BTC_POWER_LA

I know some Bitcoiners may find the idea of rolling dice to secure a wallet ridiculous. But most people in the world still find Bitcoin itself ridiculous.
So do not dismiss the method simply because it looks unusual. Study the subject.
Properly collected physical randomness can provide entropy that is independent of a device’s internal pseudo-random number generator and directly observable by the user. Dice are inexpensive, transparent, and easy to audit: you can see every roll and verify exactly where the randomness came from.
Used correctly, this is a simple and powerful way to strengthen wa

So I asked Claude whether we could design a physical random-number generator that uses signals from the device itself to produce entropy.
In principle, this sounds appealing. In practice, however, Claude still considers dice the better option because device-based noise introduces several problems: the source of randomness may be difficult to inspect, its quality may vary, and most importantly, you cannot verify it directly with your own eyes.
Dice are simple, cheap, transparent, and physically auditable.
You can see every roll, record the results yourself, and understand exactly where the en

This is a good set and it is not expensive. You don't need 99 dice. Just 9 rolled 11 times.

Again, let me clarify what I was actually saying, because this distinction matters.
Bitcoin followed the power-law trajectory more closely than expected. So how can anyone claim that the power law failed when price tracked it almost exactly?
In fact, that was precisely why Bitcoin did not reach $200K. A price near $200K would have required a substantial upside deviation (more than 80%) from the power law, comparable to the deviations seen during previous bubbles.
That deviation never occurred.
So the failure was not in the power law. The power law continued to describe the underlying trajector