four-year cycle theory. It doesn't have the fancy of technical analysis; it's just a time indicator. However, this simple theory withstood questions from institutional bulls in 2021 and ETF bulls in 2025. I shouted twice and got punched in the face twice. The peak of the bull market is at the end of the bull market, and the bottom of the bear market is at the end of the bear market. According to this rhythm, 2026 is a bear market year, and the real bottom is still at the end of the year. Some analysts even think that the bottom price may point to the 40,000 to 50,000 US dollar range. The other set is the power law model. Since it was invented in 2019, its upper rail and middle rail failed one after another in 2021 and 2025. The price did not reach the upper track, nor did it effectively cross the middle track. However, its low track, as the ultimate absolute support line at the bottom of the bear market, has not been broken through yet. The deepest position in every round of the bear market only hit a low trajectory and never fell below the close. The teaching chain disassembled this low-track trend in detail in an April 21 article. Based on its upward movement rate, it is estimated that it will rise to about 60,000 US dollars in July 2026, and further rise to 70,000 US dollars by the end of 2026. The February pullback has already been verified at $60,000. If the low power law remains in effect, then the 60,000 US dollar mark in February was the final bottom of the current bear market. The depth of the bear market was locked at -52.3%, far less than the historical level of -75% to -85%. The two sets of theories give diametrically opposite conclusions. One is 40,000 to 50,000 US dollars, and the other is 60,000 to 70,000 US dollars. One is the precise pendulum of the rhythm of time, and the other is the final position of the technical model. This isn't a gentle disagreement at all; it's a duel between your death and your life. 3. Why the four-year cycle is awesome: Changes in the Bitcoin market structure and cyclical challenges Some people may say that the four-year cycle is just a matter of searching for a sword. The halving effect is diminishing, institutions enter the market, and the macro environment has changed. Why should we stick to the old yellow calendar? The teaching chain feels that this kind of question is reasonable, but what is really awesome about the four-year cycle is its simplicity. Complex technical models often fail first. This is illustrated by the failure of almost all so-called escape indicators, including the failure of the power law to move upwards. why? This is because prices in the late bull market are driven by sentiment and liquidity, not determined by valuation models or historical data fitting. But the four-year cycle is different. It doesn't predict price, only time. Prices can break through any technical channel, but the number of days required for humans to go from greed to fear, and from despair to hope is roughly fixed. This cycle is called Combo in the macroeconomy and halved in four years in the crypto market. Halving is a supply shock and an anchor in the psychological cycle. It takes time for people to complete a complete emotional cycle, and this emotional cycle is firmly trapped by the anchor effect of halving production — it can be described as Satoshi Nakamoto's greatest conspiracy. In 2021, many people say that institutional cows will break the cycle. The top of the results is at the end of the year and the bottom is also at the end of the year In 2025, many people say ETF bulls will break the cycle. The top of the results is at the end of the year. Now it's time to test the bottom of the bear market. The four-year cycle says: The bottom of the bear market is at the end of the bear market. We'll know by 2026. Time is the fairest judge and the most ruthless hunter. 4. Why is the low power law extremely fearful on the other side? The horror of low power law lies not only in the simplicity and beauty of its formula, but also in its invincible record. Can a four-year cycle be falsified? Of course you can. If the price does not bottom out at the end of 2026, or the bottom position is much higher than $70,000, the cycle theory should be re-examined. But until then, it was still accurate in both directions, top and bottom. The low power law is individually accurate. It doesn't predict the top; it only predicts the bottom. The high rail and middle rail have failed, but the low track has never failed. At the deepest point of every round of the bear market, the price was steadily caught by the low trajectory and then rebounded. In the second half of 2026, when the low track rises to 60,000 US dollars...

108d agoWendy#Liu Jiaolian #4-year cycle #Bitcoin #Bull market #Market topics

How to make money in the crypto market avoid KOL traffic traps

Author: Wiseman's Notes Original title: Want to make money in the crypto market? Don't be a KOL. Let's just write a few off-topic comments today. By the way, I'd like to thank the big V in the community for the recent retweet. I personally have an X account, but I have no plans to seriously operate on X. It wasn't a whim decision; it was a weighed choice over and over. Today's article starts here, and then we get to the point. I've also been working on this self-media for a number of years. My readership is mostly old friends who have been through a few bulls and bears together, and most of the fans I follow have also watched my content for many years, so I'm not going back and forth and talking about some serious things. Why don't I go to run X To explain this problem, I must first talk about the monetization logic of Web3 KOL. From the perspective of individual KOLs, it's actually very difficult to “rely only on the content itself” to monetize. As far as I know and see so far, there are probably very few people like Liu Jiaochain who can survive by paying for pure content. In my eyes, this circle can be roughly divided into two categories of people: coin trading users, Web3 users, and the first type of coin trading users. They don't pay for “content”; they only pay for “traffic.” A typical example is to post a yield of a few hundred points on X or Square, then teach you how to fry. I don't think of this type as paying for content; essentially, they use yield screenshots to attract traffic, then convert and harvest. The second category is Web3 users. They may be practitioners or entrepreneurs, or people who really have a complete idea about Web3 and are willing to think deeply. This type of user does pay for quality content, but a very small percentage. Excluding all types of transactions from the entire coin market, I subjectively estimate that this group of people may be less than 20%. More importantly, this type of person has one characteristic in common — they think for themselves. The more someone who thinks for themselves, the harder it is for you to use simple marketing rhetoric to lure him out of money. This is far more difficult than “fooling a bunch of people who just want to trade coins into a paid group.” Therefore, if you want to “monetize content” for X's large market traffic, it's not very appealing to me. KOL's most common monetization method: In addition to paying for the content itself, KOL's most common monetization method now is all kinds of promotion. From single promotions and promotions to so-called KOL agency joint promotions, they are essentially serving Party A. In the vast majority of industries, this business logic makes sense and is legal. But this is the coin circle—a place where “fraud” can be packaged into a “story.” I personally don't want to take on too many uncertain legal and moral risks for money, let alone end up in “exile in a foreign country” because of a few promotions. So over the years, I haven't participated in this kind of promotion at all. To put it more realistically, this type of promotion is not a steady profit without compensation; the probability of falling on lightning and losing money is not small. What's more, today's Web3 KOL has been completely industrialized. Several MCN organizations are already mass-producing Web3 KOLs: they distribute content in batches from X, Xiaohongshu, and Douyin, collect people to private domains and then convert them uniformly — some sell courses, others take orders with rebates, and others directly induce coin purchases. And my self-media doesn't have any of these actions, so I don't consider myself a “KOL.” I'm more like a self-media writer who writes about experiences in a circle and occasionally shares my opinions, but that's all. Over the past two years, my main focus has actually been on “incubation and services related to industry and research.” Let's talk about some personal experiences in this area, which are very subjective and probably completely different from your understanding. If you don't agree, that's normal, because everyone takes a different path in the first place. Experience 1: Use “reverse thinking” to make money. I'm considered half a product manager. In the process of work and cooperation, I see a very common pattern: “I have a good idea → turn the idea into a product or service → then find users, sell it, and do it on a large scale.” If you look at it from a “product methodology” perspective, of course this is something to talk about. But if you only look at it from the perspective of “making money,” I prefer to think in reverse: first think clearly: Whose money do I want to make? → Then design products and services around these “people who are willing to pay” instead of making things first and then looking for users everywhere. Among the projects I've collaborated on, there are those that smash pots and others that make money. I did an RWA related business with a team last year, and their logic was very clear: they already had clear buyers. Buyers needed a compliant and legal RWA plan, so they deduced in reverse: an RWA project was needed to meet this batch of “existing needs”, which is a standard “first...

277d agoburnking#KOL #crypto market

MicroStrategy founder: The way to destroy BTC is to improve it

Recently, undercurrent surged beneath the calm and quiet surface. The Bitcoin community is debating whether to ease OP_RETURN's restrictions on carrying data. The developers of the current mainstream Core version have decided to relax the restrictions in the latest version, mark the relevant parameters as planned to be scrapped and removed in future versions — this will completely eliminate the power of ordinary users (users who cannot modify and compile the code themselves) to freely decide to limit this parameter. The teaching chain has also written several articles introducing this issue. For example, 2025.5.8 article [“OP_RETURN: One of the most serious BTC disputes”], 2025.6.8 article [“Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Forwarding Strategy”], 2025.6.10 article [“Be alert! Bitcoin Core has merged PR #32406》], 2025.6.11 article [“Don't fool yourself”], 2025.6.16 article [“Knots Reach Top 3”], 2025.9/11 article [“Poisoning the Bitcoin Block”], and several related internal references. Recently, Michael Saylor (Michael Saylor), the founder and CEO of Strategy (Strategy), the largest BTC treasury company and the largest institutional coin hoarder in BTC, discussed this issue in a conversation video and gave his views in a very thorough manner. The following is a quote from Teach Link directly to Mike Saylor, who listened to and translated the original video, to share with readers and friends: (There may be errors and omissions due to the limitations of blind listening in English) “Well, I think the agreement (improvement) proposal, no matter how good the motives are, can cause terrible mistakes.” “I think the recent debate about OP_RETURN is probably level 2, and maybe even level 3 changes...” “This is not a change to BTC level 0, nor a level 1 change like changing the block size...” “This is somewhere between level 2.5 and level 3.” “But the community's reaction, the resistance to it, I think is a healthy response.” “It's healthy to be skeptical about the changes in Level 3 of the (Bitcoin) Protocol. Right?” “Because it's probably a level 3 change, or a level 2 change, level 1 change, putting everything at risk...” “The biggest danger is that a very talented, well-founded, well-motivated developer is trying to do something good — that's where the danger lies! Right?” “The fundamental problem is that a highly competent, well-founded, and well-motivated developer wants to upgrade the (Bitcoin) protocol; this is a risk.” “The risk is, I want to explain it from personal experience — in my long career, I've never regretted my bad ideas, because no one was stupid enough to go after those bad ideas...” “(But) I chased those good ideas for me (but) I'm sorry for (having) chased good ideas for me, which was harmful to (grasping) really great ideas.” “In fact, it was those good ideas that weakened the product, weakened the brand, weakened the network, and destroyed the business.” “Good ideas destroy businesses. (Laughter)” “Good ideas about Bitcoin will actually destroy Bitcoin. (Laughter)” “If I wanted to destroy Bitcoin, I would go to a steady stream of developers, very talented developers, and tell them to improve Bitcoin for the better.” What I feel when I listen to the teaching chain is that Mike Saylor still has a very accurate grasp of the core ideas and ideas that Satoshi Nakamoto said back then would be difficult to change easily once Bitcoin was introduced. As Satoshi Nakamoto originally said, “The essence of Bitcoin is that once version 0.1 is released, its core design will remain the same throughout its life cycle.” (Liu Jiaolin's “Bitcoin History” chapter 14, episode 68)...

336d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

The shelf life of digital assets

When I drive in the morning, I'm in a daze while driving. When I'm dazed, I let my mind fly. As a result, from driving to exchanging cars, the actual cost of buying a car should be far higher than the price paid when buying a car. Of course, the reason is the reverse application of the cash flow discount model for financial asset valuation. The cash flow discount model says that the money earned next year will be discounted to this year's value, and the money earned in later years will have to be discounted even more this year... the longer it takes, the lower the discounted value. As a result, we get a converged sequence of numbers. By summing this sequence of numbers, we get a finite number. This is the valuation of this asset. The opposite is true of consumer issues. Ten years ago, I spent 300,000 yuan to buy a car. If I had to change my car after ten years of driving, it would simply be equivalent to spending 30,000 yuan to buy a car every year. But the problem isn't as simple as it might seem. The actual purchasing power of 30,000 yuan ten years ago is probably already quite different from 30,000 yuan today. Assuming that the average statistical inflation rate for the past ten years is 5%, then this is equivalent to spending 30,000 yuan in the first year. In the second year, 3 * (1 + 5%) = 31,500 yuan was spent. In the third year, 3 * (1 + 5%) ^2 = 33,000 yuan was spent. I spent 3 * (1 + 5%) ^3 = 34,700 yuan in the fourth year... The tenth year spent 3 * (1 + 5%) ^10 = 48,900 yuan. As can be seen by substituting the equal-ratio equation, the total cost for ten years is: S10 = 3 * (1 - 1.05^10)/(1 - 1.05) = 377,300 yuan. This figure is smaller than another commonly used estimation method, which is a direct assessment of 300,000 yuan ten years ago equivalent to how much today. 30*1.05^10 = 488,700 yuan. The problem is that it doesn't make much practical sense to revalue 300,000 ten years ago. When there was a demand for cars ten years ago, it was bound to be impossible to invest money elsewhere to hedge against inflation and achieve the goal of adding value of 488,700 yuan ten years later. However, if this is an interest-free installment, compared to a one-time payment of 300,000 yuan, assuming that the car buyer can sign a ten-year payment contract, only pay 30,000 yuan a year, so there is no need to sell the anti-inflationary assets (such as BTC) in one go, but instead monetize a little every year to pay the installment, then it may eventually achieve a better financial result. It's important to note that there is one area that is very easy to misunderstand. What I'm talking about here is that car buyers have enough realizable assets, but for the purpose of financial planning, they deliberately don't make a one-time payment. These are two completely different operations; don't confuse this with many people who clearly have no money in their hands, but are forced to pay in installments or even take out a loan to buy a luxury car that exceeds their ability to pay. Installments are just a financial instrument. There are different uses, and the effects vary widely. It's like a kitchen knife. Some people use it to make a good dish, but others only cut off their fingers. In the example above, the core difference is that the former's assets are inflation-resistant and will outperform inflation over time; the latter can only be repaid by expected future wage income, yet their wage increases are often fricted by inflation. Statistics on the rate of inflation are not enough to reveal the truth. Perhaps we should look at the growth rate of social money in the broad sense of the word. Over the past 20 years, our broad monetary growth rate has basically been above 10% per year. By replacing 5% in the above formula with 10%, we can get another data: S10 (M2) = 3 * (1 - 1.1)/(1 - 1.1) = 4781,000 yuan. The direct assessment is 30 * 1.1 ^ 10 = 7781 million yuan. Nice guy. In other words, if you held an asset ten years ago to preserve and add value (such as real estate), if today's market price is no 1.6 times higher than ten years ago, it's all considered a loss-making transaction. This means that a house bought for 10 million dollars ten years ago is considered a loss if it is not sold for 26 million today. And if you open your eyes and take a look, it looks like housing prices have returned to the level they were ten years ago? Also, take a look at the BTC price in September 2015. It was about less than $250. Today it's $111,000. A 443-fold increase. The compound annualized growth rate is 84%, far exceeding the broad monetary growth rate of 10%. So I thought more about shelf life. We usually learn that one of the most important abilities of money, as a store of value, compared to other commodities, is that it is not perishable. (And the currency is super...

351d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

Hal Finney (Hal Finney): The Man Behind Satoshi Nakamoto

Eleven years ago, on August 28, 2014, a cryptographer named Hal Finney (Hal Finney) passed away. The clock was set back 4 years ago. According to Liu Jiaolian's “Bitcoin History” chapter 2 episode 7: “On December 10 (2010), the IT magazine “PC World” (PC World) reported on the blockade of WikiLeaks and strongly introduced and promoted Bitcoin, a “peer-to-peer payment technology” that is still unknown to everyone. Bitcoin was dragged into the spotlight for a moment. On December 11, Satoshi Nakamoto left a message on the forum saying, “It's better to get this kind of attention in any other situation” and “WikiLeaks has stabbed a hornet's nest; a large hornet is flying over us.” Since then, Satoshi Nakamoto has disappeared from the public eye. (Satoshi Nakamoto's last public post was the 0.3.19 release notice on December 12.)” On May 4, 1956, Hal Finney was born in California, USA. Later, he majored in engineering at Caltech. In other words, he was only 58 years old when he died. And he's always been a marathon and even an ultramarathon enthusiast. And why did she die young? Because he was diagnosed with a rare disease in 2009, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), also known as fever. On October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto first appeared in the public eye. On that day, he posted a Bitcoin introduction email to the Cryptopunk mailing list and attached a Bitcoin white paper. On January 3, 2009, the Bitcoin mainnet was launched. The small ship bound for the New World set sail silently like this. On January 10, 2009, Hal Finney tweeted that “Bitcoin (node) is running”. On January 12, 2009, block height #170，中本聪给哈尔 · Finney initiated the first-ever BTC on-chain transfer. People on the same band feel sorry for each other. On this day, it is still 700 days until Satoshi Nakamoto was forced to retreat. In the same year, Hal Finney was diagnosed with fever, and the countdown to his life began. After 5 years and 7 months, Hal Finney suddenly passed away and left this world forever. The encounter with Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin made him spend the best time of over 5 years at the end of his life. Perhaps he will sincerely feel that this life will have no regrets. why? As a major cryptopunk member, Hal Finney worked in his early years on projects such as PGP, a well-known cryptography project, and an anonymous re-mailer. In 2004, he invented the “Reusable Proof of Work”. The title is “Proof-of-Work” in English. When Satoshi Nakamoto invented Bitcoin in 2008, he needed to introduce a technology to overcome the Byzantine Generals problem and the FLP impossible problem and achieve a decentralized consensus mechanism. In the end, Satoshi claims that he chose the Proof-of-Work (Proof-of-Work) algorithm in hashcash (hashcash) invented by cryptographer Adam Back (Adam Back). The first citation of the Bitcoin white paper, written by Satoshi Nakamoto himself, is Adam Beck's Hashed Cash Essay. The Bitcoin white paper doesn't cite any of Hal Finney's work. Instead, this led to wild speculation in the community that Hal Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto. Because he doesn't cite his own paper, it shows that Satoshi Nakamoto, Hal Finney, has an academic morality. This is quite the same as Satoshi Nakamoto's moral high standards, when he did not seek fame or fortune, and retreated with merit. However, research by community members indicates that Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto. (Refer to the 2023.10.22 text “Hal Finney is not Satoshi Nakamoto”) In any case, the person concerned has already gone west, or it can never be confirmed. Although Hal Finney is no longer around, his amazing songs will always resonate in the Bitcoin community, with lingering aftersounds. On January 11, 2009, when Hal Finney followed Satoshi Nakamoto in the Cryptopunk email group, he deduced that the price of a BTC could reach 10 million US dollars...

353d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

Implications of the clearance of ancient giant whales

The day before yesterday, Kyochain mentioned in Naisanri that an ancient giant whale from the Satoshi era (Satoshi era) cleared 80,000 pieces of flatbread (BTC). The incident was hailed by institutional trader Galaxy Digital as “one of the earliest and most important exits from the digital asset market.” So, what thoughts and enlightenment can we gain from this major withdrawal incident? First, let's review the basic facts: the BTC sold this time came from opening a position in early 2011. Actually, this was the post-Satoshi era (post-Satoshi era) rather than the Satoshi Nakamoto era, because Satoshi Nakamoto had already receded at this point. Let's take a look back at the 2025.7.4 article on Teaching Chain [“The Giant Whale Awakens”]. Specifically, the total amount of sell-off was about 8,0009 BTC, or about 9 billion US dollars. The sell-off window is 2025.7.16 to 2025.7.25. However, the impact of this sell-off incident on the market can be described as a small splash of water. The price of BTC only fell from 119k to 115k after reaching a new high, a drop of only about 3.5%, and recovered to 118k the day after clearance. What does this phenomenon mean? This means that within a few hours, the market absorbed approximately 4/1000 of the total supply of BTC without triggering any serial liquidations or chain collapse. It seems that the structure and resilience of the crypto market have quietly undergone drastic changes. As some netizens said, this almost sends a strong signal to the market, proving that BTC already has extremely deep, institutional-grade liquidity. This has greatly strengthened the market resilience and carrying capacity of BTC. You need to know that just a year ago, from the end of June to the beginning of July 2024, the German government cleared its holdings of about 50,000 BTC (49,858 pieces). The average sell-off price was 57.9k, making a profit of about 2.88 billion dollars. Teaching Chain 2024.7.24 article [“MT.gox has distributed more than 40,000 BTC, how much impact does it have on currency prices?”] This is described in. Notably, the time window for Texas's clearance is 2024.6.19 to 2024.7.13, at which point mt.gox has not yet begun distributing its BTC payouts. Basically, BTC dropped from a low of 66k to 53k during the German clearance period, a drop of nearly 20%. Even with subsequent Mt.Gox distribution payouts, BTC only hit a low of 49k in 2024.8.5. This was the last low price before BTC hit 100,000 dollars at the end of the year. In contrast, the 70,000 dollar BTC used a drop of more than 20% to absorb the selling pressure of 50,000 BTC, but now the 120,000 dollar BTC only needs a 3.5% drop to absorb the selling pressure of 80,000 BTC. In other words, a loss of less than $3 billion in blood could cause BTC to drop by more than 20%, but now $9 billion in blood loss has only caused BTC to drop slightly by 3.5% and recover as quickly as before. How incredible! You need to know that the higher the price of BTC, the greater the selling pressure generated by each BTC. A sell-off of 70,000 dollars of BTC requires 70,000 dollars from the market to accept; while a sale of a BTC of 120,000 dollars requires the market to provide 120,000 dollars to accept it. After just one year, BTC's liquidity depth and carrying capacity have taken such a huge leap forward? Another classic example that can be compared is the Luna/UST crash in May 2022, where Do Kwon, the trader behind UST, was forced to pour 80,000 BTC into the market. According to the “Liu Jiaochain Pro” 2022.5.11 article “UST Unanchors, the Magic of Algorithmic Stablecoins Reproduces”, “On May 10, with UST's drastic de-anchoring, Mr. Do Kwon sold assets other than flatbread and was unable to save them. In the end, he emptied more than 80,000 flatbreads he had emptied and saved the UST market.” This 80,000 BTC was stuck around the key test level of 30,000 dollars in the “512” crash in mid-2021, directly taking away the fantasy of a second rebound continuing to be bullish. A month later, BTC officially fell below the 30,000 dollar bull and bear watershed and declared that it had entered a deep bear. Although the overall decline of Deep Bear in 2022, that is, nearly 77% of the decline from 69k to 16k cannot be blamed on the Luna/UST crash, then even if the cliff-style decline from 30,000 to 20,000 dollars from May to June 2022 is recorded on it, then there was a 33% decline. More than 80,000 BTC was hastily destroyed. If calculated at 30,000 dollars, it was nothing more than 2.4 billion dollars in blood loss. This shows the structure of the BTC market in recent years...

387d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

How do Bitcoin Core descriptor wallets export private keys?

Last year's 2024.6.23 teaching chain article “Is it real or false? Bitcoin Core doesn't support importing private keys?》 This section explains how to import a BTC private key into Bitcoin Core's latest descriptor wallet (descriptor wallet) and related specific instructions. A friend asked some extended questions after reading it and made a brief addition to this article. Question 1: Does the descriptor wallet support importing BIP39 mnemonics? A: Not supported. Although descriptor wallets support BIP32 hierarchical deterministic wallets, they do not support BIP39 mnemonics. This is one of the reasons why in “Liu Jiaochain's Super Little White Course”, it is not recommended to use mnemonic words to create cold wallets to store BTC, but instead directly create and copy private keys. And even if it's a mnemonic, different software and hardware wallets may be implemented according to different specifications. As a result, the mnemonic words you created in the A software cannot be imported into the B software, or you get a completely different address after importing it, so you can't find the BTC you have stored. Question 2: How do I create a descriptor wallet that supports private keys? A: The latest version of Bitcoin Core won't automatically initialize your wallet. You'll need to use the command to create your own wallet. If the private key is disabled during creation, it will be created as a watch-only wallet (watch-only wallet), and the private key will not be disabled to create a standard wallet. The specific command is as follows: $ bitcoin-cli-named createwallet wallet_name="testwallet” descriptors=true disable_private_keys=false, please note that disable_private_keys=false is explicitly specified in the above command Private keys are not disabled. If you want more security, it's best to encrypt your wallet. $ bitcoin-cli-rpcwallet=testwallet encryptwallet “your local encryption password” Question 3: So, how do you export a private key describing an address in the wallet? A: Very easy! Just show the descriptor directly. Specific command: $ bitcoin-cli listdescriptors true {“wallet_name”: “testwallet”, “descriptors”: [{& nbsp; “desc”: “pkh (5kq2upqdz2wpfyct2mfxdgMd2mFXdgmqzttfPDMzm8ubximR76pymanUDM) #8rrz94h2 “, “timestamp& quot; :1753270055, “active”: false},... the result of the above command shows the 2024.6.23 teaching chain article “Is it true or false? Bitcoin Core doesn't support importing private keys?》 The private key descriptor imported in. As you can see, Bitcoin Core neither encrypts nor hides the descriptors you imported, but rather shows them in their entirety. Note the true parameter after the listdescriptors command, which indicates that the private key descriptor should be displayed. If you don't add this parameter, only the public key descriptor will be displayed, so you won't be able to see the private key. Once we see the private key descriptor, we can use 2024.6.23 to teach the chain...

394d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

The author who quoted the Satoshi Nakamoto white paper plans to sell 30,000 BTC

Just as BTC reached another record high, some ancient giant whales also changed and began to seek bulk shipments. According to several foreign industry media reports, Wall Street investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald plans to buy 30,000 BTC from Adam Back, founder of Blockstream. When it comes to both parties to this deal, they are all really quite small. First, let's talk about the acquirer, this agency called Cantor Fitzgerald. Brandon Lutnick, a 27-year-old young man, is at the helm. You've probably never heard of Brandon Lutnick's name, but his dad, you must have heard of it; that is the famous current US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. The seller, Adam Back, is a well-known name in the crypto industry. At the end of the BTC white paper published in 2008 by the inventor of BTC, Satoshi Nakamoto presented a total of 8 references. The sixth of these is Adam Back's 2002 paper on the HashCash algorithm. (See Liu Jiaolin's “Bitcoin History” Appendix B) However, the HashCash algorithm invented by Adam Back was “copied” and used in BTC mining by Satoshi Nakamoto as it was. This is the famous Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm. According to Liu Jiaolin's “Bitcoin History” chapter 8 section 10, Adam Back founded the Canadian blockchain company Blockstream in 2014. In fact, as early as July 4, in Education Chain's “Undercurrent Surges Behind High Prices and Low Volatility”, Education Chain paid attention to the trend of Adam Back's overseas shipments. In that issue, JiaoChain also took the opportunity to explain the shipping methods of large companies and compared them with the trading methods of high FDV and low liquidity altcoin traders. The operation of capital is like a miracle. Through covert operations outside of these markets, the real liquidity shock was covered up and transferred. But their energy won't die out, and sooner or later, in turn, impact the secondary market. The pricing formed on the market is a reflection of current liquidity, but it has become a price reference for future liquidity. The financial stuff is just so amazing. Everything seemed so fair and reasonable, but some people quietly made a profit, while others were quietly reaped. There is no direct causal relationship or correlation between profit and loss. For this major deal, the acquirer set up a special purpose company (SPAC) called Cantor Equity Partners 1, which is said to be renamed BSTR Holdings later. Adam Back, on the other hand, acquired SPAC shares through Blockstream Capital. By the time Adam Back actually makes money, it's still a long way to go...

400d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian

Is the USD stablecoin bill really a genius bill?

Recently, there was a major event in the crypto community. That is, the US Senate passed a procedural motion for the so-called US dollar stablecoin bill by 66 votes to 32, and entered the federal legislative stage. The full name of this bill is the “National Innovation Act to Guide and Establish a US Dollar Stablecoin”. The English acronym happens to be GENIUS (Genius), so it is nicknamed the “Genius Act.” There was a lot of discussion in the world financial community and financial circles for a while. Was this so-called genius bill the last struggle before the total collapse of the US dollar and US debt system, or was it a genius to resolve the US debt crisis and help upgrade the US dollar hegemony to version 3.0? As we all know, the original dollar was nothing more than a gold voucher. The United States relied on World War II to gain 1.0 hegemony over the US dollar. As part of the overall post-war world order, the gold dollar was fixed by systems and institutions such as the Bretton Woods system, the World Bank, and the International Monetary and Financial Organization. According to the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar and gold are linked at a fixed exchange rate, and the fiat currencies of other countries around the world are linked to the US dollar. (See Liu Jiaochain's “The History of Bitcoin”, chapter 10, verse 42) However, after only 25 years after the war, the US was unable to maintain the anchor of the dollar and gold. American economist Robert Triffin (Robert Triffin) discovered that for the US dollar to become an international currency, it is necessary for the US to continue to export US dollars to foreign countries, and since the US dollar is linked to gold, exporting the US dollar means exporting gold. This will inevitably lead to a decrease in US gold reserves, which cannot support more and more dollars, so it will inevitably break anchor. Specifically, the following three goals are the “impossible triangle” that cannot be achieved at the same time: first, the US balance of payments maintains a surplus and the external value of the US dollar is stable; second, the US maintains sufficient gold reserves; and third, the value of the dollar can be maintained at a stable level of 35 US dollars/ounce of gold. These three goals are an “impossible triangle” where it is impossible to reach at the same time. (See Liu Jiaolian's “Bitcoin History” chapter 10, episode 42) This congenital bug is also known as the “Triffin Dilemma” (Triffin Dilemma). When President Nixon suddenly unilaterally destroyed the agreement with the world in a televised speech in 1971 and announced that the US dollar was no longer linked to gold, he declared that 1.0 of the US dollar's hegemony had fallen into a crisis of collapse. Having lost the support of gold, the value of the dollar is faltering. It is also up to the Sri Lankans to descend from heaven. In 1973, Kissinger became President Nixon's Secretary of State. He proposed a “petrodollar” strategy. He convinced President Nixon to fully support Israel in the Yom Kippur War (4th Arab-Israeli War). Under the strong military pressure of the United States, Saudi Arabia and the US secretly reached a key agreement on the “oil - dollar - US debt” bundle: (see Liu Jiaochain's 2024.6.9 article “Every Bitcoin Man Will Eventually Become an Internationalist”) 1. Saudi oil is only priced and settled in US dollars; other countries need to reserve dollars to buy oil. 2. Saudi Arabia invests surplus oil revenue into US treasury bonds to form a dollar return mechanism. Many people are confused by the superficial meaning of the term “petroleum dollar,” and they say that the US dollar 2.0 changed its anchor from gold to oil. What money can buy has never been an anchor for money. The anchor of a currency is the thing that controls and supports the issuance of a currency. From the perspective of commodity production, the capital process of petroleum dollars is: oil -> dollar -> US debt. From the perspective of capital movement, this process has become a pure capital proliferation process: US dollar -> US debt -> dollar. ' Oil production is nothing more than a by-product of the capital movement process. When China began to reform and open up in the late 80s of the last century, the capital movement of US dollars and US bonds was also applied to drive the production of a large number of industrial products in China, and amazing results were achieved. As far as this capital cycle is concerned, it actually doesn't matter if the by-product is petroleum or industrial products. Financial capital requires only a steady stream of profits extracted in a high-speed cycle. Now the US no longer has to be afraid to export dollars. In the past, exporting dollars meant exporting gold, and the US didn't master alchemy, so it couldn't turn out gold out of thin air. Soon, its gold inventory would be emptied. Now it's fine. Exporting US dollars is nothing more than exporting US debt, and to put it bluntly, US debt is just a white strip written by the US Treasury; then you still can print as much as you want? This is the era of USD hegemony 2.0. From the 70s of the last century to the 20s of this century, about 45 years. The US dollar at this stage is not so much a petroleum dollar or any other dollar; in fact, it is essentially a debt dollar, that is, a blank dollar. The most important thing about debt to the US dollar is to firmly anchor the US dollar to the US debt. To do this, there are two prerequisites: First, America...

449d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian #Stablecoin regulation topics

Guide to the teaching chain article “Poor Information = Small Opportunities, Poor Perception = Big Opportunities”

Source: Liu Jiaolin Original link: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/5H4aADYQLFmo4oP48JuarQ有一种从股市沿袭下来投资（投机）风格叫做消息面交易. As the name suggests, it is about asking around for so-called insider information and then manipulating the market based on this. When I heard about insider benefits, I bought up ahead of time; if it was beneficial to sell at a high level after landing, profit was obtained. Or if you hear about an insider weakness, buy or fall early, and close the position at a low level to make a profit after the bearish position hits. As a result, a special routine for traders to harvest messages was born. Specifically, the scammer pretends himself as someone with an insider's knowledge, deliberately approaches newsworthy traders, and reveals one or two minor advantages to guide the latter's operations. When the latter made easy profits in the short term, their doubts about the former were dispelled, and they began to increase their bets. Once the traders increase their bets to the target indicated by the insider information fabricated by the scammer, the fraudsters' gang will cooperate with the wheel to smash the plate and carry out the harvest. No trader has successfully invested (speculated) through insider information. Unless he himself was a participant in concocting the inside story. Stock god Buffett also relies mainly on the entire system, including insurance savings accounts, and tireless in-depth research on publicly disclosed company financial reports. Insider information is like a conspiracy, and disclosing information is a conspiracy. It is the latter that has more power. Once the conspiracy is revealed, the effect is greatly reduced. However, conspiracy is often inexplicable. It's not afraid everyone knows it. Information is objective, but people who are exposed to it can have differences in their understanding and perception of it. Pursuing insider information that others don't know is actually pursuing so-called poor information. The main theme is one I know you don't know. This is unreliable. Pursuing something that everyone knows but understands and has different perceptions is pursuing poor perception. The difference is one sound; the difference is not four sounds; it's not the difference of four voices; it's a poor student's difference. The more you learn about this society, the more you'll discover that once people have formed cognitive biases about something, then even if you give him too much information, it's hard for him to change his mind. Even in many cases, the more objectionable material is given to him, the more it encourages him to reinforce his existing prejudice. This so-called stereotype in people's minds is a mountain. Many people who teach people how to trade will say that wherever there is poor information, there are business opportunities. Just like you know the same thing, if platform A sells for 1 yuan and platform B sells for 2 yuan, you can buy from platform A and sell it on platform B to earn this difference in price. However, Internet technology has greatly promoted the flow of information, thereby bridging the gap in information. Generally speaking, if a business opportunity with poor information that you can see persists, then there must be a systemic reason behind it. For example, Platform A is a wholesale platform, while Platform B is a retail platform. This difference is the “wage” that the e-commerce ecosystem “hires” you as a “porter.” There is a good saying, if they can make a lot of money by cultivating land, then farmers will have no land to cultivate. Therefore, if you make money by relying on this kind of poor information that ordinary people can see, you can only make a small amount of money and earn enough. However, poor information that can make a lot of money will never be easily seen by ordinary people, or if they see it but have no resources to land, or it is simply a scam. What is really an ordinary big opportunity often exists in places where there is almost no poor information, but there is also a huge gap in perception. Take the flatbread BTC as an example. Almost everything about it is open and transparent. From every line of source code to the entire blockchain ledger, every transfer record is publicly visible all over the world. However, after 16 years, there are still huge differences in perception and clearly divided opinions about it. Some people praise it as a hope for human freedom, a great innovation. Some people denounce it as a worthless waste, and a Ponzi scheme that will eventually go to zero. This is a huge cognitive gap. An investable asset. When almost everyone has a convergent perception of it, and the difference in perception disappears, it is also often when the asset peaked and fell, or bottomed out and rebounded. That's why the market often rises amid doubts and shatters in hopes. When everyone feels that the market will continue to rise, the market often comes to an end. From this dialectical point of view, it should be said that it was precisely because of those huge doubts and denials that gave flatbread a steady stream of upward momentum. Laozi called it “the opposite movement”. This is a new solution. Everyone is optimistic. Ordinary people know about similar things, and it is just that there are no unremarkable opportunities for future development. If you are interested in finding big opportunities and seizing big opportunities, you need to go to places where most people are not optimistic but the internal mechanisms are very reliable, there are huge differences, but if you study them carefully, you will find wonderful things. Of course, the difficulty often lies in...

452d ago刘教链#Liu Jiaolian