u/AdProof7896

Is Jack right, or is he right, or... is he right?

"Bitcoin makes wars unaffordable" is one of the most interesting arguments for sound money.

Wars get bigger and last longer when governments can fund them through inflation, debt, and money creation that most people barely notice.

A harder form of money changes that. If funding war becomes more visible, more limited, and politically harder to hide, endless conflict becomes a lot less sustainable.

Not saying Bitcoin magically ends war - but it may make it much harder to finance!

When trading stocks, traders as us typically focus on TA (e.g. charts, volume, news, earnings, order flow, and so on). However, you don't really get to see which major players are currently shifting capital internally—or where they are moving it to.

With Bitcoin, things are totally different. The blockchain is a public ledger and you can see exactly when specific amounts of BTC are being moved, from which address, and to where.

Of course, there isn't a specific name directly attached to the data. But if you can broadly categorize addresses—assigning them to exchanges, miners, whales, custodians, ETFs, or larger wallet clusters ... you gain an additional market perspective that is virtually non existent in the stock markets.

To me, this represents a fascinating distinction: it's not just about analyzing historical prices and TA, but also about observing whether coins are flowing onto exchanges, being withdrawn from them, or if major players are currently accumulating coins.

I took a look at a few tools and found that https://flowwatch.coinator.eu/ does a good job. I view them not as a crystal ball, but rather as a complement to traditional chart analysis.

Do you incorporate this kind of on-chain data into your trading, or do you tend to stick to classic technical analysis?

During my Bitcoin analysis, I stumbled upon something I found quite intriguing:

I discovered approximately 20,000 private keys that were apparently generated according to an extremely simple pattern-in simplified terms: SHA256 (passphrase) -> private key.

The passphrases included not only a single word, but also entire sentences (in different languages), simple number sequences, leet-speak, and even hex-speak. These are precisely the kinds of things that people can easily remember-and therefore, precisely why they are anything but secure. The SHA256 (passphrase) -> private key method is called "brain wallet" and was used in the early days of Bitcoin. Today, in contrast, HD wallets with 12 or 24 word seed phrases are used.

What I found particularly interesting was that the corresponding addresses no longer held any Bitcoins. The coins had apparently been transferred at some point, either by the original user or by someone else. I then tried sending a few satoshis to such a brain wallet and discovered that within seconds to minutes another transaction was generated by a different Bitcoin user (probably a bot) who immediately transferred my satoshis to his wallet ;-)

For me, this once again clearly demonstrates how risky it is to rely on "self-invented" or somehow memorable keys when it comes to Bitcoin. What seems clever or practical to humans is often simply predictable from a security perspective.

I would be interested to know if anyone else has observed such patterns or has generally dealt with weakly generated keys or brain wallets.