Why do people find it so hard to accept the irrefutable fact that Bitcoin is CURRENTLY, IN ITS PRESENT STATE, not fungible and that solving this problem is going to be very important problem going forward? Adam Back has solutions, but he hasn't had the time due to things like the blocksize debate.
Here is just one example:
The US captures an evildoer bitcoin private key with a million dollars in it.
The US government forbids Walmart (and other large stores) from accepting bitcoins linked in any way to this evildoer address.
Now you can spend some bitcoins at Walmart, unless they are linked to the evildoer bitcoins.
QED. Bitcoin is not fungible.
Why is this so hard to see? Bitcoin simply isn't fungible YET. Let's stop debating whether or not bitcoin is fungible. That's not a very intelligent debate IMO because bitcoin isn't fungible! I mean WTF? Let's bring the debate down to a new level: HOW DO WE MAKE BITCOIN FUNGIBLE? That's the correct question to be asking at this point. Here is Adam Back's post about his solutions. He just hasn't had the time to implement them yet.
In the spirit of a non-biased debate, I've started looking into the history of recessions in the US pre and post FED. I see some facts I cannot ignore, and these facts effect my perspective of bitcoin as money.Could someone please explain why our recessions have been reduced since the start of FED?
Scaling Bitcoin and blocksize debate: fact vs. fiction (addressing some of the FUD)
In response to the FUD article about Bitcoin on technology's front page, please hear this out. Don't believe everything you read. A lot of people have a vested interest in having a quick, brutal hard fork now. A lot of misinformation is being spread. TL;DR - the Core team is not controlled by an evil corporation and they have an effective plan to scale Bitcoin that includes a hard fork which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin miners, developers, and industry leaders. Fact: there is no company that controls Bitcoin developement, the "conspiracy" about Blockstream is ridiculous The current core development team is composed of numerous individuals, and is not, as some would claim, "controlled by one company". This is the list of developers that have contributed code to Bitcoin during the last year. First observation, the top 4 don't work for Blockstream. Second observation, only six of them (as far as I can tell) have links to Blockstream. Also, the rest of the technical community that are not core developers, e.g. wallet developers, supports the current core team: - Notable supporters: https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ - Technical community signing the capacity increase roadmap: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ So if Blockstream has some an incentive not to scale Bitcoin, and the core devs are somehow controlled by this company, and the current roadmap is the output of this conspiracy, why does it have the support of so many people that are not affiliated with Blockstream? Fact 2: it is COMPLETELY FALSE to claim that the Core developers do not have plans to increase the block size Not only is the SegWit proposal going to increase the blocksize in April 2016 by 1.8x-2x, many prominent core developers and researchers, including the president of Blockstream Adam Back, agree that there will be a Hard Fork of the network proposed in summer 2016 to increase the blocksize limit to 2MB, likely implemented in the following months / the following year if adopted by the network. This leads to an effective increase to 4MB. Read more here: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.oew9wy5tf Scaling roadmap FAQ here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/ Key points:
SegWit continues to be developed actively as a soft-fork and is likely to proceed towards release over the next two months, as originally scheduled
We will continue to work with the entire Bitcoin protocol development community to develop, in public, a safe hard-fork based on the improvements in SegWit.
The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the Bitcoin Roundtable will have an implementation of such a hard-fork available as a recommendation to Bitcoin Core within three months after the release of SegWit.
This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.
We are committed to scaling technologies which use block space more efficiently, such as Schnorr multisig.
Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates. SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
Blockstream's business model Those who don't understand Blockstream's business model obviously have not witnessed the hype around "consortium blockchains" or "private chains" or similar technologies which Blockstream is able to deploy (and more) via open-source projects that they are leading since they are the world's most prominent experts in these new open-source technologies, such as Sidechains. There is an infinite possibility of revenue sources that stem from being literally the most expert Bitcoin company in the world. From consulting to integration, deployement of internal solutions, audit, etc. To think that they have some kind of monetary incentive not to scale Bitcoin is extremely insulting and, honestly, is pure delusion. If Bitcoin does not scale, they will go out of business. The technologies they will profit from are to be used by banks, exchanges and other clients and don't particularly lead to much scaling. Other open-source projects, such as the lightning network, will help scaling. What is scaling anyway? You can have some requirements for developers such as: increase the throughput by 2-3x per year, or increase the capacity of the network. What we shouldn't do is tell the world's leading experts what exact parameter they should change, how and when. Why should developers listen to non-technical experts yelling in their ear: CHANGE THE BLOCKSIZE PARAMETER FROM 1MB to 2MB WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS VIA A CONTENTIOUS HARD FORK AND EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE! The Core developers are not only programmers, they are the foremost experts in Bitcoin and are planning for this currency to survive forever, not just a temporary fix to the new few business quarters. There are multiple ways to scale:
SERIOUS: Independent, objective investigation and professional reports must be carried out relating to the main debates in the Bitcoin sphere, such as whether or not small-blockers are in fact being driven by self-interest or the interests of others they serve, or not.
The whole big blocker / small blocker debate is bedeviled by endless layers of argument ranging from technical to social to political ones that have just not been verified. None of us can evaluate all of the arguments presented one side or the other and, I see from my particular area of expertise (which includes content analysis and systemic change), with the result that if we win an argument on one level, the oh another argument we don't really understand thrown at us from another level of the whole debate makes us flounder, and every debate I see goes this route. And so we sit in a fog of misinformation and bias, with neither BU and Core solutions able to reach adoption. So. I think we need some kind of fund and independent research body of independent researchers and investigators who are able to identify the various debates, devise research the facts necessary to incontrovertibly prove one or other stance on the debate, carry out or commission that research, and publish the results. There are endless expertise and tools out there to do this and given that the phenomenon of Bitcoin is going to staggeringly alter the way the world runs - and I think we all accept that - and so much hinges on getting it right, I find it startling that these kind of blurry debates are still taking place on platforms without the benefit of independent and formal research into where the answers to the debates lie. For instance, one debate is that big blockers have been bought off and are serving the interests of others, or indeed of themselves, rather than the well-being of the project as a whole. These arguments remain just accusations until they are objectively investigated and report on and a case is made for one or the other side to answer. Yet, a non-technical person with a bent towards being big-blocker, I can think of no easier way to purge the Bitcoin effort of proponents small-block than to prove their primary interests lie other than with the integrity of the bitcoin community, or even that they lie other than with the interests of one set of users necessary for the project to proceed properly. I'd totally happily and with enthusiasm contribute (necessarily in a small way unfortunately) to such a fund. Thoughts?
08-16 16:32 - 'It sounds like you are not familiar with the creation/evolution debate. If you define evolution simply as "biological change" then of course it is a fact that is self-evident to anyone who has compared themselves to their own ch...' by /u/ebliever removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-3min
''' It sounds like you are not familiar with the creation/evolution debate. If you define evolution simply as "biological change" then of course it is a fact that is self-evident to anyone who has compared themselves to their own children. But that is not what his link was about. It's a cheap bait-and-switch trick to first define evolution as "change" and then insist, as evolutionists too often do, that any evidence of change therefore proves that all life evolved by natural processes in the absence of an intelligent agent. This is why evolutionists get so panic-stricken at the thought of a public debate. When the public learns that the real difference between the creation models and evolutionism is the net direction of biological change, and how all that "mountain of evidence" contradicts the evolutionary position and supports the creation model of neutral or degenerative changes - the debate is over. Whether we are talking about antibiotic and toxin resistance as a fluke side effect of degenerative mutations, seedless fruit, flight or sight loss in birds or troglodytes, metabolism of nylon due to damaged regulatory processes in bacteria or the host of other beneficial or neutral mutations observed in science - to say nothing of all the harmful mutations observed - the evidence for degeneration is overwhelming. There is no magical process that is mystically doing complex integrative work creating new functions and specified processes within the hypertechnological world of cellular biology, outside of intelligent agents. There are thousands of biologists like Dr. John Sanford (the Cornell geneticist I mentioned) who reject evolution. For example Dr. Bob Carter, Dr. Jerry Bergman, Dr. Jeff Tompkins, Dr. Todd Wood, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Leonard Brand. Or we could talk about paleontologists like Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Marcus Ross or Dr. Joachim Scheven. Or geologists like Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Andrew Snelling or Dr. John Reed. Each of these men and women have perfectly normal academic credentials from universities like Harvard. If you can't even cope with obvious facts that are staring you in the face about the present - such as the existence of thousands of scientists who reject evolutionism - why should anyone pay attention to your religious beliefs about the distant past? If you don't understand what creationists actually believe you owe it to yourself and others to understand better before attempting any criticism. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: ebliever
SERIOUS: Independent, objective investigation and professional reports must be carried out relating to the main debates in the Bitcoin sphere, such as whether or not small-blockers are in fact being driven by self-interest or the interests of others they serve, or not. /r/btc
In the spirit of a non-biased debate, I've started looking into the history of recessions in the US pre and post FED. I see some facts I cannot ignore, and these facts effect my perspective of bitcoin as money.Could someone please explain why our recessions have been reduced since the start of FED?
02-05 18:57 - 'Coindesk has also written articles about Josh Garza's Ponzi scheme, with no fact-checking: / [link] / This transaction never occurred. And debating "both sides" of said Ponzi scheme: / [link] / ______________ / In case people...' by /u/ugtarmas removed from /r/Bitcoin within 20-25min
''' Coindesk has also written articles about Josh Garza's Ponzi scheme, with no fact-checking: [link]1 This transaction never occurred. And debating "both sides" of said Ponzi scheme: [link]2 In case people forgot: [link]3
The SEC alleges that Homero Joshua Garza perpetrated the fraud through his Connecticut-based companies GAW Miners and ZenMiner by purporting to offer shares of a digital Bitcoin mining operation. In reality, GAW Miners and ZenMiner did not own enough computing power for the mining it promised to conduct, so most investors paid for a share of computing power that never existed. Returns paid to some investors came from proceeds generated from sales to other investors.
10-24 19:37 - 'And this is exactly why you are losing the community. The only thing I've posted about that you dislike is the fact that this sub uses censorship. I, like many people, am not sure what the answer to the scaling debate is...' by /u/shadowofashadow removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-4min
''' And this is exactly why you are losing the community. The only thing I've posted about that you dislike is the fact that this sub uses censorship. I, like many people, am not sure what the answer to the scaling debate is but I know something is funky when the mods at /bitcoin fight so hard to censor opposing opinions. So you've just provided proof that I'm not a "great adversary to bitcoin" as you like to call me. I'm an interested party who feels like something shady is going on here. I might actually agree with your scaling platform, but it's hard for me to do so confidently without access to all of the information. I'm the average user who is trying to find an answer, only to find silence on one side. This is what is tearing the community apart. And that is why even 10 months later I'm here mentioning the censorship, because I don't think it's right and anyone who is newer to the community should be aware that they are not getting the entire data set by staying here. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: shadowofashadow
So there was a big fight in Bitcoin early on, between the idiot asshole anarchists who wanted a drug-currency and the banker types who thought Blockchain would be incredibly useful. And the Anarchists 'won' temporarily because they got to limit the size of the blockchain and make it useless for all the things those banker types wanted to use it for. It's not even a debate that this happened. There's no debate really that the block size was always intended to scale. They just made this stupid argument that the people who invested in the network were 'winning' and that it wouldn't be 'Peer to Peer' anymore if the miners 'took over'. It was total and utter crap then, and it's total and utter crap now. If you remember, back in the early days of conferences, there'd be a ton of people around from the tech industry who showed up to enthuse over how cool Bitcoin technology was, and that sort of exploded into the crypto industry. But the truth is pretty plain: the Bitcoin blockchain could have grown and grown into something big and useful full of people's data and used in multiple different ways. It would be secured by big big companies with lots to lose who had their own interests invested in the blockchain they were securing. It didn't happen like that precisely because the cypherpunks tried to hide transactions on chain. It didn't happen because the cypherpunks didn't like the idea of a big public blockchain. Fundamentally, they don't like the internet as it is, because they say they're privacy advocates. The reality is that they like the fact that they can hack and explore the digital world, so the 'privacy advocacy' is really just an excuse. So what are these people afraid of exactly? They're basically afraid of an authoritarian future based on the blockchain. But are their fears reasonable or warranted? They don't want to be tracked and traced (especially, they're campaigning for the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten). But truthfully speaking, the blockchain works because it's a public database where transactions are broadcast in public. And the reality of the system may well be that the economics work PRECISELY because of the publishing of the transactions. Public transactions, in economic terms, may well be 'cheaper' than private ones, and probably for a very good reason. Honest transactions carry less need for privacy, less need for secrecy, so they don't need to be protected so much, as a result so they don't cost as much. So if you look at it through this lens it becomes MORE THAN CLEAR why they hate Satoshi's Original Vision (now BSV). They hate the public nature of the chain. They want an alternative system to the banking system, and they want it to be hidden, uncensorable, uncontrollable and 'free' in all the worst ways.
From rags to riches and back to rags. I became aware of Bitcoin in 2012, but didn't invest until 2014 @ $440. A few years prior, it had hit $1k, dropped, and much of the public lost interest except for users of Silk Road. I sold all my BTC once it hit $1k for the second time. The more I read about ETH, the more I was convinced that this shit was wild. I didn't get it at first, but given my background (product engineering) I started to recognize use cases that Ethereum could take on: Debt vehicles owned by communities (rather than..JP Morgan). Music platforms owned by users. Ethereum is/was a software engineer's economic API. Prior to Ethereum, we could write apps that fit into real-world government/economies, but now, we could write entire governments and economies -- and we all know the economy is mankind's most influential behavioral system. Once that clicked, I put all my money into Ethereum. I told my friends and family to invest a bit too. I bought some in February of 2017 and continued to buy until my ether chest became my savings. Once ETH breached $100, I was extremely confident that the world was seeing Ethereum for what I saw (an economic/government-building toolset) -- wow was I wrong. ETH grew and grew, as we all know, topping out around ~$1400. I vividly remember waking up one morning, checking how much $ my investment was worth -- almost a half million. "I'll sell some once my stake reaches $500k," I said to myself idiotically. The prior night, I had gotten into a debate with a friend (who also invested) who had doubts about how long the asset would increase. I argued that the utility of Ethereum had barely hit the market, he argued that had nothing to do with the rise -- he was right. The rise of price was fueled by people telling friends/family 'I JUST MADE THIS MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE TO INVEST!!!', and had absolutely nothing to do with Ethereum's true value to society. My friend sold all of his investment around this time. I did not. I watched my investment dwindle from some ~$450k to just a few thousand. During this time, I was funding my business, so I would sell my ETH slowly as the price dropped. My stack of crypto is almost nothing today, but one thing I took away was the value of money. When my stack had reached nearly half a million, I felt the same as I do today. I felt the same as I did before I earned the money. Nothing in my life changed -- my happiness was exactly the same, except for the fact that I didn't have any stress around money. What made me happy was using my money for good causes - I donated a decent amount to ocean relief funds and used my money to build a business which made people happy via convenience. I'm sharing this because I don't know how many other people have made half a million dollars in under a year (after being broke), then lost it all, but I'm sure it's not common. This experience taught me the value of money and its limits to happiness contributions. That said -- when you're under the poverty line, the personal value of money is way higher. It's like a maslow's hierarchy of needs situation -- once you've satisfied your basic financial needs, your increase in happiness is fueled by further endeavors outside of 'earning money'.
Transcript of how Philip the tyrant admin of the Bitcoin Cash Telegram group called Spoice stupid, an idiot, a parrot among other insults then banned her instead of discussing Bitcoin Cash. That Telegram group is hostile, ABC/IFP shills run and follows the rBitcoin toxic censorship modus operandi.
David B., [18.10.20 01:46] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/jdagi3/whats_up_with_the_bchn_hypocrisy/ David B., [18.10.20 01:47] Wut x2 J Stodd, [18.10.20 01:49] [In reply to David B.] Their words are meaningless. They have no principles. Wish i could comment but bitcoinxio banned me from rbtc and never told me why David B., [18.10.20 01:59] These comments are so toxic Spoice, [18.10.20 01:59] In reality, the real continuation of Bitcoin as we all know it is what is carried on by BCHN, BU, BCHD and others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] ABC is changing the rules to something that is not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] anyone denying those facts is selling you snake oil Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] If Blockstream tried to take some % to their own benefit, we would have never needed BCH in the first place Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] everyone would have rejected them in a second J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:01] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin to start with, so who cares? David B., [18.10.20 02:01] [ Album ] Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] yet we have ABC trying to pull this theft and all those puppets think it's ok Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] JSTodd that's bullshit David B., [18.10.20 02:01] Like trying to talk to a core maxi about altcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] Bitcoin Cash is the most Bitcoin out of all Bitcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] it is the continuation of what Satoshi started David B., [18.10.20 02:02] Tbh they aren't even toxic Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:02] [In reply to Spoice] If the hash follows then it is Bitcoin Cash. Only if it doesn't is your claim true J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:03] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Bitcoin failed to be Peer to Peer Cash, so Bitcoin Cash attempted to fix this by forking Bitcoin and attacking the root of the problem. This does not mean Bitcoin Cash is literally Bitcoin. Adopt a different argument. Sorry if you bought into that bc of Rogers rantings J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:05] Bitcoin Cash can replace Bitcoin, and if Bitcoin dies and BCH wins then sure maybe it can take its name from its grave, but they are different products, trying to say Bitcoin stopped being "Bitcoin" and became BCH is a self contradiction. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] Jstodd's got some good points. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] He's learnt so much in the last year ☺️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:08] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement. BTC is just an instance of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost, it is peer to peer electronic cash. BTC no longer fits that criteria. Bitcoin Cash meets them. The fork proposed by ABC also fails to meet that criteria. Therefore the continuation of Bitcoin is in whatever BU, BCHN, Flowee and others will continue. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:09] What rules were defined in the WP? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] Let's see which rules aren't: 1) No coinbase tax going to any centralized entity such as ABC 2) No throttling of TX throughput such as BTC Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] therefore they both fail the simple "Is this Bitcoin?" test Spoice, [18.10.20 02:11] Finally, Michael, if you think Hash rate defines what Bitcoin is, you should stick to BTC Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] 21 million coins isn't in the WP Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] I asked what rules did the WP define. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Because BCH failed that criteria since it forked, therefore your point is wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] The announcement of the white paper included the 21 million limit, close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] HIs announcement isn't the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] show me where Satoshi said that Amaury shoudl tax the chain? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Doesn't matter- close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost - You Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] My ears pricked up on that comment, so I'm asking you what you meant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] Correct. Changing the 21 million hard limit is still more Bitcoin than taxing the Coinbase, yet both will never ever happen. Not to Bitcoin anyway Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] If you meant Satoj's writings pre and post WP then you should be clear about it Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] some bastardized chain might, just not Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:14] The closest we have to anything to indicate what is "Bitcoiness" is general things like "the longest chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:14] No, it is never a single thing David B., [18.10.20 02:15] REEEE Jingles, [18.10.20 02:15] trustless, no single trusted third parties, and rules can change due to incentives via consensus Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] it is a set of common sense and experiment driven and historical relevance and initial parameters and "peer to peer electronic cash" definition indicators Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] never a single thing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] [In reply to Spoice] This is like the exact opposite of what you said earlier Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] Bitcoin is defined by the rules in the WP, I mean common sense. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] 🤷♂️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] Nope, the rule set is defined in the white paper should never change, but I never said all rules are defined in the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] What rules? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] It is a union Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] What rules are there? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:17] Rules in the white paper + what continued to define Bitcoin thereafter J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:17] [In reply to Spoice] > "Bitcoin is Bitcoin is a false statement." Alas, if we cannot agree on the law of identity, aka A=A, then i dont understand how to hold a conversation with you using logic. > BTC is an instance of Bitcoin No, BTC is a ticker used optionally by exchanges. Other common tickers for bitcoin include XBC, XBT, BC (correct me if im wrong on any of these) > "Bitcoin is a set of rules in the whitepaper" Super hard to defend this. Theres no mention of a 21M supply cap, no blocksize limit *at all*, and it also says additional rules and incentives can be enforced (implying maybe they should). Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] I go through this with BSVers all the time. We have no spec sheet of rules defining what Bitcoin is from Satoshi. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] Rules such as what defines a correct block, miners receiving the full incentive of mining it, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a highlevel document Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a description of a scientific experiment Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] if you want to start your own experiment, be my guest Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] [In reply to Spoice] Valid tx rules aren't defined in the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] just don't try to call it Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:19] The word majority is in the WP an awful lot wouldn't you say? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:19] Not valid TX rules, but what a proof of work block is and how it diverts the reward to the miner, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] [In reply to Spoice] and? what about BTC doesn't apply? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] I'm not arguing for any fork of BCH here. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] It no longer meets the very title of the white paper experiment, "Peer to peer electronic cash" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] The BTC instance of the experiment is destined to move away from the very title of the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] It's electronic, and I use it like cash. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] that the maintainers even wanted to edit the white paper (Cobra and co) because of this fact J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:20] u/Spoice When did BTC stop being Bitcoin in your view? The day Amaury decided to launch the fork, before Segwit happened? If someone else launched a fork first, they would have been "the real bitcoin"? This is a game of whoever forks first becomes the real Bitcoin? What if two people launched a fork at the exact same time, maybe even with identical specs? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] Where did I go wrong? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] [In reply to Spoice] Did they? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:21] Doesn't matter if you use it today, its very technical fabric will have to move your transactions to 2nd layers and it will no longer be peer to peer electronic cash on chain Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] peer to peer electronic cash on chain - Not in the wp Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] We have satoj talking about HFT with sidechannels. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] So what? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] I think this is a good discussion Phil, nothing disrespectful is being said. I hope this is ok? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:23] Doesn't matter, the rule of common sense, which is closer to that title? Increasing a simple variable (Blocksize) to stay on track of the title and experiment, or introduce IOUs and Watchtowers and channels and locked BTC and that whole LN Bastardization? Which is close to the title? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] No one said that can't happen Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:24] [In reply to Spoice] Congratulations you've made an argument which isn't an argument. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:25] The whole thing that was said was the system is based on majority rules, and incentives can be changed. Majority breaks any deadlock. David B., [18.10.20 02:25] How to kill a coin 101 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:25] Logic fails anyone who tries to claim BTC, ABC, BSV or any similar standalone experiments as Bitcoin, because of simple sanity checks and logic checks, often stemming out of common sense - If what you have moves you a single step away from what is otherwise the same old experiment which Satoshi wrote about and unleashed, you're not Bitcoin. If what you have moves you a step closer, it is Bitcoin. and so on and so forth. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:25] Wow, really fanatical almost religious statements. I guess its Sunday morning. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:27] [In reply to Spoice] There's nothing common about common sense. You point to the WP to make a point, and your point isn't in there. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] Throttled and you need off-chain IOUs and always-on services to function (BTC) ? Not Bitcoin. Requires permission to be used and could be centrally confiscated on the whim of the organization behind it (BSV)? Not Bitcoin. Premined (Bitcoin Gold, Diamond)? Not Bitcoin. Taxing the miners through Coinbase and changing the incentives which were at play since day 0 (ABC)? Not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] simple checks really, yet those who are set to benefit will of course be oblivious to these Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:28] This whole “Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin - see whitepaper” is really stupid. It also ignores the history of how Bitcoin Cash came into existence Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] Phillip, remove anyone here that has said Bitcoin Gold was the original Bitcoin immediately Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] ^^^^ Jingles, [18.10.20 02:29] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] It falls to pieces the moment it's questioned. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:29] It is not about "True" Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] It is about the Bitcoin closest to the experiment which always was Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] I don't care about "True" or not, they all are true Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Jingles] Sorry, I hve stopped reading all the sillyness above. Will reread later Jingles, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] I'm joking around 😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] but the rule of entropy says I shouldn't place my money nor effort in experiments which are set to fade eventually, because they have skewed incentives Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Spoice] You get to chose that for yourself but you do not get to dictate it for others David B., [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] Don't read it. You will have no braincells left Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] Bitcoin as we know it has a long track record of incentives which work Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I won't ever dictate it for others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I only would dictate it for myself, just like how I never use BTC or BSV today, I won't use ABC tomorrow Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] only because they're new experiments Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] interesting, and I wish them luck Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement - Spoice 2020 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] but I would rather stick to the Bitcoin I know Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] that's all Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] I won't ever dictate it for others - Also Spoice Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:32] Bitcoin Cash came with a plan snd goals. They were clearly presented in two presentations that happened before viabtc announced they would mine with ABC software and create a coin and chain named Bitcoin Cash Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] Yes, because he means BTC is Bitcoin, and that's a false statement Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] How is it false? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] It is an instance of Bitcoin Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] you're looking intimidatingly handsome in your new profile picture Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Lol Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to J Stodd] actually a good question Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Anyway, those are my two cents Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Everyone is free to choose which experiments to pour their effort on and their money in Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:34] [In reply to Spoice] You are entitled to your opinion. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Andreas is publishing Lightning Network books, I mean Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] So to each his own Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] [In reply to Spoice] Lets leave it at that Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] but Bitcoin as I know it continues with no Tax, and that in my opinion is BCH with no tax Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] Ah you had to continue Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:36] Good thing no tax is proposed by anyone Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] Isn't this the Bitcoin Cash telegram? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:35] 😅 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] If I don't discuss Bitcoin Cash here, where should I? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] Tax, IFP, call it what you will Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] from my perspective as a user, it's one the same J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:36] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I bet nobody will answer it, either Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Apparently btc /s David B., [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] As a user what do you care? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] Ooh, can I shill the Bitcoin room in here? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Nah, I prefer quick responses and chats Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Reddit is broken Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Jingles] Lol J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Nobody even pays it, it just comes out of the block reward. The block reward is not sentient, it cannot be stolen from or wronged Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] Dont push your luck 😉 Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] [ 😀 Sticker ] Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] You too brother. 🙏 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] but mine is the same....i need new ones everyone always calls me fat because of this one Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] literally if i say 1 thing to any troll anywhere first thing they say is "ok fatass" Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] i blame this dumb photographer Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Don't listen. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:39] u/spoice maybe write a read.cash article if you really feel you need to educate people Spoice, [18.10.20 02:39] David, as a user I believe that each new experiment carries risk with it, why should I take part in a new fork of Bitcoin which has a new set of game-theory rules which doesn't even benefit me, rather it benefits some other entity which will take 5% of any effort or economic activity I produce on this chain? They're also off-loading the risk to me as a usebuildebusiness who choose to join their experiment. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:40] Why should I take that risk while the Bitcoin I know and have known for over 10 years worked perfectly for me thus far? (BCH, that is) Jingles, [18.10.20 02:40] small fees and empty blocks? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] It will insure that a centralized group has control over development and they are by decree in the code, it's a literal take over. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] “BSV-freeze the protocol - true Bitcoin” sounds like more your thing David B., [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] Imagine if satoshi keyd his address in the code to be paid out of every block, but instead of paying himself started a company "Bitcoin Dev Co" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] Not really, BSV kills the incentives I am discussing too Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Jingles] Please stay nice now Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] No one would ever be able to say Bitcoin was Decentralized, Bitcoin Dev Co would get paid directly from the reward. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] "BSV: We have all the Bad Idea. On chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] The Nash equilibrium we have tested for the past 10 years will be changed with ABC, it changed with BTC and BSV too Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] "Bad Solutions Verified" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] that game-theory set of incentives Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] why would I want to take a risk with any of those experiments when I gain 0? David B., [18.10.20 02:43] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] Nope, you're talking technical freezing of development, that's not what I am addressing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to David B.] Thats the BTC chain though Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to Spoice] O please share with us your background in the subject. Or are you now just parroting others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] BSV wants to freeze the technical development and they want a stable protocol from an API/development perspective Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] but from an incentive ruleset perspective, they already butchered the equilibrium Bitcoin had Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:44] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] That's one of those phrases, when you hear it you know they are just a parrot of someones propaganda. "MUH NASH EQUILIBRIUM!" David B., [18.10.20 02:44] Stable = bad? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:45] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I love you Spoice, [18.10.20 02:45] Philip, for an admin you are ought to be nicer, if you think I am parroting others you're free to think that, but to state it so bluntly in your position is just... wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] If you think the point I made is wrong, discuss it Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Jingles] Maybe talk to him in DM about that?😉 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] not me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] working on it. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Spoice] I ought to be nicer...😂😂😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:47] Also, anyone who studied Bitcoin at length and its set of incentives and game-theory ruleset should know what a Nash Equilibrium is and who the players are in the Bitcoin game Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:47] [In reply to Spoice] You state as fact. You get to dhow why your statements or opinions are even relevant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] If it's not a fact, highlight how Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] don't attack me Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] prove me wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] if you fail that simple debate test David B., [18.10.20 02:48] How's that breakfast helping? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] you should rename from Janitor to Tyrant Jingles, [18.10.20 02:48] I'm still waiting to see the defined rules as per the wp Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] [In reply to Spoice] Didn't know this was stand up comedy night in here. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] I missed the memo Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:49] If I have to prove all idiots on the internet wrong I would have a hard time. You are starting to really waste everybody’s time. You state, you prove. Or you are just generating noise Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:50] [In reply to Spoice] Be careful now. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:50] Noisy bugger. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:52] Getting close to just do some cleaning up. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:52] If you can't debate technical points I am making about Bitcoin Cash on a Bitcoin Cash Telegram, and within the span of 10 minutes you called me stupid, idiot, noisy and a parrot, you absolutely are a tyrant and I stand by my point: You should not be an admin here, nor anywhere actually. If you think I should be careful for the fear of you banning me, go ahead. You still fail to debate the simplest technical point and yet claim you can "but can't be bothered to". You remind me of that Thermos guy. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:53] How do people with 0 technical know how end up in these admin positions is beyond me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:53] I challenged your comments and you just changed the goal posts. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:53] [In reply to Spoice] Ok. You are not paying me and you are free to create noise elsewhere
What is the value of Bitcoin? It’s a question that’s been asked since the innovative asset first appeared on message boards, and it’s only persisted as its value and usage has grown. But while one definitive answer to this question remains elusive, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth exploring. In fact, examining this question in all of the many ways it can be answered can help savvy investors and traders clarify their own notions of value. In a new report entitled “Bitcoin & Intrinsic Value,” Kraken Intelligence, our team of analysts, attempts to provide just this perspective, summarizing where believers and skeptics stand in the debate and analyzing how different definitions of value might be extended to bitcoin. In the report, we examine the value of Bitcoin through all of its potential lenses, including:
Stock and Bonds – Some of the most widely owned assets, stocks and bonds are considered valuable as they offer access to cash flow. But how does Bitcoin have value without its own stream of value? And what is a Bitcoin owner entitled to in a world where anyone can fork its open-source code? We explore these questions and more.
Intangible Assets – With other investing opportunities, one may benefit from asking, what makes this opportunity unique? In the case of Bitcoin, we explore how its inherent properties like computational security, immutability and censorship-resistance may help solve the question of what makes it valuable.
Commodities – Bitcoin may lay claim to a position as a digital gold, but what of its claim as a digital commodity? In this section, we’ll explore how Bitcoin’s utility as a commodity can make it valuable for a wide range of potential services where dollars are used today.
Uncorrelated Assets – There’s a good reason believers aspire for Bitcoin to fulfill this definition – uncorrelated assets can have a big impact on portfolios. Through this lens, we explore Bitcoin’s relationship with gold and the S&P 500 in order to assess its value.
In our full report, we explore this question further, applying common valuation models from the world of real estate, collectibles and fiat currencies. DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT HERE.
I'm trying to reconcile what I've learned about sound money with the popular Graeber style criticism that debt is actually the primordial money. Disclaimer: I'm rather new to this and I'm hear to learn, so if I'm way off kindly educate me. If we're going by the Austrian definition of sound money, which is often confused with commodity money, then sound money is: A) money freely chosen by market participants, which tends to be the most salable good across time, space and scale; and B) money that is resistant to coercion by powerful entities like the state (e.g. cannot be censored). Going by this definition (which I realize is a whole discussion onto itself, and historically (B) was tacked on later by Rothbard) it's easy to see how things like gold and bitcoin can be sound money. But some detractors of this way of seeing things would say it relies on a mythical and unsubstantiated historical tale of how money arises out of primitive barter. I guess Graeber would say debt/credit preceded barter (?) or at the least preceded commodity money. But rather then go into the whole argument about whether the historical record supports the conceptual apparatus of sound money, which may or may not be relevant to determining which perspective is correct, I want to point out that debt (credit) can definitely be sound money, if we're going by the above definition. First, credit, under certain settings, like for example small societies with tight social bonds, can be the thing most market participants choose as their money - the most salable good. e.g. keeping track of favors and gifts in some socially public way. You actually see this quite often in settings where other types of money aren't readily available, like in prison, boarding schools, soldiers deployed to war zones, etc. Debt can be salable across time (as long as the societal record / reputation is maintained), it's somewhat divisible, as long as there's some semblance of a unit of account for social credit, and is somewhat salable across space. So, it's not ideal money. Specifically it starts to go bad for large enough social groups over large enough distances. But for those smaller settings it can certainly be superior to gold, for example. So it checks the first box. Second, it is definitely not that easy to coerce people into ignoring past favors or reputations. In fact, that's a main way some organized criminal organizations operate, since by definition they operate outside the law. You murder this guy for me, I strangle that witness for you, etc. So it fits both the positive and the negative definitions of sound money above. If that's the case, then the whole "what came first debt or barter" debate is of interest only academically. For practical purposes, both sides can agree that credit and commodities both can play the role of sound money, under different circumstances. Does this make sense?
Hunting Scammers... 8/16/20 If you don’t care about the background skip to: [************************************************] So... I am in a unique position where I am aware of new and old scams daily. I often help those that are wronged and I frequently pass this information along to family so they don’t fall prey... Recently my mother told me that she was a victim of a scam, but not just a few hundred dollars, not a few thousand... She got taken for around $125,000, 401k cleaned out, retirement gone, second mortgage, credit cards opened and maxed out, sold her car, loans taken out and emptied... How did they do it? They hacked a Facebook account of one of her cousins and that compromised account blasted out the message: “Hey I just got a grant from the IDA (Independent Development Association) I saw your name on the list, did you get your $150,000 check yet?” That spiral led into her texting an “agent” who got all of her information and told her that she needed to pay for the secure courier which was $1,000... Months go by with regular contact, always a new “problem” like “the check got delayed here for a customs check and you need to pay $500”. They told her that she was bound to secrecy as if she told anyone beyond my step dad, they would be disqualified. They told her that they needed to monitor her phone calls to make sure she didn’t tell anyone, they provided her with a “court order subpoena” which was obviously fake, but she didn’t know. They logged into her cell account and ordered 20+ new iPhone 11 Pro Max from her cell provider on her credit. Then they actually paid her account for 2 months before ghosting her... They hacked her Facebook and tried to recruit more people into their scam... It was always a promise of more money if you do this or that... $150,000 then $250,000 all the way to $750,000... [************************************************] Preface: Always be safe when scam hunting/baiting Use an encrypted email (ProtonMail is free) Use a good proxy/VPN (pay for it, it’s worth it) NEVER give out your personal details I got all the information from my mother about: The phone number she texted. The person she talked to. Where/who she shipped the cell phones to. Where/who she sent cash to. (1) First contact/a little payback From that I started by contacting the scammer... My Facebook is already locked down so the information you get from my profile is very little, I reached out to my mother’s compromised FB through messenger and got a bite. They told me to text a number from the US to which I happily obliged. I used a texting app in conjunction with a VPN on my computer running a VM (virtual machine) I can control all the information released like OS, browser and such if they know how to look it’ll all be spoofed. I spoke with the scammer who had me “fill out a form” and he was working from a script, which is hard to break them from... This form he sent me, he accidentally forgot to clear it off from the last person he scammed so I had all of the information from the victim *I immediately call this guy and saved him before he sent any money luckily. So I digress, I occupy the scammers time for about 6 hours, giving him issues and excuses finally getting him off script. He directs me to a “local” bitcoin ATM to send a deposit of $1,500. I go through a host of issues while he gave me his first BTC address. I google a good picture of a bitcoin ATM and began photoshopping error messages until I had an epiphany... I told the scammer that the machine was giving me an error that his account was unverified and that he needed to “mirror” the transaction by first sending me $1,500 to unlock the transfer and it would be immediately refunded and my “$1,500” would be sent too. Unfortunately it didn’t work, so he gives me the second BTC address. What do ya know, same error lol... After a back and forth for about an hour, I couldn’t believe it, he agreed to “mirror” the transaction... So I scrambled to get a clean BTC address and sent it to him. He agreed to send $200 to see if it worked... Low and behold I just received $200... So what do I do next? Give in? No. I just changed the photoshop to say “Pending $1,300” now lol... He bit, hard. After more talking and pretending to be a helpless 64 year old guy with $20,000 ready to give him the scammer saw green and got greedy... More debate, more discussion, he sent another $500. Give in now? No... Back to photoshop... “Pending $800” To cut it short, he sure as hell sent the other $800... After a back and forth I sent him doctored up transaction receipts saying it was all transferred back to him. Getting him off script and getting him to pay a fraction of what he stole, is that enough? No. I promptly withdrew the money and gave it to my mom, it wasn’t much but just a little victory for now... (2) Finding the mules The next day the scammer cuts all contact with me, so I spoof a new number and call him. It rings and goes to voicemail and I hear his voice, sounds distorted with a British accent but broken English, I assume African. I leave only my telephone number on the recording saying “call me back” (we’ll come back to this) I move on to the places the phones were sent, first up, an apartment complex about an hour from me. But I’m not looking for a direct contact situation as I don’t know who or what they’re capable of... So I get the shipping details and find a very unique name but for Reddit we’ll call her Mrs. “E”. I begin tearing into her life, public records, credit report info, and phone records, I get it all... Time to make contact, I send an unassuming text to her number, asking for help. Surprisingly she responded, I began by asking her about a shipment she got in and the name of the shipping company she was receiving packages for. Radio silence for a few hours, then the denial began... I hit her with the hard facts, and just enough information so she knows I know everything about her... Mrs. E breaks and gives me the info I need. She was contacted by a friend who owns a shipping company in Lagos, Nigeria, they asked her to take the package of iPhones and forward them to him via another courier service. Mrs. E gave me everything. Next is Mrs. R who my mother sent actual cash to... I looked up the address and find it’s a duplex in Midwest. So I do a quick search of the name and nothing comes up... I then use the County Assessment District to get the public tax records and owner information. I contact the owner and give him the name I have and explain why I’m looking for her information. He gave me all the details he could as Mrs. R is the girlfriend of his tenant and the name I had was wrong. Waiting to get Mrs. R’s records right now I’ll get everything on her just like Mrs. E, she’ll bend to my will. (3) International Phone Calls So while I was searching for Mrs. R’s records I get a phone call... It’s a Nigerian number... I answered and find out it’s my scammer that I left a message for... This genius calls me from his actual cell number, which is not the number I called and left a message for. Currently working on getting his subscriber information but it’s proving hard (if anyone can help reply). I call up the owner of the shipping company in Nigeria and tell him that I’m looking for shipping details and quotes, I’m still working on his information... He’s a pleasant person to talk to, I will ruin him... So that’s where I’m at for now, but I definitely will keep you all updated. Mini-update 8/16/20: The owner of the shipping company apologized that his courier service had anything to do with the transactions. I’m not sure if I believe that but he did give me a name and 2 phone numbers he had on file for the customer. I’m really needing someone who can check these numbers out... If I can get a carrier identified I can work my magic on them to get the info I need. Update #1: 8/17/2020 Today I got all of Mrs. “R”s info minus good contact information... Pitty... But I’ll find it. The number on her file with her last loan didn’t pan out... I’ll come back to this tomorrow... I back traced the scammers cell phones with a little help from a friend, both phones are confirmed cell phones with active service with 2 different cell phone providers in Nigeria. I’m still lacking on the subscriber information, but I know where to look now... I reached out to the Nigerian Police Force to see if they can help, I doubt they can but you never know what you can get without asking... The scammer himself reached out to another dummy account I set up. I gave him a little scare, he asked who referred me to him... I gave him his own name, he hasn’t responded yet... https://imgur.com/gallery/EvfLcgy Update #2: 8/31/2020 So after name dropping the scammer I got dead silence. Luckily I was able to capture his IP address. I worked with a few contacts I made and found he was using the “Text Now” app, did a little magic and found out the “main scammer” actually is working in a call center. But interestingly enough I found that the workers there on average make like $500usd a month... (more on that later) So I have numerous fake Facebook accounts optimized for international connections, even though they look and are set up American, with them connected to the profiles from Africa or Russia, you can set your profile up to show up to them first, and you’ll be flooded with friends and messages... Another scammer reached out to me and I played along and made friends with them. I ran a game on him for a little bit and just came out and told him what I was trying to do. I asked him to help me, but it was off how he was replying, I called him on the phone and he told me that he was “busy in the office”. So he ghosted me, or so I thought... I get a text message from a Nigerian number that I did not know a few hours later. He tells me that he was the one I was talking to, he went on to explain that everything they do is monitored, there are about 20 of them in this room with computers, and several cell phones at their station. This guy goes on to explain that he controls about 15 different profiles, as many phone numbers as he can, and several emails, all of which are for scamming. So I think I’ve just developed an asset in Nigeria........ He has agreed to help me for money. He explained to me that he pulls on average $40,000 usd a month, I don’t know if that figure is true, but it’s believable... Mr. Asset goes on to tell me that if they hit their goal they make $250 a month, and for every so many $$$’s above their goal they get bonuses. So ladies and gents’ I’ve got boots on the ground. (Hopefully) I’ll keep you all updated. Not officially an update but figured I’d share it anyway! https://www.reddit.com/SuicideWatch/comments/ikfno1/went_looking_to_ruin_a_life_ended_up_saving_one/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Unpopular opinion - the economy has to become dynamic in order for it to have any longevity (and other musings on the progression)
Ain't no one gonna read this but here it goes! The issue of progression has recently been gaining some traction in the community with Klean and DeadlySlob covering this topic recently. Now any solution to this has an inherent issue associated with it - it'll be uncomfortable to someone. Whatever is done, it'll negatively affect someone, just by the fact of change alone. You cannot make something better by not changing anything. So anything you do or don't do, you will alienate a portion of your playerbase. Early/Mid-game vs Late game. Early and mid game is lauded, late game is considered boring. But why? For startes, firefights last longer, require more skill, movement, tactics and outsmarting your opponent. You value your life, you feel respect even for the shittiest of bullets. You have a feeling that the kill is earned. Guns have tons of recoil so you need to pick your shots. It's... I know it's illegal... but it's fun. Late game however is plagued with a number of issues. Gear gets dominated by very similar loadouts that cover approx 10% of the gear in the game. There's nowhere to progress as you've reached the ceiling. The excitement from killing a kitted player diminishes as time goes as the economy saturates. People start being picky with their loot and only the good stuff brings any sort of satisfaction. The hideout provides a steady, predictable stream of income. You let it run long enough it becomes a mindless PVP battleground. Side note - the black and white fallacy of the makeup of the community. Casuals vs hardcores. Rats vs Chads. Whenever a discussion pops up this dichotomy is always present. "Feature X hurts casuals but doesn't bother hardcore gamers playing 8h a day". No. Like anything in life the population of EFT is subject to the bellcurve distribution. There are hardcore sweaties grinding out the kappa within a week and there are also sunday gamers. Then there's everything else in between. Let's keep that in mind. You don't need to be a streamer or play the game as a full time job to make money. We have a discord for 30+ yr old gamers with families and all of us were swimming in roubles and gear after 3 months of the past wipe. Sure it takes us longer than streamers, but still. The meta Taking weapons as an example. Different items have different stats (recoil, ergonomics, etc), some are obviously better than others which obviously makes them more sought after. There are also different ammo types for every caliber. Then lastly we come to the guns which directly tie into the first point, by their base stats and how much those can be brought down/up by attachments. If you have a plethora of items that have different stats, there's sure to be an optimal loadout. If that optimal loadout is always available at an attainable price to the point where you can run it consistently, then there's really no reason to run anything less. This is the meta and at the moment it's basically a synonym for best in slot. Appealing to a greater good such as gameplay variety is in vain because people will do everything to put themselves in the best possible position. If that means running whatever flavor of meta weapon that is - VAL, M4, FAL alongside top tier lvl 5 or 6 armor over and over and over and over again, so be it. We all know that's not the only way to get by in EFT, but all else being equal - top gear puts you on equal footing at minimum. Trash contextualizes treasure. A rare item is not rare if everyone is running it. It's a normal item. Gear minmaxing combined with a ceiling in progression create a situation where the game becomes stale, people get bored and we get chants for a wipe to releave the pressure. Wipes Wipes however, even at set intervals, are not the solution. Every wipe, in the absence of something fundamentally new, gives you (rapidly) diminishing returns. Doing the same quests over and over is an absolute drag. It's my 7th wipe and this time around I've really hit a brick wall with them. Now imagine doing them every 3 months. Maybe just do an inventory and trader level wipe? Yeah, that's just skipping one part of it and arriving at the same point but even quicker, considering how quickly you can make money. The endpoint being - having enough money to run anything you want all the time without the fear of getting broke. Or in the abstract, having a big enough cushion to make any blow from a bad streak become inconsequential. All of that is just a perpetuation of the same sawtooth progression. Grind, saturate, wipe, grind, saturate, wipe. Side note - persistent character vs wiped character I know there have been talks about having two characters - one persistent that's not wiped and one seasonal that is. On paper this might look like a good solution, but there are some problems. POE players would have to chip in, but I reckong, that in a way this might become a form of matchmaking - the persistent character would be a mode for "sunday" players, while the wiped one for the sweats. I mean, maybe that's the way to go, but if the game is to gave any longevity, the persistent character will eventually face the same issues as the current game, it'll just take longer to develop. Unpopular opinion - The economy is just a set of time and effort gated unlocks. There have been multiple ideas to prolong a wipe, but in my view the fundamental issue with those is that they're based off the same linear progression - start from scratch and acumulate wealth until saturation. Some of these ideas include restricting labs till level X, locking behind a quest or just disabling it for a month. The problem with these is that it's just delaying the inevitable, while also giving a direct buff to those who get there first as they'll have the place virtually to themselves. What follows is also the concept of "starting mid wipe", which essentially means that the gear disparity is so big that the further into a wipe, the more difficult it is to catch up. That effort is directly correlated with experience - the more experience you have the easier it is for you to reset or jump in midwipe. Extending a wipe potentially alleviates that by giving people more opportunity to catch up, but also pushes away from coming back/into the game if they recognize that it had passed their personal breakpoint where it's too hard / frustrating. Perpetual mid-game So out of all of that, a clearer picture emerges. We have to somehow find a solution to always have something to work for, but also not give the impression that you're up against an impenetrable wall. That means that the game needs to pivot around something colloquially known as mid game. How would we define mid-game? That's another debate, but for the sake of the argument we could define that as something in the range of:
Armor: Kirasa/6B23-1 to 6B3TM-01M or Uley chest rigs,
Ammo: 5.45 BP to BT, M855 to M856A1, 7.62 PS to TS-45, etc.
That would be the sort of mean loadout you can run on a consistent basis and you'd see the majority of the time. From the sentiment across the community, this seems to be the most enjoyable state of the game, where the sweetspot is in terms of protection and vulnerability, but allowing a lot of headroom for both variety and Solutions Now we must have to remember that there's a number of changes inbound that will alleviate some of the issues:
Armor will get more realistic hitboxes to match the actual armor plates which should flatten the armor progression curve quite a bit and make more ammo more viable.
Suppressors will get durability
Barrell overheating mechanics should alleviate some of the issues with magdumps.
But those are sill far on the horizon. The uncomfortable reality is that in order to truly balance that you have only a few choices. One is to go down the route of typical FPS tropes where every weapon type is perfectly balanced (i.e. shotguns powerfull but limited range, smg's low recoil, high ROF but weaker, dmrs powerful but high recoil and low ROF, etc). I don't think this will be ever a thing in the game. Another one is to make attachments roughly equal and just attribute the differences to the tacticool visual factor. This would be realistic in a way, but would take away from the game. The last one is to price them out. Literally. I'm of the unpopular opinion that endgame should not be a stage, it should be a state. Dynamic pricing I know I know, last time it failed spectacularly. However, that was a different flea market and the implementation was poorly thought out. Since it didn't have a pivot point to relate to it caused widespread inflation of even the most basic items and was prone to manipulation. However the concept in principal has proven itself to work - M995 was essentially priced out of existence and forced people to look for alternatives like M855A1 or M856A1 or different calibers alltogether. Even the sweaties of sweats got a bit excited when they killed someone with 3 60rounders filled with M995. See where I'm going with this? The execution was poor and poorly thought out. But how about a different implementation? Adjust the prices based on how much an item is (or is not) bought compared to other items of the same item type. Most popular items' price (of a specific category) increases, while the least popular one decreases. This could also be coupled with (or as an alternative) an additional rarity factor which would sort of specify how volatile the price is. Continuing the ammo example M995 would have the highest rarity factor and would be very prone to price increases, while the likes of M855 would be considered common and have a much more stable price. Obviously this would be subject to long term trends and would not happen overnight. But the main aim is to dynamically scale the economy to the general wealth of the playerbase around a certain pivot point which we established before as the mid-game. This would be a quite significant blow to the uberchads as they would unironically struggle to maintain a profit from their runs. And yes, some of them would still probably be able to pull this off, but remember what we said about the bell curve? It's just about making them so insignificant in the global player pool that they'd be a very rare occurance. Global item pools This idea has been floated around by Nikita some time ago but we have no ETA on this. In short - for some items, there is only a set amount that is present in circulation. For example there are only X amount of ReapIR's in the entire economy - spawns, traders, player stashes. If everyone hoards them in their stashes - thats where they'll remain. They don't spawn on maps, they're not sold on traders. Only until they're lost they get reinjected into the item pool. This idea should be reserved only for the absolute top tier OP items. Something that you'd get all giddy if found/looted and you'd contemplate taking it out. Side note, the X amount should scale to the active playerbase, which could be something like a weekly or biweekly moving average of people actively playing the game in a set period. Insurance This one is a bit controversial but also attributes to some of the in game inflation and gear recirculation. If you run a large squad, even if one of you dies, there's a high chance someone will survive and secure others' gear. And even if all of you die, something's bound to come back. This might be a bit controversial, but I think group size should have a debuff to the chance of getting your gear back the higher the bigger your squad size, for example an incremental 10% chance for each additional squadmate. Hideout adjustments Right now fuel consumption is static no matter how much stuff is going on. What if the fuel consumption rate was tied to the size of your bitcoin farm and the amount of crafting going on. Additionally hideout appliances could wear out and require maintenance, which would grant them performance debuffs like increased crafting time. Dynamic stocks. Right now stocks are predictable. You have the same amount of items at a set interval. Things like traders missing some items or not getting a restock due to broken supply lines, which can be cheekily tied into... Dynamic global events/quests Such as as getting rid of scavs on a particular location to remove the roadblock. These might be done per player or as a global event where everyone has to chip in. Summary The subject is difficult and solutions are not simple, but what I do know is that eventually Tarkov will have settle into an identity which will come with a sacrifice either at the expense of vision or mainstream popularity. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk. I'd like to give a heartfelt thank you to the 5 people that read this wall of text.
Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it! (If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?) (Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times) Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
Multisignatures (n-of-n, k-of-n) that are just 1 signature (1-of-1) in length!! (MuSig/Schnorr)
Better privacy!! If all contract participants can agree, just use a multisignature. If there is a dispute, show the contract publicly and have the Bitcoin network resolve it (Taproot/MAST).
Activation lets devs work get back to work on the even newer stuff like!!!
Cross-input signature aggregation!! (transaction with multiple inputs can have a single signature for all inputs) --- needs Schnorr, but some more work needed to ensure that the interactions with SCRIPT are okay.
Block validation - Schnorr signatures for all taproot spends in a block can be validated in a single operation instead of for each transaction!! Speed up validation and maybe we can actually afford to increase block sizes (maybe)!!
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT - you know, for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") magic!!!
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY - vaulty vaults without requiring storing signatures, just transaction details!!
So yes, let's activate taproot!
The SegWit Wars
The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions. So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!
bit - A field in the block header, the nVersion, has a number of bits. By setting a particular bit, the miner making the block indicates that it has upgraded its software to support a particular soft fork. The bit parameter for a BIP9 activation is which bit in this nVersion is used to indicate that the miner has upgraded software for a particular soft fork.
timeout - a time limit, expressed as an end date. If this timeout is reached without sufficient number of miners signaling that they upgraded, then the activation fails and Bitcoin Core goes back to the drawing board.
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two. A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this. So, first some simple questions and their answers:
Why not just set a day when everyone starts imposing the new rules of the softfork?
This was done classically (in the days when Satoshi was still among us). But this might argued to put too much power to developers, since there would be no way to reject an upgrade without possible bad consequences. For example, developers might package an upgrade that the users do not want, together with vital security bugfixes. Either you live without vital security bugfixes and hire some other developers to fix it for you (which can be difficult, presumably the best developers are already the ones working on the codebase) or you get the vital security bugfixes and implicitly support the upgrade you might not want.
Sure, you could fork the code yourself (the ultimate threat in the FOSS world) and hire another set of developers who aren't assholes to do the dreary maintenance work of fixing security bugs, but Bitcoin needs strong bug-for-bug compatibility so everyone should really congregate around a single codebase.
Basically: even the devs do not want this power, because they fear being coerced into putting "upgrades" that are detrimental to users. Satoshi got a pass because nobody knew who he was and how to coerce him.
Suppose the threshold were lower, like 51%. If so, after activation, somebody can disrupt the Bitcoin network by creating a transaction that is valid under the pre-softfork rules, but are invalid under the post-softfork rules. Upgraded nodes would reject it, but 49% of miners would accept it and include it in a block (which makes the block invalid) And then the same 49% would accept the invalid block and build on top of that, possibly creating a short chain of doomed invalid blocks that confirm an invalid spend. This can confuse SPV wallets, who might see multiple confirmations of a transaction and accept the funds, but later find that in fact it is invalid under the now-activated softfork rules.
Thus, a very high threshold was imposed. 95% is considered safe. 50% is definitely not safe. Due to variance in the mining process, 80% could also be potentially unsafe (i.e. 80% of blocks signaling might have a good chance of coming from only 60% of miners), so a threshold of 95% was considered "safe enough for Bitcoin work".
Why have a timeout that disables the upgrade?
Before BIP9, what was used was either flag day or BIP34. BIP34 had no flag day of activation or a bit, instead, it was just a 95% threshold to signal an nVersion value greater than a specific value. Actually, it was two thresholds: at 75%, blocks with the new nVersion would have the new softfork rules imposed, but at 95% blocks with the old nVersion would be rejected (and only the new blocks, with the new softfork rules, were accepted). For one, between 75% and 95%, there was a situation where the softfork was only "partially imposed", only blocks signaling the new rules would actually have those rules, but blocks with the old rules were still valid. This was fine for BIP34, which only added rules for miners with negligible use for non-miners.
The reasons miners signalled support was because they felt they were being pressured to signal support. So they signalled support, with plans to actually upgrade later, but because of the widespread signalling, the new BIP66 version locked in before upgrade plans were finished. Thus, the timeout that disables the upgrade was added in BIP9 to allow miners an escape hatch.
The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars
SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain). So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%. Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.
BIP9 Feature Hostage
If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage. You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever. With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you. This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.
ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Overt ASICBoost - Manipulates the unused bits in nVersion to reduce power consumption in mining.
Covert ASICBoost - Manipulates the order of transactions in the block to reduce power consumption in mining.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected. Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway. Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost! But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage). Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit. Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!
UASF: BIP148 and BIP8
When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit. Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit. This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core. Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout). BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled. This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9. Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.
BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath
BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community. One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym. The text of the NYA was basically:
Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91. Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit. Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X). This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists. Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout) So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!
Modern Softfork Activation
This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation. The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.
PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades
Software is very birttle. Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
Excited, you install the new version.
You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system. And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk. Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations. So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist. Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems. When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well). This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
Fanboyism, maximalism, interoperabilty, working with others and division of time transcript
Hi everybody, this is Charles Hoskinson broadcasting live from warm sunny Colorado. I wanted to make a video about division of time. I've been recently making a lot of commentary on the ETC ecosystem. I've also reached out to other ecosystems like the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem, the Litecoin ecosystem for a variety of reasons and I noticed that there are some people in the comments and then telegram and twitter and other places say "oh no" focus 100% of your effort on Cardano! Why are you talking to ETC, why are you doing this and doing that? So first off I run a big company. I we have over 250 people. About half of those people wake up every day and they're involved in Cardano. The other half are not so. As the CEO of a company where you have that kind of division there's non-Cardano things I do. Cardano's our largest project, we're heavily involved in it and obviously we wake up every day and we want Cardano to be successful and have billions of users and this is why we are following the process we're following. We're building the technology we're building. It's why we work very hard trying to commercialize it. Every deal we do in Africa, every deal we do in eastern Europe, every deal we do in Asia, we have a Cardano first policy of deploying those deals on that platform and we built that platform to service those deals and as that platform evolves you'll see more use and utility from our sales channels in that respect. That said, one of the pillars of a third generation cryptocurrency is interoperability. It's kind of a silly thing to be a maximalist but then also talk about interoperability. What the hell is the point that? Either you want one chain to rule them all and therefore you don't care at all about talking to other systems or you put your money where your mouth is and you work on those other systems. You build expertise in those systems, you affect changes in those systems so that those systems can partner with our systems and work with our systems. You know the Samsung CEO? He has a division that every day gets up and works with Apple and they work on the motherboards of the iPhone and build memory for them. Do all kinds of cool things and Samsung's division knows what the iPhone is going to look like before any of us knows. At the same time, there's another division at Samsung that wakes up every day and works on phones like the Galaxy to compete with the iPhone. Great companies have the capacity to do these things and we are a great company in that respect we have different and dedicated teams for different products and projects. Now, we will never work on overlapping systems. It's not the case that we're going to have developers go and work on Cardano and something that's a direct competitor of Cardano because it makes no competitive sense for that to happen and I do not view ETC as a competitor of Cardano. It's a proof-of-work system, not a proof-of-stake system. It's a code-is-law system, not a world-financial operating system. It's a system that will always have a smaller group of people in it and always have a smaller set of things to do so time spent there with a completely separate team has no bearing or impact on our ability to deliver things with Cardano. I can't accelerate things above and beyond what the teams can do, for example, today. I'm waiting for Daedalus flight to come out. There is nothing I can do. I can't pick up the phone and call the engineers and say can you ship it 15 minutes faster. The plan, it's been set, the release manager is there, the QA, team's there, everybody knows what to do. There's consensus amongst that team. They're going off to the mountain top, get it done and when it's done they'll let me know and then I'll tweet "new Daedalus is out guys" go play with it and it gives me some work to do of course but until they finish their job there's nothing to do in that respect. The Cardano plans we have are well set , we know exactly what we need to do. Those teams are working hard and I do everything in my power to accelerate things where and when it's safe to do so and everything in my power to get things done. Shelley, for example. We worked so hard to get that out on July 29th, we had almost unlimited overtime. Everyone worked the weekend. Some people worked over 40 days straight to get that release done. Meanwhile half of the company was doing other things in other capacities and working on those projects. None of their work or the other cryptocurrencies we tend to work with had any bearing or impact on our ability to accelerate or decelerate the Shelley work stream. I just want to make sure everybody understands that and for people who have developed a maximalist mindset to get out of that maximalist mindset. There's a place for maximalism, it's called Bitcoin maximalism. If you live there, go there, okay and go believe in that project, in that chain but this is the Cardano ecosystem. It's going to literally work with hundreds if not thousands of different standards over its life. From central banks to other cryptocurrencies to legacy financial operators from the Chases of the world to the Goldman Sachs' of the world. Provisions will be made to build special hooks for these systems including interoperability with permission systems. It's very likely in the next 24 months Cardano will be talking to an instance of Hyperledger Fabric from IBM. Very likely that that's going to happen. It's very likely that we'll consult on a project that does that and no way does this diminish the road map or somehow make Cardano less competitive. It's actually quite the opposite. The fact that we can work with those systems, the fact that we can do things with those systems means that the platform as a whole is intrinsically more valuable. It's easier to sell to Fortune 500 companies. It's easier to get use utility and adoption because people understand that they're not being led down the road of vendor lock-in and regressing back to the old days of internet explorer or what ConsenSys is trying to do with Ethereum, trying to lock everybody into one standard, one system, rather the value proposition we offer. Is true interoperability the ability to move in and out? Furthermore, when you create partnerships with other ecosystems then their success is our success. For example, if the treasury system proposal succeeds in ETC they will be in the market for a permanent treasury system in 2021. We as a community can make the case that we've constructed with Voltaire is a great choice for them and of course we'll try to make that case and if it's successful we provide mutual value and benefit more volume and transactions and activity on the Cardano network, and for ETC they have a best-in-class treasury system that meets the values of that community. The exact same argument can be made for Litecoin, or for Bitcoin cash or for other systems and if you want to see the wrapped Litecoin video that I did earlier in the year it gives a great road map for a potential push there. Furthermore, what if we turn Daedalus into a multi-currency wallet? That's already going to happen because we have a multi-asset standard and so when people issue tokens on Cardano Daedalus will support those tokens sometime in the future. It would be very easy for us to pull Ethereum classic and Litecoin and Bitcoin cash and other ecosystems into the Daedalus wallet. What does that mean? It means that people who live in that ecosystem will be using our technology as their day-to-day experience in hosting for their token! What does that mean if we have a DEX built into that thing? It potentially could create more adoption in use and utility for ada and this is the point we accomplish so much more working together than beating each other down. I am damn tired of the cryptocurrency markets as they are. The fanboys, the trolls, the FUD, the maximalism, the relentless allegations that people you disagree with or hold different tokens are scammers or criminals or bad human beings. It's time we as an industry set this aside and grow up. Just grow up or else what's the point? Why would anybody looking from the outside at all of this chaos and noise and insanity and maximalism want to come play in this pool? It's like you're about to enter a bar and you see a bar fight. Do you keep going in or you turn around and walk away and say I don't want that trouble. I'm going to go down the street somewhere else that's safer and so how will we ever get mainstream adoption, how will we ever make the argument to governments that they should trust their elections, their property, perhaps even the money of their people on our systems if we're incapable of entertaining other ideas, other philosophies and other ecosystems? We don't deserve the right for that responsibility if we're not mature enough to have differences of opinion and be able to welcome other ecosystems into our own. So this video is a call against maximalism first and foremost and second it's a realization that the duties of an executive officer are extensive meaning that there are days I wake up and there are Ethereum days and, by the way, working in that ecosystem gives me and my company exhaustive knowledge on how Ethereum works which allows me then to build a better product than they have and understand where all the bodies are buried: all the flaws in the protocols, the security issues, the performance issues, the smart contract development experience. That intimacy is extremely important to be able to predict, react and also plan a competitive strategy that can take you in a different and better direction. You just don't live in a mono-culture. It's a bad deal, that's the second point. You have many projects. When you have a larger company, some of those projects are completely separate from each other. Some of those projects may have a bit of overlap. We have a philosophy that we don't work on competing products. For example we have done work with horizon (Horizon2020?) and as a consequence of doing work with them we're probably not going to work on zcash at the same time. As long as we have that relationship there we, for example, work on Cardano so we're not going to go work on another proof-of-stake system that wants to be a financial operating system. That would be a direct competitor. For example, Tezos would be happy to jointly author papers and coordinate collaboration but there needs to be a Cardano benefit in that relationship whereas ETC as I've mentioned is a totally different system and it's something that we have as a company historically worked on for years. We started our participation in 2016. We built a full client in that process. Did that have any impact on our ability to deliver Cardano? We had a completely separate engineering team. That team was actually sourced from external companies. Scalac and Atix Labs to begin with and then we built on top of it and it had different product and project management and it was completely written with a different group. So it might as well have been a different company for that matter and I just talked to the team but the Cardano team was doing its own thing so I I think we need to just cut it out. Cut out the maximalism, cut out this idea that there is only one truth. We live in a nuanced world and we live in a world of interoperability. We have to embrace that if we wish to be successful and let us be the adults in the room. Let's be the place where this isn't the bar fight and let's be the place that welcomes everybody. Furthermore, I've noticed some criticism from my own community. When people criticize us and they go to the politics of destruction or personal attacks or yield on criticizing people's intelligence or whatever have you... Cut that out too. Let's be a better community. I repeatedly call upon the Tezos foundation to tell its community to stop criticizing Cardano and calling it's "a scam project". So, I'll call upon my own community, I have seen things that shouldn't have happened. Certain members of Cardano community replying to people over twitter, replying to people who criticize us have resorted to personal attacks and so forth. Again, just ignore them , mute, let's embrace unity, let's embrace being better, yes, occasionally you got to kick people in the teeth especially when people are lying and what you do is you call them out on the lies that they've made. You specifically point out where they have done things that are a bit crazy or disingenuous and dishonest. For example, we had a meeting today with Ethereum classic and it was blatantly apparent to me that this process has been set up to fail and be exclusive and prevent alternative ideas from a certain power structure from being held. So, I made a 30-minute whiteboard video where I not only called it out but I proposed an alternative and said this is how we're going to transcend that process and get to a much more productive way of doing things. Some of the criticism we have is justified because of product delays or because people don't fully understand who we are and what we're trying to do and obviously there's history there. So, first and foremost, let's reply with facts. First and foremost let's reply with dignity and respect and empathy for the other person's position and you know what? If they continue to push forward then you kick him in the teeth and you say it's obvious you don't want to have a conversation. You're a troll, but to my community please do this and please have this level of respect and dignity with others and with each other. For example, we right now have a lot of debates with small stake pools versus large stake pools, there's plenty of people floating around with differences of opinion and our mantra should always be disagree without being disagreeable. People are going to have other values people, are gonna have differences of opinion and people are gonna have different perspectives. You can't change that reality nor should you. We all have the right to think and have differences of opinion but we also should expect a dialog that's fair and has empathy in it and so I call upon everybody to preserve that decorum as we move forward and also understand that some days we wake up we have to do things that are non-Cardano related in order for us all to be successful because not all the world will ever be Cardano related. We always need partners whether it be great pieces of hardware like Ledger and Trezor or exchanges to work with different wallets and sometimes those partners do stuff with us and sometimes those partners do things with other people. We have friends, we have projects we admire and respect. For example, I've expressed repeatedly great admiration for the Algorand project. I think they're doing a phenomenal job and they have great leadership with Silvio Micali. I think the research and the engineering there is top notch. I personally believe Cardano is better. That's because we built it and that's because we think we have a better strategy to market and ultimately the market's going to decide which standards to go with and whether it's going to be many standards or a consolidation. That's not my decision. I just have to wake up every day and fight for the things I believe in. That said, never once have we ever criticized Algorand because they are in essence the model of empathy and dignity and good communication and being very proactive at focusing on solutions when they make announcements. They make announcements about new things that they're doing and new partners that they have and never once have they ever criticized another project or engaged in fanboyism. That's a great community, that's a great project and it's a model for where the space should go and I admire that deeply and greatly especially when you contrast it with other projects that have been less empathetic in their history. We all have our problems, we all have our issues. I know that we all can be better and so that's my final point. Let's do that. Let's be better as an industry. Let's be a bit friendlier and let's invest the time and effort necessary to really understand and listen to each other because ultimately I think that's going to get us where we need to go and be able to get us to a point where we have that adoption of millions and billions of people and fundamentally change the fabric of society. Otherwise we will be victims of our own success and descend into tribalism and descend into sectarian violence and then ultimately destroy the entire industry because it will become co-opted by large companies who use a surface-level marketing to take the brand, take the notion of a blockchain but then install centralized authorities behind them and in which case we've lost. I don't want that to happen I want the movement to succeed. I want us to understand each other and I enjoy having great competitors sometimes working with them sometimes fighting them in the battle of the markets, in the markets of ideas and ultimately I think we as a community have a chance to also be a model for everyone else. So, let's do that. Thank you... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXQrm18XhQ8
The r/bitcoin censorship probably stemmed from the fact that the video does expose the mass censorship that’s been plaguing that subreddit for years. Adam Back also denies being Satoshi Nakamoto ... Fact about Bitcoin Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet • August 21, 2020, 8:31 pm Digital asset management giant Grayscale says the number of Bitcoin companies and Organizations accepting Bitcoin around the world just crossed 100,000. Heated Debate Continues Over Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan. Last Wednesday, the founder of the mining operation Btc.top announced a proposal that would fund Bitcoin Cash development ... Scroll down to follow Business Insider’s live fact-check of the debate. ... Opleving kan de bitcoin richting $14.000 sturen, volgens een technisch analist Matthew Fox 22 okt 2020. Dit zijn 5 ... Bitcoin. How Will Bitcoin Lead to More Freedom? The 1987 debate that foreshadowed the divide in today's cryptocurrency community. Jim Epstein 10.16.2020 10:55 AM
Trader DESTROYS Alessio Rastani in Bitcoin Debate Bitcoin and Recession Analysis