₿ITCOIN TODAY 🧡🚀

The Spaces covered two threads: short, pragmatic price talk and a deep, contentious discussion about the Epstein file leaks’ alleged intersections with Bitcoin. Joe opened with the weekend drawdown, noting lower lows, broken moving averages, and a probable support range around $50–55k, while clarifying that labels like bull/bear are less important than behavior and structure. The room then devoted most of the session to Simon’s chronology of attempted infiltration vectors—developer funding through Blockstream/MIT DCI, hard-fork advocacy around BCH, stablecoin/tether origins, and Operation Chokepoint 2.0—framed as coordinated influence operations. Others pushed back on chain-of-custody issues and absolutist claims, emphasizing that Bitcoin’s protocol has remained uncompromised thanks to vigilant node operators and self-custody culture. Tomer highlighted Bitcoin’s moral resilience compared to institutions, Eric Rice urged sticking to verifiable facts and the protocol’s invariants, and several speakers debated entrepreneurship, business models, and whether public-market participation implies moral compromise. The macro lens included CBDCs, commodities, and cycles; Matthew argued we’re in a year-4 drawdown within a still-intact four-year cycle and advised long-term positioning. The closing consensus: self-custody, skepticism, and calm analysis in a noisy information war, while keeping focus on family, faith, and building durable value.

Bitcoin Today Space — Market Context, Epstein Files Discourse, and Bitcoin’s Resilience

Participants and Roles

• Joe (host): Set the agenda, framed market context, and guided the discussion toward both price and document leaks; closed the space.
• Terrence (co-host): Drove structure (e.g., bear/bull definitions), kept flow on-topic, and orchestrated speaker order.
• Tomer: Provided the moral and technical framing for Bitcoin’s resilience (nodes, self-custody, protocol governance); cautioned against rushing conclusions; energy talk postponed.
• Simon: Presented an extensive, contested timeline linking the Epstein network to multiple “attack vectors” against Bitcoin and its ecosystem; advocated self-custody and skepticism of centralized actors.
• Eric Rice: Emphasized lack of chain-of-custody for the leaks, insisted on discernment and proof regarding any protocol compromises; highlighted Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture; offered life-priority guidance.
• G Money: Light banter on “setting the floor,” later advocated a maximalist opt-out (self-custody) and rejection of taxes/politics; referenced “plan” narratives and celebrated “redemption” for long-time skeptics.
• Kudo: Gym-side technical commentary; bought the dip; interested in levels/probabilities and responsible expectation-setting; posted an email in the nest; closing thanks.
• Shannon: Personal anecdote (football, stacking plans) and positivity about buying the dip.
• Ben: Shared an anecdote that Epstein asked a well-known early Bitcoiner in 2017 if Bitcoin could be stopped; was told “no.”
• Lily: Flagged concerns about Adam Back’s documented interactions and potential influence via Blockstream; connected Cantor Fitzgerald ties.
• Dark: Broader “Operation Chaos” framing; lamented systemic corruption; advocated SAR (suspicious activity reports) transparency and opt-out to Bitcoin.
• Puncher: Grounded entrepreneur perspective; warned against painting all leak-associated individuals as complicit; endorsed self-custody and realism about escaping the old system.
• Matthew: High-level thesis on intelligence operations, document leaks, CBDCs, macro transition, and pragmatic portfolio construction; asserted we’re in a bear market within a persistent four-year cycle; suggested tactical reallocation.
• Zach: System-level view of CBDCs, surveillance, data capture, stablecoin rails; cautioned about de-anonymization via off-ramps and IP.
• Bitcoin Anon: Asked for a roadmap to a Bitcoin-based economy and how priorities (NGU vs system integrity) balance over time.

Market Context and Cycle Position

• Drawdown and levels (Joe): From recent peak to weekend lows, Bitcoin was down 40%. Compared to the 2021–2022 bear (77% drawdown), Joe doubted such an extreme repeat due to evolved market structure.
  • Support zones: Joe expects significant support in the $55k–$70k range; a worst-case “bear floor” in the $50k–$55k zone but “bleeding” could stop earlier.
  • Structural signals: Losing the 200D and 1Y moving averages; a sequence of lower lows across months; taking out prior seasonal/yearly lows suggests bear-phase characteristics.
• Bear vs bull definitions (Terrence + Joe): Equities often use a 20% drawdown; Bitcoin lacks a firm definition. Joe prefers structural cues (lower lows, losing key moving averages and prior levels) over a percentage threshold.
• Kudo’s frame: Focused on 74k zones and the value of showing both upside and downside probabilities to avoid unrealistic expectations.
• Matthew’s cycle view: Reaffirmed the four-year cycle (up years 1–3, down year 4); believes we’re clearly in a bear market with MA100/MA200 broken. Predicts progressively muted highs/lows per cycle. Strategy: sold some BTC to re-buy lower; suggests newcomers DCA or lump-sum depending on conviction.

The Epstein Files and Bitcoin: Claims, Cautions, and Counterpoints

• Document integrity caveat (Eric Rice): No chain-of-custody; unknown alterations or selective releases. Treat the leaks as potentially curated; discernment is critical. Absent proof of protocol changes, Bitcoin’s integrity stands.
• Core assertions and timeline (Simon, summarized as claims/speculation unless corroborated):
  • Early “spoof” claims (2011): Alleged fake email between Epstein and “Satoshi.” Simon considers this fraudulent.
  • 2014 Epstein–Peter Thiel email: Discusses coordinated disinformation to discredit Bitcoin (posted in nest; earlier Simon said 2012, later aligned with 2014 evidence). Implication: powerful actors strategized to undermine Bitcoin narratives.
  • Developer and funding vectors:
    • Blockstream formation (2014): Adam Back and Austin Hill pulled core developers into a corporate entity. Adam Back reportedly met Epstein in 2014 and received funding referenced in leaks (amounts cited: $50k initial, up to $500k). Simon positions this as an attempt to co-opt core development. Lily noted plans to stay overnight and raised questions about standard Epstein “compromise” tactics. Counterpoint from others: Meeting/funding ≠ compromise; and Blockstream ≠ Bitcoin.
    • MIT DCI (Digital Currency Initiative): Funded via MIT Media Lab (Joi Ito), which reportedly had Epstein money. DCI’s work touched Bitcoin core funding (some devs listed), Zcash/private coins, and CBDC/stablecoin research.
  • Fork and miner infiltration:
    • BCH split: Simon associates the effort with infiltrating Chinese miners (Bitmain/Jihan Wu) and figures like Roger Ver, Gavin Andresen, Craig Wright; tying the Craig Wright/Satoshi narrative to this circle. Tomer reiterated Craig Wright never provided legitimate cryptographic proof and the community rejected the claim quickly.
  • Stablecoin vector:
    • Brock Pierce: Early push for “Realcoin” (later Tether via Bitfinex); social ties implicating discussions of stablecoins alongside Epstein connections.
    • Cantor Fitzgerald (Howard Lutnick): Custodian for Tether’s bonds; alleged proximity to Epstein. Lily emphasized growing consolidation/influence threads.
  • Regulatory/operational vector:
    • Operation Chokepoint 2.0 (Simon’s framing): Coordinated pressure on crypto/Bitcoin rails via banking/regulatory chokepoints, citing examples like Celsius and FTX (linking Gary Gensler’s MIT DCI ties and SBF meetings), exchange hacks/strategic reserves and confiscations. Claims banksters control leaks and withhold true evidence (e.g., BNY Mellon suspicious activity reports).
• Counter-view synthesis:
  • Eric: Blockstream may or may not be “jacked”—but Bitcoin’s protocol and governance (nodes, consensus, soft forks) remain resilient. Without proof of protocol compromise enacted on-chain, calls to “sell immediately” lack basis.
  • Tomer: Bitcoin companies are fragile; Bitcoin itself is anti-fragile due to vigilant node operators, self-custody culture, and insistence on verification over claims. Bitcoin’s commitments (21M cap, censorship resistance) remain intact.
  • Ben (anecdote): Epstein sought to understand if Bitcoin could be stopped. Answer: no—consistent with decentralized design.
  • Puncher: Association in files ≠ complicity. Systemic corruption exists, but moral judgements must be individualized.

Fiat Compromise vs Bitcoin’s Moral Choice

• Tomer’s moral argument:
  • In fiat systems, you are either victimized (inflation, taxation) or benefit from victimization (privileged bailouts, political pull). Most people are born into this without consent.
  • Bitcoin offers an opt-in moral alternative: predictable rules, non-confiscatory properties, no CEO or political capture. Bitcoiners enforce the rules via node-running and proof-based skepticism.
• Debate on “everyone at the top is compromised” (Simon vs others):
  • Simon: Rising to the top in politics/finance typically requires compromise; Epstein-like nodes systematically coerce/compromise aspirants. Extended rhetoric included Elon Musk, “surveillance state,” DARPA/NSA ties—widely challenged by others as over-broad.
  • Counterpoints (Puncher, Eric, Matthew): Avoid absolutes; many entrepreneurs endure risk, toil, and ethics. “Compromise” has degrees; association doesn’t equal pedophilia or malice.

CBDCs, Surveillance, and Transition Thesis

• Matthew’s thesis:
  • Controlled deprecation of the petrodollar system toward a digital financial architecture (CBDCs are coming; many nations in research/pilot). Expect assets (gold, silver, Bitcoin) to back digital money; initial opt-in with eventual adoption.
  • Prepare portfolio for wartime-like macro and growth industries (energy, AI, compute). Hold BTC self-custody; use derivatives judiciously to generate fiat.
• Zach’s system view:
  • CBDCs need public rails (peer-to-peer) and co-dependent companions; Bitcoin/stablecoins provide interoperation. Surveillance tightening (IP, cookies, quantum futures) will reduce anonymity; off-ramp/Exchange KYC binds identities. Stablecoin rails expanding (e.g., USDC over payment platforms).

Practical Guidance and Operating Principles

• Verify over speculate:
  • Treat leak content cautiously absent chain-of-custody. Distinguish on-chain verifiability from off-chain conjecture.
  • Demand proof of any claimed protocol compromises; none presented.
• Self-custody and nodes:
  • Run your own node; self-custody BTC. Refuse unverified claims; accept only verifiable changes. Stay vigilant against social or corporate capture narratives.
• Pace and synthesis:
  • Don’t rush to final verdicts as releases are curated/incomplete. Wait for more data points; synthesize gradually.
• Personal priorities (Eric):
  • Maintain grounding: faith, family, local impact, and gratitude. Don’t lose your head amid information warfare.

Key Takeaways

• Market: Price action aligns with a bear-phase interpretation; strong support expected $55k–$70k, with an outside floor near $50k–$55k (Joe). Matthew maintains the four-year cycle is intact and we’re in year 4; tactical rebalancing can position for next up-cycle.
• Leaks: There is credible evidence of early attention and attempted influence campaigns around Bitcoin (e.g., Epstein–Thiel 2014 email), alongside contested assertions of developer/business capture. However, absent chain-of-custody and on-chain evidence, Bitcoin’s protocol remains uncompromised.
• Governance: Bitcoin’s resilience stems from node operators and the community’s insistence on verification and refusal of hard forks that break promises; companies may be compromised, Bitcoin’s rules are not.
• Macro: CBDCs and surveillance infrastructures are advancing; Bitcoin’s best use remains as self-custodied capital—an opt-out complement rather than a dependent corporate product.
• Ethics: Avoid absolutism; distinguish association from guilt. Embrace entrepreneurship and sovereignty without feeding centralized capture.

Notable Anecdotes and References

• Ben’s anecdote: Epstein asked a prominent Bitcoiner in ~2017 if Bitcoin could be stopped; answer was “no.”
• Lily’s note: Adam Back’s 2014 Epstein interaction (potential overnight stay) and subsequent Blockstream influence; Cantor Fitzgerald ties raised concern.
• Tomer on Craig Wright: Immediate community rejection due to lack of legitimate cryptographic proof; easy proof could have settled it—its absence was dispositive.

Closing Sentiments

• Vigilance and optimism (Matthew, Eric, Tomer): Stay awake and aware; this is a generational opportunity despite chaos. Prioritize self-custody and verification; remember the moral core of Bitcoin.
• Maximalist opt-out (Simon, G Money): Systemic corruption persists; your best defense is self-custodied Bitcoin and skepticism of centralized “plans.”
• Programming note: Tomer’s planned energy talk was postponed due to topic priority; the space will reconvene at its regular time.