Bitcoin is basically a Ponzi scheme The Seattle Times

FATF recommends considering privacy coin and unhosted wallet as red flag.

https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/virtual-assets-red-flag-indicators.html
Red Flag Indicators Related to Anonymity
  1. This set of indicators draws from the inherent characteristics and vulnerabilities associated with the underlying technology of VAs. The various technological features below increase anonymity and add hurdles to the detection of criminal activity by LEAs. These factors make VAs attractive to criminals looking to disguise or store their funds. Nevertheless, the mere presence of these features in an activity does not automatically suggest an illicit transaction. For example, the use of a hardware or paper wallet may be legitimate as a way to secure VAs against thefts. Again, the presence of these indicators should be considered in the context of other characteristics about the customer and relationship, or a logical business explanation.
 Transactions by a customer involving more than one type of VA, despite additional transaction fees, and especially those VAs that provide higher anonymity, such as anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrency (AEC) or privacy coins.
 Moving a VA that operates on a public, transparent blockchain, such as Bitcoin, to a centralised exchange and then immediately trading it for an AEC or privacy coin.
 Customers that operate as an unregistered/unlicensed VASP on peer-to-peer (P2P) exchange websites, particularly when there are concerns that the customers handle huge amount of VA transfers on its customer’s behalf, and charge higher fees to its customer than transmission services offered by other exchanges. Use of bank accounts to facilitate these P2P transactions.
 Abnormal transactional activity (level and volume) of VAs cashed out at exchanges from P2P platform-associated wallets with no logical business explanation.
 VAs transferred to or from wallets that show previous patterns of activity associated with the use of VASPs that operate mixing or tumbling services or P2P platforms.
 Transactions making use of mixing and tumbling services, suggesting an intent to obscure the flow of illicit funds between known wallet addresses and darknet marketplaces.
 Funds deposited or withdrawn from a VA address or wallet with direct and indirect exposure links to known suspicious sources, including darknet marketplaces, mixing/tumbling services, questionable gambling sites, illegal activities (e.g. ransomware) and/or theft reports.
 The use of decentralised/unhosted, hardware or paper wallets to transport VAs across borders.
 Users entering the VASP platform having registered their Internet domain names through proxies or using domain name registrars (DNS) that suppress or redact the owners of the domain names.
 Users entering the VASP platform using an IP address associated with a darknet or other similar software that allows anonymous communication, including encrypted emails and VPNs. Transactions between partners using various anonymous encrypted communication means (e.g. forums, chats, mobile applications, online games, etc.) instead of a VASP.
 A large number of seemingly unrelated VA wallets controlled from the same IP-address (or MAC-address), which may involve the use of shell wallets registered to different users to conceal their relation to each other.
 Use of VAs whose design is not adequately documented, or that are linked to possible fraud or other tools aimed at implementing fraudulent schemes, such as Ponzi schemes.
 Receiving funds from or sending funds to VASPs whose CDD or know-your- customer (KYC) processes are demonstrably weak or non-existent.
 Using VA ATMs/kiosks – o despite the higher transaction fees and including those commonly used by mules or scam victims; or o in high-risk locations where increased criminal activities occur. A single use of an ATM/kiosk is not enough in and of itself to constitute a red flag, but would if it was coupled with the machine being in a high-risk area, or was used for repeated small transactions (or other additional factors).
submitted by subarun7 to Monero [link] [comments]

A Theory: The Crypto Ecosystem Hasn't Fully Collapsed Because It Has Found A Truly Ingenious Way To Monetize Human Stupidity and Greed

It's true that most traditional ponzi/pyramid schemes (Madoff etc...) collapse because they're obligated to provide unsustainable returns to their investors. However, pyramid schemes that force their sucker "investors" to eat their own losses typically don't collapse, at least not for a long time . Crypto is a perfect example of this dynamic at play, since exchanges are able to establish a consistent revenue stream of hard currency by manipulating the market against butters stupid enough to gamble on margin. The whole thing basically has the business model of a casino/pyramid scheme combined into one. Bitcoin doesn't run on electricity or software. It runs on sheer human stupidity, gullibility, and greed. MLMs like Harbalife largely function on the same principle (forcing the vast majority of suckers to eat their losses instead of guaranteeing an ultimately unsustainable return), which is why many MLMs have lasted for literally decades.
Something that u/thehoesmaketheman said on here that really stuck with me is that governments make pyramid schemes illegal because people love to "invest" in pyramid schemes otherwise. This can actually do profound damage to society if taken far enough, and while any given pyramid scheme might eventually collapse (depending on its structure), there will always be new schemes and new suckers. Crypto is a perfect space for generating both, as it is both digital and laughably unregulated. So I predict the Bitcoin/Crypto/Tether Rube Goldberg machine of stupidity and greed will keep going until governments finally wise up and make it illegal (if they ever do) because its just another scam at the end of the day. Unfortunately for our society and the planet, a lot of people in power seem to be fooled by trendy tech buzzwords like blockchain.
submitted by SpecialTurnip3 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment
Being created on the basis of blockchain, stablecoins were considered to be a safe haven for investors… until recently. Why is their immunity elusive and how does the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plan to control them?
Established in 1989 by the G7, the FATF inter-governmental organization develops policies to resist money laundering and financing of terrorism. It sets standards and implements legal and regulatory measures to combat illegal financial transactions.
They developed recommendations for the monitoring of money laundering and keep revising them regularly. In case of non-compliance, law enforcement is executed via regional financial organizations. As of 2019, there are 39 full members of FATF, including the USA, UK, Australia, most EU countries, Singapore, India and the Russian Federation.
Since 1st July, the FATF organization has been headed by Marcus Pleyer. During the last FATF meeting, the new president expressed his concerns about global stablecoins and organizations that issue them. Although the organization had already dealt with these cryptocurrencies, it highlighted that, “it is essential to continue closely monitoring the ML/TF risks of so-called stablecoins, including anonymous peer-to-peer transactions via unhosted wallets”.
Is it ever possible to control crypto wallets that are not hosted on online exchanges? – you’d ask. We’re used to the fact that cryptocurrencies are outside the reach of banks and governments. However, when it comes to stablecoins, things are different.

It’s in the code

What makes stablecoins special is that they are pegging to fiat currency, for example, 1 TUSD = $1 USD. This means that such assets should be backed up by real money stored in the bank accounts of the issuing organization. Consequently, stablecoin creators need to comply with the requirements of the SEC, FATF and other controlling agencies, if they are to operate in the cryptocurrency sphere and be authorised to sell stablecoins. Transparent reports are not the only requirement, stablecoins must also provide the possibility of account blocking.
Surprisingly, this feature is implemented in each stablecoin. The experts from QDAO DeFi are covering several stablecoin protocols that enable this function.

OMNI-based USDT

Issued by Tether Limited, USDT is a stablecoin that was originally created to be worth $1 with each token backed by a $1 real fiat reserve. The currency was successfully promoted and added to major cryptocurrency exchanges but stayed a controversial asset. Despite the claims of Tether Limited, they failed to provide any contractual right or other legal claims to guarantee that USDT can be swapped for dollars or be redeemed.
In April 2019, Tether’s lawyers explained that each USDT was backed by only $0.74 in cash or equivalent assets. No audit of dollar collateral was done. A month before that, it changed the backing to include loans to affiliate companies. The scandal also involved the Bitfinex exchange that was accused of using USDT funds to cover $850 million in funds lost since 2018. They were also accused of manipulating USDT to push the BTC price.
Tether is available on five blockchains: Omni, Ehereum, EOS, Tron and Liquid. Only the latter does not have a freezing feature. Omni was the first protocol for USDT. Blocking of users’ accounts is possible, thanks to the following piece of code:

https://preview.redd.it/uqho45l33om51.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0feebdae086b0deeccde05278eaf3cc760f9e2b
Apparently, it’s used to blacklist addresses and contracts.

PAX

The concerns about PAX were centered around the notorious MMM BSC Ponzi scheme. Before the widespread adoption of DeFi services, it was the second-largest gas consumer after Ethereum. Out of 25,000 daily transactions, 5,000 were performed by MMM BSC. It was reported to be a scam but none of the accounts were frozen. Does it mean PAX lacked the resources to regulate illicit activities?
Evidently, not. The protocol code has a LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONALITY function that allows for the freezing/unfreezing of contracts or burning assets on blacklisted accounts. It turns out, anyone risks having their PAX coins destroyed during an investigation process while their accounts stay blocked.

History of frozen accounts

In 2019, the ZCash Foundation and Eric Wall conducted research on the privacy of stablecoins and revealed several frozen addresses. It’s not clear why exactly they were blocked. Most probably, it happened shortly after the exchange withdrawal – users took this action after witnessing platforms being hacked.

https://preview.redd.it/pkbruqm83om51.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=b068c5b8c5e5439892eaf5feefa3fbc93c694c8c
USDT was implicated at least twice in scandals to do with freezing. In April 2019, about $850 million in Tether dollars sent by Crypto Capital Corp. were frozen by a New York court. Tether and Btfinex were accused of participating in a cover-up to hide about $850 million worth in clients’ funds. By July 2020, Tether had frozen 40 Ethereum addresses with millions of USDT (some of them are shown in the screenshot above).
The Centre Consortium was the next to follow their lead; about a month ago, it blacklisted an address with USDC worth $100,000. That was done in response to law enforcement.
Yet, it’s not only Europe and the USA imposing control over cryptocurrencies. Since June 2020, the Chinese government managed to block several thousands of users’ bank accounts. It was done to resist illicit activities, especially money laundering. On some of those accounts, no activity had been detected for several months. Meanwhile, prior to April 2020, Chinese residents moved over $50 billion worth of crypto outside the country borders – more than is officially allowed (a maximum of $50,000 per person).
The authorities claim that USDT and other stablecoins are often used in illegal activities. Together with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), they are developing new ways of investigating digital crimes and money laundering operations involving exchanges and crypto wallets. Local financial bureaus and police are working tight-lipped about investigating startups and crypto exchanges. And they are succeeding at it.
In July 2020, Chinese authorities confiscated BTC, ETH and USDT worth $15 million from people who allegedly ran a fake cryptocurrency scheme.
By the way, not only corporate accounts are being closed. One investor claims his account had been frozen after using yuan to purchase crypto. Also, users who transfer illegally obtained money outside of the mainland in large amounts are under suspicion. Does it mean the Chinese government has started tightening the screws on cryptocurrency users?

DAI, USDT on Liquid and USDQ are the main options for stablecoin deposits

So, where can you store your crypto assets? USDT on Liquid and DAI are not the only solutions available. Consider making a deposit in USDQ, the stablecoin of the QDAO ecosystem. Like other stablecoins, it’s 1-to-1 pegged to USD. However, it cannot be frozen by a government, financial organization or anyone from the QDAO team. You can check it yourself by reading our Smart contract and USDQ Audit.
In QDAO, users’ accounts are never frozen by a single person – all account issues are solved by the entire QDAO community, with the help of a QDAO governance token.
In case of blocking (the chances of which are almost non-existent), you can address the QDAO community and get timely help.

Bottom Line

With FATF taking this new course of action, we might witness serious pressure on stablecoin providers. Some projects will resist it, but it’s still not safe to store your assets in popular stablecoins, especially USDT. Your account can be frozen by authorities for dozens of reasons without the possibility of retrieval.
Yet, there are a number of reliable alternatives and USDQ stablecoin is one of them. QDAO DeFi platform users feel free to manage their crypto reserves and make profitable deposits.
Want to be the first to hear QDAO DeFi news and updates? Visit our website and stay in touch with us on social media: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and LINE (for the Japanese-speaking community).
submitted by QDAODeFi to u/QDAODeFi [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to conspiracy [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to Money [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to economy [link] [comments]

The project loses its voice and how Forbes stands out

The project loses its voice and how Forbes stands out

https://preview.redd.it/rstkulyt9f551.png?width=764&format=png&auto=webp&s=c29cc40bdb0a46f7d24d11d1cfb0334a29e1ce69
With the success of bitcoin, the currency circle has officially entered the "bull market cycle", but many friends are complaining that it is more and more difficult to earn money in the currency circle. Indeed, today's futures have been reduced to leek harvesters, and Shanzhai coins are half dead under the hard support of the project side, while the big model coins of the great fire of 19 years have disappeared. Many people will ask why the 17-year ICO, 18-year IEO and 19-year model currency will not be seen until 2020 without strong policy intervention. It's not hard to understand. The reasons are as follows:
1., after 17 years of super bull market, the past 3 years are in the bubble stage.
After being cheated countless times, leek is more cautious about new projects. The era when a white paper and an official website can circle money is gone forever.
2. The blockchain project is difficult to land and has no physical support.
In the currency circle, no matter what projects boast heaven, unlike industry, there is no sustained hematopoietic capacity, and ultimately only to end up with zero.
3. All model coins are Ponzi schemes.
Not to mention model currencies, all models are pyramid pyramid schemes, which reward the first arrivals with the money of the latecomers. The bigger the bubble, the collapse is only a matter of time.
Is it true that the currency circle is so dead that there is no hope? If you really want to start a new craze in the currency circle, the top 3 problems must be overcome. That is to say, if there is a project that can control risks without bubbles, there is physical support, without pyramid schemes, it will be a long and steady way to make money.
Before that, there must be some people who say it's a dream. After the epidemic, the state vigorously supports the enterprises to revive the economy. However, in reality, it's very difficult for entities to do it, let alone blockchain projects. As a result, I noticed a project called Forbes. After studying the white paper, I suddenly felt that like discovering a new continent, unlike any project I have ever seen, this project has perfectly realized the above vision! Let's explore it with curiosity and see what kind of immortal project it is.

https://preview.redd.it/j4p5cddgaf551.png?width=740&format=png&auto=webp&s=f380453bc8a63995ae15b7f32186dc34fa36e3ba
1、 0 raise funds, start the fund only by regular mining business
First of all, Forbes project is 0 fund-raising. Note that there is no fund-raising at the beginning, which eliminates the possibility of encircling money. Before the introduction of Forbes project token GFS, only bitcoin mining business was started. This bitcoin mining seems to be impossible. What does this have to do with the project itself? Let's explain later. First of all, mining business. Forbes first launched the "miner Alliance Plan". If you want to participate in it, you only need to pledge the deposit to purchase computing power or mining machines, and you can continue to get mining profits. Note why the project risk is controllable. The key points are:
  1. The deposit is returned daily for a period of one year through the smart contract.
The smart contract is deployed on Ethereum. The deposit usdt is returned every day. The smart contract is open-source, which ensures that the principal can be recovered 100% regardless of the outcome of the project.
  1. Mining income can be withdrawn every day.
The income from bitcoin mining will also be automatically converted into stable currency, which can be withdrawn every day, so as to realize the stable earning.
  1. Solid bitcoin ore pool support, which can be inspected on site.
The reason why the project is supported by entities is that 100% of the deposit mortgaged by users is used to purchase bitcoin mining machines. Forbes cooperates with bitcoin China, the global head mining pool, which can be visited at any time.
In this way, in the early stage of Forbes project, users can participate in bitcoin mining through 100% deposit return, and earn mining profits with little risk. If it's just mining, Forbes can't make a big impact on the currency circle. After all, there are two problems. One is that the cycle is too long; the other is that there is no promotion model. Although the model coins of the 19-year fire are all the end of collapse, the reason for the fire is that there are models to see how Forbes breaks.

https://preview.redd.it/ef7baf60bf551.png?width=1450&format=png&auto=webp&s=fab5db6ad76301bc14186ab9de199c58a4d4ae20
2、 Static and dynamic dual mode, the fuse is on fire
As mentioned above, the return cycle of buying deposit for mining machine is as long as one year, which may deter many people. Forbes has designed two modes. If you don't do anything after buying the miner, you can only make money slowly through the deposit released every day and the income generated. At present, the annual income is about 180%, which is called static mode. If you want to make money quickly, Forbes has designed a dynamic model.
In dynamic mode, there are three modules.
  1. Promotion in wet season.
In the mining circle, if there is a high water period, the benefits of mining will increase, so Forbes will often launch this activity in the high water period. 10% of the deposit of the first single miner directly pushed by the users to the top 5 will be released immediately. For example, if I bought a 1000u miner, the deposit of 1000u would have been released in one year, but if I recommend five more people to buy the miner, and all the five people buy the 1000u miner, then 10% of the total amount of deposit, that is, 500U, can be released immediately. In this way, I can promote up to 5 people and get back half of the original immediately.
In addition, it should be noted that the funds released here are the sum of deposit and income, not only the deposit!
  1. Direct promotion increased release by 20%, indirect promotion increased release by 10%.
It's easy to understand. Let's take my purchase of 1000u mining machine as an example. When it is not promoted, the deposit plus mining revenue will release 7U in total every day. If one person is directly pushed, and this person purchases 1000u mining machine, I will increase the release money by 20%, i.e. 1.4u. If the person who is directly pushed also buys 1000u mining machine, it is indirect promotion. I can increase the release money by 10%, i.e. 0.7u, My daily release gold is 7U + 1.4u + 0.7u = 9.1u. The more you push, the faster you release, that's the mechanism.
  1. Labor Union level release.
The so-called labor union refers to other performance areas beyond the maximum performance line under umbrella, because I am the recommender of all people under umbrella, so I am the president. In order to encourage users to join the trade union, the presidents of different levels of trade unions can get different levels of release rewards. For example, if I only need 50000 U of direct and indirect funds to become a V1 Union, then 12% of the total income of bitcoin dug out by the whole network will be equally distributed to the presidents of all V1 unions for release, and so on.
In Forbes' promotion model, all these promotion rewards are only the release of your principal and income, not the money from your family. This is different from other MLM project core elements!
In other words, it would take a year to release the principal and mining income without doing anything at all, but if I promote, it can greatly increase the speed of capital recovery and income generation. When the promotion reward reaches the sum of the deposit and income that should have been obtained, the promotion reward is no longer effective.
Some may say that I have worked so hard to build such a large community. It is not worth it just for the principal and about 180% of the annual mining income. In fact, when the deposit and income are released completely, you can choose to re invest again, so that the promotion reward can be released all the time.
Someone will ask again, the income of bitcoin mining is uncertain every day, why is the release associated with the expected future income? Forbes expects mining bitcoin's annual revenue to reach 180%, far higher than other mining pools. Where does the capital come from?
It is very important to explain this problem, because Forbes is a pure entity, no bubble project, and there can be no Ponzi scheme.
  1. As the project has its own promotion mode, once it is started, the ore pool will grow rapidly by fission, so the huge size of the ore pool will have a lot of base gas and ask for the price of the power plant. Generally, the cost of pool electricity may be more than 0.35, while Forbes can save a lot of electricity cost.
  2. With the support of the world's top mining pools, the more mining machines are purchased, the less the marginal cost, so the cost of mining machines is actually lower than the average cost of all users, and this cost difference is also one of the benefits.
  3. Forbes has set up a "mining pool fund", which uses 20% of the income from the mining output of the whole network to enter the fund pool. This fund is dedicated to the purpose of continuous purchase of mining machines to expand the income. Therefore, the project has the capacity of continuous hematopoiesis.

https://preview.redd.it/1hd299u9bf551.png?width=1434&format=png&auto=webp&s=b1db1e2a63ad6b8d38814e4f254a716dcb195850
3、 Forbes takes the overall situation and the final project vision is to realize distributed finance.
have ulterior motives. It would be a mistake to think that Forbes is just a new exploration of the mining model. What the project really wants to achieve is the landing of cross chain technology and the first echelon of distributed finance.
"Forbes miner alliance" is only the first step. With the launch of the main network, many node ecology gathered through mining will suddenly have a place to play, which to play, invincible. As we all know, the most popular concept of blockchain is difi (distributed Finance), which is also the field that Ethereum 2.0 will further explore in the future. What Forbes really wants to build in the future is to win the crown of decentralized finance and become the "UnionPay" of the currency circle.
Then when the Forbes ore pool is mature, Forbes will launch the main network and token GFS, and the output of GFS can only be obtained by purchasing a special miner. Because participating in the early bitcoin mining is also equivalent to contributing to the node ecology, users can choose to convert the mining revenue into GFS vouchers during the miner alliance period, and after the main network line, they can map to the main network token one by one. If we are optimistic about the future of GFS, it is a good choice to exchange mining income into GFS voucher in advance.
Of course, it is still the saying that the Forbes project is real, real landing, zero risk, no bubble. Unlike other deceptive projects, which will forcibly exchange the proceeds into the project token, the users can freely choose to exchange the mining proceeds for GFS, and they can also freely choose to purchase GFS mining machines in the future. It doesn't matter if you don't look forward to Forbes project. It's good to make bitcoin mining money in a safe and stable way. After all, everyone's cognition is different and their risk tolerance is different.
For me, such a solid project is hard to see in the currency circle. Forbes is not only real, but also does not adhere to the traditional entity mining, and the innovative introduction of no foam promotion mode. It can be predicted that this mode is sustainable development, and even I look forward to challenging the top mines of bitcoin. The earlier I participate in the project, the more meat I can eat. This is the essence of my participation in many projects. My mining income has been converted into GFS certificate almost the first time. After all, Forbes project has just started, facing a vast ocean to be developed.
报错
submitted by forbeschain to u/forbeschain [link] [comments]

Bitcoin and Meritocratic Capitalism

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to Capitalism [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to investing_discussion [link] [comments]

Transcript of Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet presenting at the Bitcoin Cash City conference on September 5th, 2019

Transcript of Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet presenting at the Bitcoin Cash City conference on September 5th, 2019
I tried my best to be as accurate as possible, but if there are any errors, please let me know so I can fix. I believe this talk is important for all Bitcoin Cash supporters, and I wanted to provide it in written form so people can read it as well as watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOv0nmOe1_o For me, this was the first time I felt like I understood the issues Amaury's been trying to communicate, and I hope that reading this presentation might help others understand as well.
Bitcoin Cash’s Culture
“Okay. Hello? Can you hear me? The microphone is good, yeah?
Ok, so after that introduction, I’m going to do the only thing that I can do now, which is disappoint you, because well, that was quite something.
So usually I make technical talks and this time it’s going to be a bit different. I’m going to talk about culture in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. So first let’s talk about culture, like what is it? It’s ‘the social behaviors and norms found in human society.’
So we as the Bitcoin Cash community, we are a human society, or at least we look like it. You’re all humans as far as I know, and we have social behaviors and norms, and those social behaviors and norms have a huge impact on the project.
And the reason why I want to focus on that point very specifically is because we have better fundamentals and we have a better product and we are more useful than most other cryptos out there. And I think that’s a true statement, and I think this is a testimony of the success of BCH. But also, we are only just 3% of BTC’s value. So clearly there is something that we are not doing right, and clearly it’s not fundamental, it’s not product, it’s not usefulness. It’s something else, and I think this can be found somewhat in our culture.
So I have this quote here, from Naval Ravikant. I don’t know if you guys know him but he’s a fairly well known speaker and thinker, and he said, “Never trust anyone who does not annoy you from time to time, because it means that they are only telling you what you want to hear.”
And so today I am going to annoy you a bit, in addition to disappointing you, so yeah, it’s going to be very bad, but I feel like we kind of need to do it.
So there are two points, mainly, that I think our culture is not doing the right thing. And those are gonna be infrastructure and game theory. And so I’m going to talk a little bit about infrastructure and game theory.
Right, so, I think there are a few misconceptions by people that are not used to working in software infrastructure in general, but basically, it works like any other kind of infrastructure. So basically all kinds of infrastructure decay, and we are under the assumption that technology always gets better and better and better and never decays. But in terms of that, it actually decays all the time, and we have just a bunch of engineers working at many many companies that keep working at making it better and fighting that decay.
I’m going to take a few examples, alright. Right now if you want to buy a cathode ray tube television or monitor for your computer (I’m not sure why you want to do that because we have better stuff now), but if you want to buy that, it’s actually very difficult now. There are very little manufacturers that even know how to build them. We almost forgot as a human society how to build those stuff. Because, well, there was not as high of a demand for them as there was before, and therefore nobody really worked on maintaining the knowledge or the know how, and the factories, none of that which are required to build those stuff, and therefore we don’t build them. And this is the same for vinyl discs, right? You can buy vinyl disk today if you want, but it’s actually more expensive than it used to be twenty years ago.
We used to have space shuttles. Both Russia and US used to have space shuttles. And now only the US have space shuttles, and now nobody has space shuttles anymore.
And there is an even better counter example to that. It’s that the US, right now, is refining Uranium for nuclear weapons. Like on a regular basis there are people working on that problem. Except that the US doesn’t need any new uranium to make nuclear weapons because they are decommissioning the weapons that are too old and can reuse that uranium to build the new weapon that they are building. The demand for that is actually zero, and still there are people making it and they are just basically making it and storing it forever, and it’s never used. So why is the US spending money on that? Well you would say governments are usually pretty good at spending money on stuff that are not very useful, but in that case there is a very good reason. And the good reason is that they don’t want to forget how it’s done. Because maybe one day it’s going to be useful. And acquiring the whole knowledge of working with uranium and making enriched uranium, refining uranium, it’s not obvious. It’s a very complicated process. It involves very advanced engineering and physics, a lot of that, and keeping people working on that problem ensures that knowledge is kept through time. If you don’t do that, those people are going to retire and nobody will know how to do it. Right.
So in addition to decaying infrastructure from time to time, we can have zero days in software, meaning problems in the software that are not now exploited live on the network. We can have denial of service attack, we can have various failures on the network, or whatever else, so just like any other infrastructure we need people that essentially take care of the problem and fight the decay constantly doing maintenance and also be ready to intervene whenever there is some issue. And that means that even if there is no new work to be done, you want to have a large enough group of people that are working on that everyday just making it all nice and shiny so that when something bad happens, you have people that understand how the system works. So even if for nothing else, you want a large enough set of people working on infrastructure for that to be possible.
So we’re not quite there yet, and we’re very reliant on BTC. Because the software that we’re relying on to run the network is actually a fork to the BTC codebase. And this is not specific to Bitcoin Cash. This is also true for Litecoin, and Dash, and Zcash and whatever. There are many many crypotos that are just a fork of the Bitcoin codebase. And all those crypos they actually are reliant on BTC to do some maintenance work because they have smaller teams working on the infrastructure. And as a result any rational market cannot price those other currencies higher than BTC. It would just not make sense anymore. If BTC were to disappear, or were to fail on the market, and this problem is not addressed, then all those other currencies are going to fail with it. Right? And you know that may not be what we want, but that’s kind of like where we are right now.
So if we want to go to the next level, maybe become number one in that market, we need to fix that problem because it’s not going to happen without it.
So I was mentioning the 3% number before, and it’s always very difficult to know what all the parameters are that goes into that number, but one of them is that. Just that alone, I’m sure that we are going to have a lower value than BTC always as long as we don’t fix that problem.
Okay, how do we fix that problem? What are the elements we have that prevent us from fixing that problem? Well, first we need people with very specific skill sets. And the people that have experience in those skill sets, there are not that many of them because there are not that many places where you can work on systems involving hundreds of millions, if not billions of users, that do like millions of transactions per second, that have systems that have hundreds of gigabytes per second of throughput, this kind of stuff. There are just not that many companies in the world that operate on that scale. And as a result, the number of people that have the experience of working on that scale is also pretty much limited to the people coming out of those companies. So we need to make sure that we are able to attract those people.
And we have another problem that I talked about with Justin Bons a bit yesterday, that we don’t want to leave all that to be fixed by a third party.
It may seem nice, you know, so okay, I have a big company making good money, I’m gonna pay people working on the infrastructure for everybody. I’m gonna hire some old-time cypherpunk that became famous because he made a t-shirt about ERISA and i’m going to use that to promote my company and hire a bunch of developers and take care of the infrastructure for everybody. It’s all good people, we are very competent. And indeed they are very competent, but they don’t have your best interest in mind, they have their best interest in mind. And so they should, right? It’s not evil to have your own interest in mind, but you’ve got to remember that if you delegate that to others, they have their best interest in mind, they don’t have yours. So it’s very important that you have different actors that have different interests that get involved into that game of maintaining the infrastructure. So they can keep each other in check.
And if you don’t quite understand the value proposition for you as a business who builds on top of BCH, the best way to explain that to whoever is doing the financials of your company is as an insurance policy. The point of the insurance on the building where your company is, or on the servers, is so that if everything burns down, you can get money to get your business started and don’t go under. Well this is the same thing. Your business relies on some infrastructure, and if this infrastructure ends up going down, disappearing, or being taken in a direction that doesn’t fit your business, your business is toast. And so you want to have an insurance policy there that insures that the pieces that you’re relying on are going to be there for you when you need them.
Alright let’s take an example. In this example, I purposefully did not put any name because I don’t want to blame people. I want to use this as an example of a mistake that were made. I want you to understand that many other people have done many similar mistakes in that space, and so if all you take from what I’m saying here is like those people are bad and you should blame them, this is like completely the wrong stuff. But I also think it’s useful to have a real life example.
So on September 1st, at the beginning of the week, we had a wave of spam that was broadcasted on the network. Someone made like a bunch of transactions, and those were very visibly transactions that were not there to actually do transactions, they were there just to create a bunch of load on the network and try to disturb its good behavior.
And it turned out that most miners were producing blocks from 2 to 8 megabytes, while typical market demand is below half a megabyte, typically, and everything else above that was just spam, essentially. And if you ask any people that have experience in capacity planning, they are going to tell you that those limits are appropriate. The reason why, and the alternative to raising those limits that you can use to mitigate those side effects are a bit complicated and they would require a talk in and of itself to go into, so I’m going to just use an argument from authority here, but trust me, I know what I’m talking about here, and this is just like raising those limits is just not the solution. But some pool decided to increase that soft cap to 32 megs. And this has two main consequences that I want to dig in to explain what is not the right solution.
And the first one is that we have businesses that are building on BCH today. And those businesses are the ones that are providing value, they are the ones making our network valuable. Right? So we need to treat those people as first class citizens. We need to attract and value them as much as we can. And those people, they find themselves in the position where they can either dedicate their resources and their attention and their time to make their service better and more valuable for users, or maybe expand their service to more countries, to more markets, to whatever, they can do a lot of stuff, or they can spend their time and resources to make sure the system works not when you have like 10x the usual load, but also 100x the usual load. And this is something that is not providing value to them, this is something that is not providing value to us, and I would even argue that this is something that is providing negative value.
Because if those people don’t improve their service, or build new services, or expand their service to new markets, what’s going to happen is that we’re not going to do 100x. 100x happens because people provide useful services and people start using it. And if we distract those people so that they need to do random stuff that has nothing to do with their business, then we’re never going to do 100x. And so having a soft cap that is way way way above what is the usual market demand (32 megs is almost a hundred times what is the market demand for it), it’s actually a denial of service attack that you open for anyone that is building on the chain.
We were talking before, like yesterday we were asking about how do we attract developers, and one of the important stuff is that we need to value that over valuing something else. And when we take this kind of move, the signal that we send to the community, to the people working on that, is that people yelling very loudly on social media, their opinion is more valued than your work to make a useful service building on BCH. This is an extremely bad signal to send. So we don’t want to send those kind of signals anymore.
That’s the first order effect, but there’s a second order effect, and the second order effect is to scale we need people with experience in capacity planning. And as it turns out big companies like Google, and Facebook, and Amazon pay good money, they pay several 100k a year to people to do that work of capacity planning. And they wouldn’t be doing that if they just had to listen to people yelling on social media to find the answer. Right? It’s much cheaper to do the simple option, except the simple option is not very good because this is a very complex engineering problem. And not everybody is like a very competent engineer in that domain specifically. So put yourself in the shoes of some engineers who have skills in that particular area. They see that happening, and what do they see? The first thing that they see is that if they join that space, they’re going to have some level of competence, some level of skill, and it’s going to be ignored by the leaders in that space, and ignoring their skills is not the best way to value it as it turns out. And so because of that, they are less likely to join it. But there is a certain thing that they’re going to see. And that is that because they are ignored, some shit is going to happen, some stuff are going to break, some attacks are going to be made, and who is going to be called to deal with that? Well, it’s them. Right? So not only are they going to be not valued for their stuff, the fact that they are not valued for their stuff is going to put them in a situation where they have to put out a bunch of fires that they would have known to avoid in the first place. So that’s an extremely bad value proposition for them to go work for us. And if we’re going to be a world scale currency, then we need to attract those kinds of people. And so we need to have a better value proposition and a better signaling that we send to them.
Alright, so that’s the end of the first infrastructure stuff. Now I want to talk about game theory a bit, and specifically, Schelling points.
So what is a Schelling point? A Schelling point is something that we can agree on without especially talking together. And there are a bunch of Schelling points that exist already in the Bitcoin space. For instance we all follow the longest chain that have certain rules, right? And we don’t need to talk to each other. If I’m getting my wallet and I have some amount of money and I go to any one of you here and you check your wallet and you have that amount of money and those two amounts agree. We never talk to each other to come to any kind of agreement about how much each of us have in terms of money. We just know. Why? Because we have a Schelling point. We have a way to decide that without really communicating. So that’s the longest chain, but also all the consensus rules we have are Schelling points. So for instance, we accept blocks up to a certain size, and we reject blocks that are bigger than that. We don’t constantly talk to each other like, ‘Oh by the way do you accept 2 mb blocks?’ ‘Yeah I do.’ ‘Do you accept like 3 mb blocks? And tomorrow will you do that?’
We’re not doing this as different actors in the space, constantly worrying each other. We just know there is a block size that is a consensus rule that is agreed upon by almost everybody, and that’s a consensus rule. And all the other consensus rules are effectively changing Schelling points. And our role as a community is to create valuable Schelling points. Right? You want to have a set of rules that provide as much value as possible for different actors in the ecosystem. Because this is how we win. And there are two parts to that. Even though sometimes we look and it’s just one thing, but there are actually two things.
The first one is that we need to decide what is a valuable Schelling point. And I think we are pretty good at this. And this is why we have a lot of utility and we have a very strong fundamental development. We are very good at choosing what is a good Schelling point. We are very bad at actually creating it and making it strong.
So I’m going to talk about that.
How do you create a new Schelling point. For instance, there was a block size, and we wanted a new block size. So we need to create a new Schelling point. How do you create a new Schelling point that is very strong? You need a commitment strategy. That’s what it boils down to. And the typical example that is used when discussing Schelling points is nuclear warfare. So think about that a bit. You have two countries that both have nuclear weapons. And one country sends a nuke on the other country. Destroys some city, whatever, it’s bad. When you look at it from a purely rational perspective, you will assume that people are very angry, and that they want to retaliate, right? But if you put that aside, there is actually no benefit to retaliating. It’s not going to rebuild the city, it’s not going to make them money, it’s not going to give them resources to rebuild it, it’s not going to make new friends. Usually not. It’s just going to destroy some stuff in the other guy that would otherwise not change anything because the other guys already did the damage to us. So if you want nuclear warfare to actually prevent war like we’ve seen mostly happening in the past few decades with the mutually assured destruction theory, you need each of those countries to have a very credible commitment strategy, which is if you nuke me, I will nuke you, and I’m committing to that decision no matter what. I don’t care if it’s good or bad for me, if you nuke me, I will nuke you. And if you can commit to that strongly enough so that it’s credible for other people, it’s most likely that they are not going to nuke you in the first place because they don’t want to be nuked. And it’s capital to understand that this commitment strategy, it’s actually the most important part of it. It’s not the nuke, it’s not any of it, it’s the commitment strategy. You have the right commitment strategy, you can have all the nuke that you want, it’s completely useless, because you are not deterring anyone from attacking you.
There are many other examples, like private property. It’s something usually you’re going to be willing to put a little bit of effort to defend, and the effort is usually way higher than the value of the property itself. Because this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever, and you’re pretty committed to it, and therefore you create a Schelling point over the fact that this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever. People are willing to use violence and whatever to defend their property. This is effectively, even if you don’t do it yourself, this is what happens when you call the cops, right? The cops are like you stop violating that property or we’re going to use violence against you. So people are willing to use a very disproportionate response even in comparison to the value of the property. And this is what is creating the Schelling point that allows private property to exist.
This is the commitment strategy. And so the longest chain is a very simple example. You have miners and what miners do when they create a new block, essentially they move from one Schelling point when a bunch of people have some amount of money, to a new Schelling point where some money has moved, and we need to agree to the new Schelling point. And what they do is that they commit a certain amount of resources to it via proof of work. And this is how they get us to pay attention to the new Schelling point. And so UASF is also a very good example of that where people were like we activate segwit no matter what, like, if it doesn’t pan out, we just like busted our whole chain and we are dead.
Right? This is like the ultimate commitment strategy, as far as computer stuff is involved. It’s not like they actually died or anything, but as far as you can go in the computer space, this is very strong commitment strategy.
So let me take an example that is fairly inconsequential in its consequences, but I think explains very well. The initial BCH ticker was BCC. I don’t know if people remember that. Personally I remember reading about it. It was probably when we created it with Jonald and a few other people. And so I personally was for XBC, but I went with BCC, and most people wanted BCC right? It doesn’t matter. But it turned out that Bitfinex had some Ponzi scheme already listed as BCC. It was Bitconnect, if you remember. Carlos Matos, you know, great guy, but Bitconnect was not exactly the best stuff ever, it was a Ponzi scheme. And so as a result Bitifnex decided to list Bitcoin Cash as BCH instead of BCC, and then the ball started rolling and now everybody uses BCH instead of BCC.
So it’s not all that bad. The consequences are not that very bad. And I know that many of you are thinking that right now. Why is this guy bugging us about this? We don’t care if it’s BCC or BCH. And if you’re doing that, you are exactly proving my point.
Because … there are people working for Bitcoin.com here right? Yeah, so Bitcoin.com is launching an exchange, or just has launched, it’s either out right now or it’s going to be out very soon. Well think about that. Make this thought experiment for yourself. Imagine that Bitcoin.com lists some Ponzi scheme as BTC, and then they decide to list Bitcoin as BTN. What do you think would be the reaction of the Bitcoin Core supporter? Would they be like, you know what? we don’t want to be confused with some Ponzi scheme so we’re going to change everything for BTN. No, they would torch down Roger Ver even more than they do now, they would torch down Bitcoin.com. They would insult anyone that would suggest that this was a good idea to go there. They would say that everyone that uses the stuff that is BTC that it’s a ponzi scheme, and that it’s garbage, and that if you even talk about it you are the scum of the earth. Right? They would be extremely committed to whatever they have.
And I think this is a lesson that we need to learn from them. Because even though it’s a ticker, it’s not that important, it’s that attitude that you need to be committed to that stuff if you want to create a strong Schelling point, that allows them to have a strong Schelling point, and that does not allow us to have that strong of a Schelling point.
Okay, so yesterday we had the talk by Justin Bons from Cyber Capital, and one of the first things he said in his talk, is that his company has a very strong position in BCH. And so that changed the whole tone of the talk. You gotta take him seriously because his money is where his mouth is. You know that he is not coming on the stage and telling you random stuff that comes from his mind or tries to get you to do something that he doesn’t try himself. That doesn’t mean he’s right. Maybe he’s wrong, but if he’s wrong, he’s going bankrupt. And you know just for that reason, maybe it’s worth it to listen to it a bit more than some random person saying random stuff when they have no skin in the game.
And it makes him more of a leader in the space. Okay we have some perception in this space that we have a bunch of leaders, but many of them don’t have skin in the game. And it is very important that they do. So when there is some perceived weakness from BCH, if you act as an investor, you are going to diversify. If you act as a leader, you are going to fix that weakness. Right? And so, leaders, it’s not like you can come here and decide well, I’m a leader now. Leaders are leaders because people follow them. It seems fairly obvious, but … and you are the people following the leaders, and I am as well. We decide to follow the opinion of some people more than the opinion of others. And those are the defacto leaders of our community. And we need to make sure that those leaders that we have like Justin Bons, and make sure that they have a strong commitment to whatever they are leading you to, because otherwise you end up in this situation:

https://preview.redd.it/r23dptfobcl31.jpg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=750fbd0f1dc0122d2791accc59f45a235a522444
Where you got a leader, he’s getting you to go somewhere, he has some goal, he has some whatever. In this case he is not that happy with the British people. But he’s like give me freedom or give me death, and he’s going to fight the British, but at the same time he’s like you know what? Maybe this shit isn’t gonna pan out, you gotta make sure you have your backup plan together, you have your stash of British pound here. You know, many of us are going to die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
That’s not the leader that you want.
I’m going to go to two more examples and then we’re going to be done with it. So one of them is Segwit 2x. Segwit 2x came with a time where some people wanted to do UASF. And UASF was essentially people that set up a modified version of their Bitcoin node that would activate segwit on August 1, no matter what. Right? No matter what miners do, no matter what other people do, it’s going to activate segwit. And either I’m going to be on the other fork, or I’m going to be alone and bust. Well, the alternative proposal was segwit 2x. Where people would activate segwit and then increase the size of the block. And what happened was that one of the sides had a very strong commitment strategy, and the other side, instead of choosing a proportional commitment strategy, what they did was that they modified the activation of segwit 2x to be compatible with UASF. And in doing so they both validate the commitment strategy done by the opposite side, and they weaken their own commitment strategy. So if you look at that, and you understand game theory a bit, you know what’s going to happen. Like the fight hasn’t even started and UASF has already won. And when I saw that happening, it was a very important development to me, because I have some experience in game theory, a lot of that, so I understood what was happening, and this is what led me to commit to BCH, which was BCC at the time, 100%. Because I knew segwit 2x was toast, even though it had not even started, because even though they had very strong cards, they are not playing their cards right, and if you don’t play your cards right, it doesn’t matter how strong your cards are.
Okay, the second one is emergent consensus. And the reason I wanted to put those two examples here is because I think those are the two main examples that lead to the fact that BTC have small blocks and we have big blocks and we’re a minority chain. Those are like the two biggest opportunities we had to have big blocks on BTC and we blew both of them for the exact same reason.
So emergent consensus is like an interesting technology that allows you to trade your bigger block without splitting the network. Essentially, if someone starts producing blocks that are bigger than … (video skips) ,,, The network seems to be following the chain that has larger blocks, eventually they’re going to fall back on that chain, and that’s a very clevery mechanism that allows you to make the consensus rules softer in a way, right? When everybody has the same consensus rules, it still remains enforced, but if a majority of people want to move to a new point, they can do so by bringing others with them without creating a fork. That is a very good activation mechanism for changing the block size, for instance, or it can be used to activate other stuff.
There is a problem, though. This mechanism isn’t able to set a new point. It’s a way to activate a new Schelling point when you have one, but it provides no way to decide when and where or to what value or to anything to where we are going. So this whole strategy lacks the commitment aspect of it. And because it lacks the commitment aspect of it, it was unable to activate properly. It was good, but it was not sufficient in itself. It needs to be combined with a commitment strategy. And especially on that one there are some researchers that wrote a whole paper (https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) unpacking the whole game theory that essentially come to that conclusion that it’s not going to set a new size limit because it lacked the commitment aspect of it. But they go on like they model all the mathematics of it, they give you all the numbers, the probability, and the different scenarios that are possible. It’s a very interesting paper. If you want to see, like, because I’m kind of explaining the game theory from a hundred mile perspective, but actually you can deep dive into it and if you want to know the details, they are in there. People are doing that. This is an actual branch of mathematics.
Alright, okay so conclusion. We must avoid to weaken our commitment strategy. And that means that we need to work in a way where first there is decentralization happening. Everybody has ideas, and we fight over them, we decide where we want to go, we put them on the roadmap, and once it’s on the roadmap, we need to commit to it. Because when people want to go like, ‘Oh this is decentralized’ and we do random stuff after that, we actually end up with decentralization, not decentralization in a cooperative manner, but like in an atomization manner. You get like all the atoms everywhere, we explode, we destroy ourself.
And we must require a leader to have skin in the game, so that we make sure we have good leaders. I have a little schema to explain that. We need to have negotiations between different parties, and because there are no bugs, the negotiation can last for a long time and be tumultuous and everything, and that’s fine, that’s what decentralization is looking like at that stage, and that’s great and that makes the system strong. But then once we made a decision, we got to commit to it to create a new Schelling point. Because if we don’t, the new Schelling point is very weak, and we get decentralization in the form of disintegration. And I think we have not been very good to balance the two. Essentially what I would like for us to do going forward is encouraging as much as possible decentralization in the first form. But consider people who participate in the second form, as hostile to BCH, because their behavior is damaging to whatever we are doing. And they are often gonna tell you why we can’t do that because it’s permissionless and decentralized, and they are right, this is permissionless and decentralized, and they can do that. We don’t have to take it seriously. We can show them the door. And not a single person can do that by themself, but as a group, we can develop a culture where it’s the norm to do that. And we have to do that.”
submitted by BCHcain to btc [link] [comments]

9 Rules of Crypto Trading That Helped One Trader Go from $1k to $46k in Less Than a Year

No, the successful trader is not me. I’ve gotten lucky a few times and I’m still refining and trying out strategies; on the other hand, I’m part of communities of people who trade on a daily basis to grow their portfolios, and while some of the results can be attributed to luck, a majority of it is based on fundamentals, good habits, and experience.
The Result of Good Habits
Miles is the co-founder of Pure Investments. In May 2017, he started off by playing with $1,000, which he accumulated through saving 10% of his paychecks for a while. Today, he is at $46,000; i.e., he grew his portfolio by 46x in less than a year. Similarly, after starting Pure Investments back in September 2017, Miles got one of his first community members, who goes by the pseudonym SP on the Discord channel. When SP started, he put in $40,000. By January 2018, he had over $1 million (today it’s ~$800k due to the recent Bitcoin crash). While markets like cryptocurrency are extremely volatile and all investors are subject to its price fluctuation including Miles, SP, myself, and you, good habits will help mitigate the losses and maximize profits. Nine Rules of Crypto Trading
Please note that none of this is investment advice. Invest at your own risk!
  1. Only invest what you can lose. During the recent crash in January 2018, hobby-investors got burned. Reports of frustration and losses came at the cost of broken monitors, smashed laptops, and heavy monetary losses. While the rules are in more particular order of importance, it’s safe to assume that this is the most important rule, the rule to rule the rules. As soon as your money is converted into cryptocurrency, consider it lost forever. There is absolutely no guarantee you can get it back. Losses don’t simply come from dips in the market; extraordinary factors such as hacks, bugs, and government regulation can mean you’ll never see any of your money again. If you are investing money you can’t afford to lose, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current financial situation, because what you’re about to do is an act of desperation. This includes: using credit cards, taking out mortgages, applying for loans, or selling everything and traveling the world (as glamorous as that sounds).
  2. Always pay attention to Bitcoin. Most altcoins (every cryptocurrency except Bitcoin) are pegged more closely to Bitcoin than Asian currencies were to the USD during the Asian Financial Crisis. If Bitcoin price pump drastically, altcoins price can go down as people try to exit altcoins to ride the BTC profits; inversely, if Bitcoin prices dump drastically, altcoin prices can go down, too, as people exit altcoins to exchange back into fiat. The best times for altcoin growth appear when Bitcoin shows organic growth or decline, or remains stagnant in price.
  3. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify. While the potential to earn more is increased with the amount of money you invest into a coin, the potential to lose more is also magnified. Another way to think about it is to look at the cryptocurrency market as a whole; if you believe that this is just the beginning, then more than likely the entire market cap of cryptocurrencies will increase. What are the chances that this market cap increase will be entirely driven by one coin vs. being driven by many coins? The best way to safely capture the overall growth of cryptocurrency is to diversify and reap the benefits of growth from multiple coins. Also, fun fact — Between January 2016 and January 2018, Corgicoin has increased by 60,000x, and Verge has increased by 13,000x. During the same period, Bitcoin has increased by 34x. While you would have gotten impressive gains from Bitcoin, expanding into other coins could have landed you potentially larger ones.
  4. Don’t be greedy. No one ever lost money taking a profit. As a coin begins to grow, the greed inside us grows along with it. If a coin increases by 30%, why not consider taking profit? Even if goals are set to 40% or 50%, you should at least pull out some of the profit on the way up in case a coin doesn’t reach the goal. If you wait too long or try to get out at a higher point, you risk losing profit you already earned or even turning that profit into a loss. Get into the habit of taking profits and scouting for re-entry if you want to continue reaping potential profits.
  5. Don’t invest blindy. There are people in this world who would sell a blind person a pair of glasses if they could make money. Those same people play in the cryptocurrency markets and use every opportunity to exploit less-informed investors. They’ll tell you what to buy or claim certain coins will moon, just to increase the prices so they can exit. Due to the highly speculative nature of the cryptocurrency markets today, a good investor will always do his or her own research in order to take full responsibility for the potential investment outcome. Information coming from even the best investor is, at best, great information, but never a promise, so you can still get burned.
  6. Don’t FOMO. This is a spot that people most frequently lose money on. A dash of manipulation, two tablespoons of media hype, a cup of CME and CBOE announcements, and a generous handful of FOMO drove Bitcoin prices from $10,000 to $20,000 in December. Since that time, Bitcoin fell to a low of $9,000 and is currently sitting at around $11,000. It’s easy to look back and say, “if only I waited one month, then I could’ve bought at $9,000 instead of waiting for Bitcoin to hit $20,000 again for me to break even.” But the reality is, the combination of 1) being greedy, 2) investing blindly, and 3) FOMO were likely large contributors to the purchase at an all-time-high. Even in the crazy world of cryptocurrency, if a coin pumps that quickly, it will correct — it’s a matter of time. Speculative pumps are almost always followed by dips. While trying to jump onto a train going full speed sounds like something straight out of a James Bond movie, I’m sure most of us can agree we would probably save some limbs if we just waited for it at the next stop.
  7. Categorize your investments and look at the long picture. In the process of your research, you’ll eventually realize you’re coming across a few different categories of coins. For some of them, you believe they have good teams, great vision, amazing publicity and a track record for successful execution. Great! Put these into medium or long-term holds and let them marinate into a delicious tenderloin. When the price dips, don’t even consider panic selling because anything in your medium or long-term portfolio should remain untouched for a set amount of time. BNB is a good example of a coin Miles considers a long hold. Recently, it dipped 20% for a while, and within our community, we witnessed some sell-offs to preserve investments. A week later, it jumped up almost 3x for a period of time.
  8. Always learn from your mistakes. Never accept a total loss. Always evaluate the situation and try to figure out why it happened. Take that experience as an asset for your next move, which will be better because you are know more now than you knew before. We all start off as amateurs, and we have all lost money throughout out trading experience. In his first month of trading, Miles went from $1,000 to $300. I’ve lost a lot by selling at losses inspired by fear. No one is perfect, no one wins every single trade. Don’t let the losses discourage you, because the reality is they’re making you better trader if you choose to learn from them.
  9. If you are doing any active trading, set stop losses. For any coins not in your medium or long-term holds, always set stop losses. This is important for several reasons — the most obvious is mitigating your losses. But more importantly, you force yourself to decide on a point of acceptable loss, and because you now have a reference point, you are able to measure your effectiveness to keep or adjust for future trades. Sometimes, during a market dip, altcoins can plummet, and stop losses can lead to profitability by automatically selling for fiat that you can use to re-enter at lower prices.
  10. 10 Bonus — always check the ticker symbol. Ticker symbols are not universal, and may vary from exchange to exchange in rare cases. Those cases, though, can come back to bite you. For example, Bitcoin Cash trades on some exchanges as BCH, while it trades on others as BCC. BCC is also the ticker symbol for BitConnect, which was recently outted as a Ponzi Scheme. If you bought BCC under the impression was Bitcoin Cash, you would’ve lost a lot of money.

You Don’t Have to Go At It Alone While these rules are by no means the only lessons you need, they’re definitely a great starting point. Sometimes, though, things are easier said than done, such as watching your portfolio value plummet and still having the iron willpower of resisting the sell button. One of the best solutions I’ve found to this was to join a community of like-minded cryptocurrency investors. Educated and smart crypto-traders, as well as the community members, will all be there to support your efforts and will be holding with you in the rough times.
On top of that, the cryptocurrency market travels at lightspeed compared to other markets. New coins enter the market on a daily basis (in 2016, there were about 550 different coins, today there are about 1,500), and each one has news every day. I’m not doubting your ability to consume and analyze news, but that level of information bombardment will always be more effectively consumed as a group. In these communities, you’ll see members link news and relevant articles about coins you’ve invested in and coins you’ve never heard of. The community will definitely expand your knowledge much faster than doing it all yourself.
The Pure Investments community, as well as many other communities out there, have a free and paid membership. The paid membership is similar to the free one in that each one can access the community, but the paid one has more hands-on guidance from the analysts, and you can learn more through the education sections.
submitted by FmzQuant to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao: What is WaykiChain doing now?

WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao: What is WaykiChain doing now?
https://preview.redd.it/i6sd5ax60ow41.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d4171bd4831ce2cfd6fa0bd9b598888d3a100cb
Recently, there have been many thoughts on the development direction of blockchain and WaykiChain. I have found some certainty in the world of uncertainty. How does WaykiChain understand the development of the public chain? What is WaykiChain development direction based on these understandings? What should the community expect and pay attention to? I will share with you the answers to these questions.
How does WICC increase prices?
WICC is the basic digital currency on the WaykiChain public chain. According to its white paper, when this coin was issued in the early period, more than 70% of the chips were in circulation in the secondary market This is a relatively high proportion, comparing to most of blockchain projects. This high circulation ratio is like a double-edged sword. The disadvantage is that foundation has relatively weak control over its value in the secondary market. It is also difficult to manipulate the price to create some false market value to deceive the public. The advantage is that WICC can have a wide range of coin holders and community members. Meanwhile, more coin holders mean that when WICC is found to have price increase expectations, such expectations will be spread by the population, which can result in a large-scale network effect. In 2018, WaykiChain relied on this network effect to make a big hit in the market. At that time, the number of WICC holders was about 100,000 (WICC holders in exchange).
However, the communities merely brought by price increase expectations are not sustainable. Those people came because of profit, and they will leave because of no profit. Those who made money or lost money on WaykiChain will scold after the currency price fell. In the bear market, it is almost difficult for people to have confidence in altcoins. It is difficult for people to invest in your long-term future with real money no matter what expectations they receive. Then, how to make WICC valuable in this bear market? We can conclude by the nature of price increases, which is fewer people selling and more people buying.
Staking economy is an effective way to achieve“few people selling”. This kind of gameplay is not widely used in the traditional field as it is in the crypto circle.
Most of Staking’s gameplay is to give you a dollar profit to make you unwilling to sell your 100 dollar coins. This approach may have a positive effect in the short term, but in the long term, it is no different from the Ponzi scheme. The other method is the DeFi. In DeFi, people need to collateralize their coins and get something that can bring value to them. For example, mortgage lending. When you are unwilling to sell your coins and lack money, the CDP mortgage lending system can meet your needs. At this time, the WICC in your hand becomes a “ticket” to participate in the CDP mortgage lending system. The collateralization generated by this real demand is often solid because such users are less likely to quit fast. Because they benefit from WaykiChain and believe this kind of service will generate value, so it is not a zero-sum game. In the end, most of the people here are winners, so they cherish their chips.
Once there are more users, there should be more reasons for them to buy more continuously. The reason for most people who buy token is nothing more than to see some good news which can be predicted. Halving is predicted, so there was a decent run at the start of the year. The World Cup was also a prediction and it is a piece of good news for betting-related blockchain. This prediction of a high degree of certainty in time can prompt a frenzied influx. But other than this quadrennial prediction(Halving or World Cup) of events, what expectations do you have for the community?
The first is the technical aspect. A good technical public chain can attract more developers, and more developers can build more business models and have more imagination.
To realize the expectation of the business model, users should value the future business growth of your current track and the most direct promotion of the economic model after the growth. For example, the growth of the mortgage lending business. The total collateral of WICC gets bigger ->Less liquidated WICC ->WICC’ s unit price raises with the demand stays the same. Or growth in mortgage lending->WGRT destruction becomes more numerous->WGRT’s unit price raises. This business model creates a rigid value in a currency.
Finally, there comes the marketing ability, the user toned to trust that you are able to attract more investors at some point in the future. All financial activities generate bubbles, and how big an asset you end up with depends both on how much beer you have and how much bubble you can pour. If building business value is about brewing, marketing, and storytelling, it’s about pouring beer out of the bubble.
About liquidity
When it comes to liquidity, some people’s understanding of liquidity of a coin is to be listed on more exchanges, some people know a bit about some financial markets, so they say liquidity is the depth of the order book. I recently get some inspirations from David in Coinbase. Liquidity can be measured by the time you spend to convert an asset to purchase power.
Cash is with the best liquidity, as it is almost equal to purchasing power. Property is less liquid because there are very few situations where you buy something directly from the house. Usually, you will have to turn it into cash and buy something else. So there’s a long period between when you decide to sell the house and when you get the money, and the longer that period is, the less liquid it is. USDT is relatively liquid because OTC transactions, which is a mature market in the current situation, allow people to convert the USDT into fiat money in minutes.
Note that the above mentioned is to turn assets into purchasing power, rather than cash out. These two are essentially different. For example, if I want to purchase some service from a crypto media, I often use Eth, BTC, USDT, not cash. So I don’t need to sell off my digital currency to exchange cash, but directly pay it, which becomes purchasing power. From this perspective, any merchant accepting digital currency payments is enhancing the liquidity of the digital currency. Because he shortens the time it takes for assets to become purchasing power.
As I said before, the keyword of the Internet fights is traffic, and the keyword of digital currency is liquidity. Much of what WICC does is to increase liquidity. Listing on Exchange shortens the time for WICC to transform into the purchasing power of other digital currencies. In real application scenarios, many people are reluctant to undertake the risk of digital currency fluctuations. They only like to denominate in fiat currency, so WUSD (stablecoin) that is generated by collateralizing WICC has better potential than WICC to become purchasing power. Huatong Security accepts WUSD as a payment method to buy HK/US Pre-IPO stocks shortens the time when some people want to convert WUSD into the purchasing power of Hong Kong and US stocks (In the normal process, this user must first sell, exchange fiat currency, and then open an account to buy Hong Kong and US stocks). The new project WaykiX shortens the time required to transform WICC into the purchasing power of investing in various assets around the world.
Bitcoin’s technology has not been greatly updated since its inception, but its value remains the leader because of its liquidity. Similarly, in my opinion, the market value of USDT has soared because liquidity is becoming more and more mature. WaykiChain’s future development is also inseparable from liquidity.
About Defi
As mentioned above, liquidity is important. If you want to improve liquidity, you can cash out first and use cash to purchase most of things you want. However cash out itself is not what a project expects, because it will dump the price when a lot of people doing that. Therefore, collateralizing assets, generating stablecoins, and then enabling stablecoins to generate purchasing power has become a perfect model, which is the essence of WaykiChain 3-Token Economy Model.
Regarding purchasing power, first we need to know what users want to buy. Many public chain projects, including WaykiChain, have begun to explore what kind of products and services that users want to buy. For example, betting products, value-added game services, or even e-commerce. All of these end up with nearly no results. As speculators’ paradise, the cryptocurrency circle usually care about borrowing money to make money. So, there is nothing more interesting for them than lending and making money. These people may not have the need to play games or buy things, but they must have the demand to make money. Therefore, finance must be the right direction for blockchain projects. WaykiChain will all in DeFi for at least the next two years.
Many people say that WUSD is a stablecoin, so it needs to be compared with USDT. Rather than emphasize WUSD itself, I would rather like to say that WaykiChain ’s CDP is a lending system and service, and WUSD is just a stable value certificate. I am more concerned about the capacity of the CDP lending business itself, and whether it can provide users with the value of lending. As for when WUSD can become a freely circulating currency, it will take a long time to see how much purchasing power is endowed. Maybe at first, WUSD could buy WICC, WGRT, then the index of various global assets, then other digital currencies, then some Hong Kong stocks and US stocks, and finally maybe you can buy two packs of snacks with WUSD downstairs.
Simple preview of the new product WaykiX, users can trade all kinds of global assets, including digital currencies, indices, stocks, commodity futures, and even contracts. We have high expectations for this product because we feel it can meet the “purchase” needs of most existing community users. This product learns from the Synthetix project and adds some local elements of WaykiChain, including the technical security reinforcement, as well as the improvement of the economic model and the risk resistance level.
Someone asked, Ethereum has a complete DeFi ecosystem, and there are countless projects to start a business together. Why does WaykiChain have the power to fight with Ether? I would like to share a few points. The DeFi of Ethereum is aimed at users of Ethereum. We are currently targeting WaykiChain users. There is no conflict at present. In addition, DeFi seems to have a variety of patterns. It is nothing more than the four major categories of deposits, loans, liquidity, and derivatives. Our current developer community is not as prosperous as Ethereum, so WaykiChain uses a point-to-face model to first construct the core and head of DeFi to ensure quality and safety. When it can form a minimum closed-loop, and then let developers support those long-tail applications. Although it is a bit contrary to the concept of decentralization, we believe that this is an indispensable process for the implementation of the blockchain public chain。
About community
I mentioned three directions in the first chapter on how to create the value of WaykiChain, the first is technology, the second is business model and applications, and the third is the marketing model and bubble.
In fact, a healthy blockchain community is also attracted by these three parts of value, a core developer community, some coin holders with business needs, and a group of speculation or investors. To achieve the top five public chains in the world, these three groups must be huge.
WaykiChain attracts the core developer community through the leading technology mechanism and the friendliness of public chain development. This is the reason why WaykiChain has invested a lot of resources in the technical level of the public chain.
WaykiChain continues to create value for currency holders to meet their needs through the DeFi business.
And eye-catching marketing methods to attract investors and speculators when market conditions improve and new market capital are sufficient.
The bull market is short while the bear market is long. In the bear market, WaykiChain needs to continue to play at the table in a way with a high winning rate. These are my personal opinions. Welcome to discuss more with me.
submitted by Waykichain to WICCProject [link] [comments]

The Crypto Mobcast: Do We Need Privacy Coins? Why Onecoin Not Ponzi scheme By Dr Ruja Ignovota TBC is Not Ponzi Scheme? Scam? Who are they? Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme.  MaiView  20190719 Crypto Winners Jun 2020 Did you win? High court declares level 3, 4 regulations invalid...

When investors stop joining the scheme collapses. Some examples of historical Ponzis include the ones perpetrated by Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford, which used finance firms as fronts to con people out of billions. Notable crypto Ponzis include BitConnect, OneCoin, and Plus Token. Critics, like Nouriel Roubini, are adamant that Bitcoin is a ... The three scams used as examples in this article are Onecoin, Bitconnect, and GainBitcoin. Onecoin is the gold standard of bitcoin-based Ponzi schemes. According to Bloomberg, victims of this Ponzi scheme estimate Onecoin’s fraudulent revenue at $3.8 billion. Additionally, the company claimed to have 3 million members tied up in its pyramid ... A recent Bitcoin Ponzi scheme, for example, promised investors up to 7% interest per week. A static investment return on your account statement, especially during volatile markets, suggests the ... What a response! Ponzi it is not. Keep your vagueness to yourself. We’ve been getting a great response to our Search for the Next Bitcoin docuseries.Yesterday’s interview with Jason Schenker really stirred up some controversy!In today’s episode I go into some detail with my presentation about all the signals and moves in the crypto world that are being made. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment that relies on new buyers to generate profits for old buyers. It differs from a pyramid scheme. ... What It Is and How It Works with Examples How a Ponzi Scheme Differs from a Pyramid Scheme. ... Beware of These Top Bitcoin Scams.

[index] [7497] [33653] [20764] [6783] [5786] [22992] [3765] [15795] [22204] [32449]

The Crypto Mobcast: Do We Need Privacy Coins?

Disclaimer: This video represents my personal opinion that are for educational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute facts in any way. Therefore no posts represent investment advice ... MaiCoin Group - Taiwan's largest and longest running digital asset trading platform. MaiCoin _ https://www.maicoin.com MAX _ https://max.maicoin.com Register... Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies - Duration: 12:49 ... MELLOW GOLD8 13,947 views. 4:38. Ponzi Schemes Of The Crypto World - "10,000% Returns Guaranteed!" - Duration: 6:11. The ... Discover the basics of digital currency, otherwise known as Crypto Currency. Find out how to profit massively from various digital currencies such as Bitcoin, OneCoin and Etherium. Discover more ... Why Crypto.com Is NOT Ponzi Scheme Like Bitconnect? ... (FREE Template With Examples) - Duration: 40:13. Grad Coach Recommended for you. 40:13. Bitcoin DROPS 10% Fast & What Usually Happens Next ...

#