Nailing it The promise of the blockchain ... - The Economist

The greatest wealth transfer of this century! An analysis: British-US-Chinese Empires: Gold, Silver, Bitcoin, Ethereum!

"Inflation makes you pay 50 dollars for the 20 dollar haircut you used to get for 5 dollars when you had hair!"
Let's embark on a journey that made the United States the number 1 economy of the world.

1. Despite the British Empire's claim that it would for ever remain the leading empire,history can serve as a harbinger for what's to come...

At the peak of its power, in 1913, "the empire on which the sun never sets", controlled 25% of the planet's land mass and about the same percentage of the world's population. Britain was both the naval an imperial power of the 19th century, and between 1812-1914, its dominance resulted in relative peace in Europe and the rest of the world. The industrial revolution transformed Britain into the workshop of the world.
By the start of the 20th century things changed as both Germany and the United States started to challenge Britain's economic and influential leadership. As often happened during human history such challenging lead to war and although Britain achieved its largest territorial influence after WW1, the war had destroyed much of its economic strength, with losses in industrial and military power marking the begin of its demise.
During WW2, Japan occupied Britain's colonies, and after WW2, India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence. Much of the British Empire's influence is now enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter, stating shared values like democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
The United Kingdom's pound sterling was its world's reserve currency during its reign and by controlling the supply of money, Britain was able to influence its global power.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!" Mayer Amschel Rothschild

2. The US Empire repeats this blueprint by claiming the U.S. Dollar's reserve currency status as its birthright!

The Federal Reserve Act.
The Panic of 1907 triggered many American's belief that The Federal Reserve Act, passed by the 63rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913, was necessary for financial and economic stability. The law created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States.
The Bretton Woods System.
The FED ended immobile reserve issues and the inelastic currency problems and successfully internationalized the U.S Dollar as the global reserve currency. The usage of the prior nationally used U.S. Dollar expanded a first time when the Allies agreed to the terms of the Bretton Woods System, establishing the rules for commercial as well as financial regulations among the United States and its allies. Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan accepted the U.S. Dollar, which was backed by a gold exchange standard, making the U.S. Dollar "as good as gold". This was only possible because the United States controlled two thirds of the world's gold reserves.
Soviet representatives, who claimed that institutions like the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) were Wall Street branches, didn't participate in Bretton Woods and later proved to be right, as the United States printed too much money (not backed by its gold reserves) to wage war on Vietnam, destroying a big part of the value of the U.S. Dollars held by its allies, due to the inflation of the U.S. Dollar money supply.
Yet, the initial demand for U.S. dollars created the American way of life: a consumer driven economy fueled by products made outside the U.S. in return for U.S. Dollars. As the Allied countries couldn't really buy any "Made in America"-products, due to the fact that the United States' elites rather outsourced their manufacturing, they instead invested their hard labor into U.S. Treasuries.
On August 1971, President Richard Nixon announced the unilateral cancellation of the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, in a response to halt the Allied countries' continuous attempts to exchange their U.S. Dollars for Gold. By 1973, the Bretton Woods system was replaced by the current freely floating fiat currency system.
The petro dollar system.
The second wave of U.S. Dollar adoption was the result of the petro dollar, making the global trade of oil U.S. Dollar denominated. Every country on this planet needed and still needs oil to operate and grow its economy, creating an enormous growth in U.S. Dollar demand and like mentioned before, those dollars had to be earned. Especially China served the United States consumer model by producing almost everything Americans can buy in Wall Mart and other stores. By relying on the U.S. Dollar reserve currency status, the American elites have made the mistake of outsourcing manufacturing to China, as often predicted by Donald Trump in the 1980's. The y figured it was easier to just print wealth.
The tradewar.
President Donald Trump, decided it was time to bring jobs back to the U.S. and started an ongoing trade war with China, the country that supplied the U.S. consumer driven economy, and proud owner of $1.07 trillion in Treasury holdings. The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and China and will most likely result in the decoupling of both economies.
What is to come? My personal insights.
I see huge problems for the U.S. and the rest of the western liberal democracies. But especially the United States, who's currency amounts to no less than 60% of all the world's reserve assets, is vulnerable if and when China who only accounts for 1 or 2 %, says it is time for change. Most likely we will experience another banking crisis, with or without Covid-19, and unfortunately a bigger one when compared to the 2008 dissaster. Did you know that the global debt tripled since then? Many economists and politicians advocate the end of the U.S. Dollar reserve currency system and predict a reset. Every financial system has a limited lifespan similar to a human live: it is created, it grows, it matures, and unfortunately, it ages, weakens and dies. It happened to the Brittish Pound Sterling, and I am afraid that the days of this financial hegemony are numbered as well.
And I did write "afraid", why?
History tells us that these transition periods are particularly dangerous and have often led to full-blown military conflicts if not world wars. The current wealth transfer, the result of manufacturing outsourcing to mainland China, impoverished the United States and destroyed its middle class. President Donald Trump's analysis that the U.S. needs a strong manufacturing base is correct, yet without its allies the United States will not be able to turn the tide.
It took China decades to build its manufacturing base, and President Trump doesn't have the privilege of having the political luxury to design five year plans, as the United States capitalistic and political model specializes more on presidential campaigning and less on economic planning, which is exactly China's strength.

3. The Chinese 'digital' empire.

China is ideally positioned to become the new global power: it produces many of our products and dominates most supply chains. It has been hoarding gold and mines most of the Bitcoin. It might just have the right reserve assets to back its DCEP, the digital Yuan, which will be pilot tested during the 2022 Winter Olympics hosted by China. Despite the fact that the United States and other western nations might not want to adopt the Yuan or allow it to be part of the world's reserve assets, China can demand payment in Yuan for its products. It's that simple! This is why outsourcing is such as stupid economic voluntarily yet fatal policy. If you only print money and don't produce goods, how long will the world play ball?
One of the results of Trump's trade war is that China and other countries such as Russia and Iran no longer want to be vulnerable to U.S. sanctions that come in the shape of being denied access to the financial system through Swift. The United States can indeed destroy a big part of Iran's economy, but Iran is now becoming a big cryptocurrency player. In other words, bullying those countries might work in the short-term, but in the long-term they will simply adopt a new standard: and I believe that the Yuan will likely play a major role in the financial system they will adopt.
This trend means that the expansion of the demand in U.S. Dollars will stop and reverse, when countries no longer want to use the currency whose issuer can economically destroy them through sanctions. The alternatives for such countires are cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and many others, national CBDC's (Central Bank Digital Currencies), and the adoption of the digital Yuan.
This digital Yuan will be attached to the One Belt, One road initiative, finding adoption whilst developing huge infrastructure projects that will lead to a Eurasian trading zone. If the U.S. Military leaves the Middle East, as Trump brings home troops, this will create the right conditions for China to emerge as the victor.

4. Surveillance Capitalism - Insights on the DCEP (Digital Currency Electronic Payment, DC/EP):

  1. This centralized digital financial system works on blockchain and cryptographic principles and aims to increase the circulation of the RMB, in the hope it can become a reserve currency like the U.S. Dollar.
  2. Created and sanctioned by the Chinese Government, it is the only legal digital currency in China.
  3. The system offers Chinese regulators better monitoring abilities and will be an efficient tool against anonymous counterfeiting, money laundering and illegal financing. At the same time it reduces costs involved in maintaining and recycling bank notes and coins.
  4. As mentioned above, China aims to bypass Swift, which it regards to be a U.S. entity, and will be able to collect real-time data related to money creation, bookkeeping, essential information for the implementation of monetary policies.
  5. The pilot institutions for DCEP, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, will serve as a production test for China's new currency system, after which the DCEP will be distributed to large fintech companies such as Tencent and Alibaba to be used in WeChat Pay and AliPay. Transfers will not go through bank accounts, but through electronic wallets.
  6. By mandating that all merchants who accept digital payments must accept DCEP, the DECP will become the most accepted digital currency in the world.

5. Sings of hope.

If the United States adopts blockchain and issues a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) backed by Bitcoin, they will have a reasonable chance to offer the western democracies a new type of dollar standard that can be an anchor versus the coming RMB. If not, I fear the worst is yet to come for the U.S. Dollar and its economy.
Many smart American economists and Wall Street goeroe's have finally figured out the remarkable strength of Bitcoin, the world's first and most favorite digital form of gold.
Some of the smartest investment capitalists like Ray Dalio and Warren Buffet have allocated more money into gold, a clear sign of trouble. Bitcoin might be a step too far for Warren Buffet, but rest assure that Wall Street investment management companies have figured it out by now, have you?
You can expect more institutions to allocate a % of their portfolio's wealth into Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as a hedge against the systemic risk in our global financial system, which will inevitable start feeling the effects of the trillions that have been printed.
"Inflation makes you pay 50 dollars for the 20 dollar haircut you used to get for 5 dollars when you had hair!"
submitted by O_My_Crypto to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Doing the Math on the S4E10 eCoin Transaction...

In this week's Mr Robot episode, Darlene sits on a park bench with Dom, and distributes the money she stole from the Deus Group to everybody, evenly. I timed the transaction as it happened in the show. It was 24 seconds, between her hitting return and seeing the following message on her screen: "*Transfers Complete. All Wallets Updated*" This processing time includes a message that says, "cleaning coins through crypto tumbler". It took 1 minute and 16 seconds for the transaction to tumble, process, and for the recipients to begin to get notices that they received money in their accounts.
If you have worked with bitcoin, you know that cryptocurrency does not work like this. Transferring money is a slow and sometimes expensive process, as transaction fees eat into every transaction. I know that eCoin isn't necissarily bitcoin, because it's controlled by eCorp, but it's fun to think about what happens if eCoin works like bitcoin does today...
How much money was transferred?
According to Forbes, the most wealthy people in the world are worth a combined $8.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion. It depends on which Forbes list you are looking at. On the actual Forbes web site, they say the richest people in the world are worth $8.7 trillion, but they do not state how many of the richest people in the world are worth that much. If you look at sites like Victor Media, they publish a table of the 100 most wealthy people, and say they got the list from Forbes. They probably did purchase the list from Forbes. If I put the Victor Media list into excel, and add all the values in the net worth column, that number comes out to $2.7 trillion. So Forbes might be talking about a list that is more than the top 100 people, and sell the top 100 people list to sites like Victor Media? I don't know.
Either way, we are talking about somewhere between $2.7 and $8.7 trillion.
How many people did the money go to?
That's complicated. There was no global montage showing people celebrating all over the world (which I found a little surprising, even though I still love how this episode was shot). The only indication of a truly global transfer, to every individual in the world, is a TV screen in the airport saying that, "Global eCoin Payout... Deus group collapses as wealth spreads around the world." So Darlene could have sent the money to every individual with an eCoin wallet in the world, or she could be sending them to every American, or to everybody in the developed world. I doubt the average rice farmer in Indonesia is really using eCoin, but it's possible. If she only sent it to every American, our wealth tends to spread around the globe pretty fast, so that's possible, too.
Lets work with World Bank population numbers for all three of these possibilities...
World Population: 7.6 billion people
Global North (AKA the developed world): 1.24 billion people
United States: 327 million people
So we have 6 possibilities for how much money was sent to each person...
People Total Money Money Per Capita Satoshis
7.6 billion $2.7 trillion $355.53 4,739,471
1.21 billion $2.7 trillion $2230.82 29,741,808
327 million $2.7 trillion $8252.65 110,079,512
7.6 billion $8.7 trillion $1145.60 15,279,332
1.21 billion $8.7 trillion $7188.22 95,883,716
327 million $8.7 trillion $26591.89 355,275,242
How much would this transaction cost with bitcoin?
Aside from the fact that eCoin probably functions differently than bitcoin, this is a very complex question. I'm definitely not as sure about these numbers as the other numbers I have, but I'll do my best to come up with useful, realistic numbers. If you are more familiar with the block chain than me, please correct me.
The coins were taken from 100 different Deus Group accounts. Lets say each transaction launders through a bitcoin tumbler 1,000 times. I'm going to ignore transaction fees for the tumbling process, because I don't fully understand the details of tumbling, but 1,000 times seems reasonable to me.
That means that there are 100 x 1,000 = 10,000 inputs in any transaction that spends all the money from the Deus group.
For outputs... for simplicity's sake, I will make the conservative assumption that everybody has one eCoin wallet. That means somewhere between 327 million and 7.6 billion outputs. Accounting for everybody having multiple wallets would make the transaction even bigger, but this is a good starting point to get a feel for what this transaction would look like, in the real world.
How long will this transaction take to process?
There is a bidding process and a bit of politics involved in processing a cryptocurrency transaction. For simplicity, I'll assume we bid enough that this transaction gets priority treatment from the bitcoin miners.
According to blockchain.com, transactions happen on the block chain at a rate of roughly 3.5 transactions per second. At that rate, the tumbling would take roughly 48 minutes, rather than the few seconds it took for Darlene to tumble this money.
According to buybitcoinworldwide.com's fee calculator, here are the transaction sizes, the transaction fees involved (in US Dollars), and the time it would take at 3.5 transactions per second...
Inputs Outputs Size Cost Time
10,000 7.6 billion 240.4737 Gb $38,884,280.55 68.85 years
10,000 1.21 billion 38.32587 Gb $6,192,571.09 10.96 years
10,000 327 million 10.35582 Gb $1,673,260.46 2.96 years
So this transaction would take years to go through, and it pays Evil Corp somewhere between $1.6 and $38 million. In the real world, most of that money would go to Chinese bitcoin miners.
What would the impact be?
A one time windfall of $327 per capita would probably not trigger hyperinflation in America. The largest payout we calculated was $26.5k, and I doubt that would cause hyperinflation, either. Regular inflation? Yes. Hyperinflation? Probably not.
It might lead to hyperinflation in other countries, though, because of differences in purchasing power.
Purchasing power parity is a number that describes the differences in the cost of goods and services around the world. $5 in America will buy you a big mac, but if you go to, say, Indonesia, you can buy a lot more with that $5, because Indonesia is full of people who make something like 25 cents a week.
OECD.org publishes PPP (purchasing power parity) numbers for countries all around the world. If you want to know how far your dollar will stretch, on average, in a foreign country, consult this list. If you have $100 in America, you can expect it to be worth $100 worth of American goods and services, so on the OECD table, it has a PPP of 1.0. If you take that $100 to, say, the UK, where the PPP is 0.7, you can expect that $100 to be worth $70 worth of goods and services. If you take that $100 to Australia, where the PPP is 1.48, you can expect that $100 to buy roughly $148 worth of goods and services.
If Elliot and Darlene were genius economists, I might expect them to account for PPP in their payout. They would have to be geniuses, to predict what PPP is doing after events like the 5/9 hack, because their best data would be out of date, so they would have to use all kinds of fancy regressions and tricks to figure out how that would work in such a volatile world economy. They definitely aren't economists, though, so I'll assume they sent the same nominal amount to everybody.
So what's the range on how much purchasing power this transaction gives people around the world? In 2018, the highest PPP number on the OECD list is Indonesia, with a PPP of 4,245.613140. The lowest PPP on the list is Lithuania, with a PPP of 0.457582. Lets see how this shakes out in each of these countries...
$ Per Capita Lithuania (0.46) Indonesia (4,245.61)
$355.53 $162.68 $1,509,442.84
$2,230.82 $1,020.78 $9,471,198.70
$8,252.65 $3,776.26 $35,037,559.28
$1,145.60 $524.20 $4,863,774.41
$7,188.22 $3,289.20 $30,518,401.29
$26,591.89 $12,167.97 $112,898,877.60
What would this cause? People might predict a lot of different things. The Yang gang people probably strong opinions on this. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I believe I can predict that most mainstream economists would predict the following...
In Lithuania, when they get a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, they probably raise a pint to F Society, then put the rest towards a house or car payment, or buy themselves something nice. Minor inflation would happen, probably starting at the pubs, and that would worry financial types, but it would not cause any kind of major economic catastrophe.
In Indonesia, where everybody becomes an asset millionaire overnight, they will probably have hyperinflation, mass social upheaval, and violence.
In conclusion...
TL;DR: What Darlene did last night with eCoin isn't actually possible with bitcoin, and the impact in America might not be as great as you think, but the impact would be much bigger in poorer parts of the world.
submitted by bubblesort to MrRobot [link] [comments]

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc
Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize.
Full Text:
Separation between money and state
The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1).
The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words.
Satoshi is a Modern Newton
Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2).
J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words.
Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government
In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network.
Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3)
Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day.
Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End
Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain.
In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin.
Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years.
Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8)
Of course, Friedman didnt predict the block chain, summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need. (9).
Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense
American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020).
Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11).
Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech
Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment.
At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13).
Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature
In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too.
Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature.
The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics.
Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information.
Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020).
A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers
In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency.
Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof.
UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:-
It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14).
Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R
Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews
Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice.
End-notes
  1. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-is-the-technology-of-dissent-that-secures-individual-liberties
  2. https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-sir-isaac-newton-was-the-first-bitcoin-maximalist-195a17cb6c34
  3. https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Crypto-Outlook-April-2020.pdf
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU&t=1161s
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI
  6. http://youtu.be/mlwxdyLnMXM
  7. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/IEA_1970.pdf
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MnQJFEVY7s
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/economist-milton-friedman-predicted-bitcoin
  10. https://www.aier.org/research/prospects-for-a-monetary-constitution/
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238472
  12. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
  13. http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm
  14. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-shall-happily-accept-th_b_8462028
Pic credit: Framingbitcoin
#bitcoin #bitcoinhalving #jamesBuchanan #MiltonFriedman #AlvinToffler #FirstAmendment #LudwigVonMises #TimMay #freeMarket # SatoshiNakamoto #FriedrichHayek #Cypherpunk #Cryptocurrency #GoldStandard #IsaacNewton
submitted by HKBNews to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's fundamentals haven't changed since the price fell

Bitcoin's fundamentals haven't changed since the price fell
The financial crisis predicted by economists has finally begun. As we have seen, since March 9, 2020, the virus that has spread throughout the world has become a catalyst for a sharp decline in financial markets.

https://preview.redd.it/8dr6q251hfn41.png?width=450&format=png&auto=webp&s=7683d8c0bac183b81d5705f23c4b547ab5118e70
The growing economic crisis has triggered collective panic, and for 99% of people, it is imperative to restore as much liquidity as possible. Logically, we are facing a liquidity crisis that is having a significant impact on the liquidity of all financial markets around the world. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Index has fallen by 20% in the past 5 days. Over the past month, the Dow Jones Index has fallen by about 30%, and the S & P 500 has undergone the same adjustment.

In the rest of the world, the situation is exactly the same. For centuries, gold has been used as a safe-haven asset in times of crisis, but in recent days it has fallen by more than 10%.

When everyone is in panic, there is no safe haven at all. In this case, it is impossible for Bitcoin to not fall. Bitcoin is a highly liquid market, and it can even be said that it is the only truly free market in the world.

Even though Bitcoin has evaporated $ 60 billion in market value in just a few hours, it continues to operate, allowing investors to find equilibrium prices on their own.

Whether an asset has hedging properties requires long-term measurement. Similarly, the correlation between Bitcoin and other assets cannot be concluded in these days. At this point, if we step back, we can see the big picture instead.

Although the price of Bitcoin has changed, has its fundamentals changed? No, the fundamentals of Bitcoin March 18 are the same as those of March 1. Bitcoin still maintains good fundamentals, which gives us reason to be optimistic about the future of Bitcoin.

01

Bitcoin is as scarce as ever

The price of Bitcoin dropped from $ 9,000 to more than $ 3,000 within a few days. Its price has now stabilized at around $ 5,300. The current global situation is in turmoil, and panic in the market may cause the price of the currency to fall below $ 5,000 again.

However, no matter what the price of Bitcoin is, it remains as scarce as ever.

Bitcoin is still the rarest decentralized invention ever made by human beings, and no matter what happens, the maximum supply of Bitcoin will not change. No leader in this world can change the fact that the total amount of Bitcoin is 21 million.

So after the crisis, gold and bitcoin will eventually resume their roles, and when prices will rise again, those who have seized the opportunity will get huge returns.

02

Unique monetary policy

Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto in response to the 2008 financial crisis. Realizing that the currency and financial system have reached their limits, Satoshi Nakamoto decided to officially launch the Bitcoin experiment on January 3, 2009, and wrote in the genesis block: The Treasury Secretary is on the brink of saving the bank for the second time. "

Therefore, we can also think that Bitcoin was created for what we will experience in the coming weeks or months. When Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, he hoped to obtain a scarcity similar to gold, so the longer it took, the more difficult it was to create a new Bitcoin. For every 210,000 additional transaction blocks, the number of newly mined Bitcoins will be halved.

Initially, for every additional transaction block in the Bitcoin blockchain, 50 new bitcoins will be generated, and by May 2020, the bit will be halved for the third time, after which each additional block will only add 6.25 BTC. Therefore, the number of new bitcoins created daily in the future will be reduced from 1800 to 900, which will have a certain impact on the total supply of bitcoin.

This single monetary policy is a huge advantage of Bitcoin over the current monetary and financial system. After the third Bitcoin halving, the annual inflation rate of Bitcoin supply will definitely fall below 2% to 1.8%. In the future, bitcoin's annual supply inflation will tend to zero, and will reach zero in 2140, at which time all bitcoin will be mined.

Bitcoin's monetary policy can protect what you have, and it was still valid when the Fed just decided to inject more than $ 700 billion in US banks. It can be said that from the perspective of how Bitcoin operates, the Fed still has a lot to learn.

03

Bitcoin network is still decentralized

Anyone can join the Bitcoin blockchain and become a node in the network. In the Bitcoin world, all users are equally important. All this makes Bitcoin able to withstand the obstacles of powerful people in the current system.

No one can stop you from using Bitcoin at will. At any time, if you want, you can sell all your Bitcoins. This is why the price of bitcoin has fallen sharply in the past few days. Bitcoin operates permanently by letting users determine its equilibrium price.

Once the stock price falls too fast, Wall Street will cease to trade. At this point, Bitcoin once again shows its superiority over Wall Street. The basic fact that Bitcoin is the only truly free market in the world has been proven again a few days ago.

04

Bitcoin remains a secure decentralized network

In its 11 years, the Bitcoin network has never been hacked. Bitcoin's security has never been breached and it's incredible to think about it, because hackers from all over the world have been trying to attack Bitcoin over and over again.

Still, Bitcoin has stood on its feet. The theft in the Bitcoin world exists only at the weakest link: trading platforms and users. Since its birth, Bitcoin has been operating normally 99.98% of the time. There is nothing enviable about the normal operation of Internet giants such as Google, Amazon, or Facebook.

However, Bitcoin's secure operation is based only on the user's computing power. These people are so convinced about the future of Bitcoin that they have been providing more computing power to the network.

At the beginning of 2020, the hashrate of the Bitcoin network reached a peak of 130TH / s. The recent drop in the price of Bitcoin and the accompanying collective panic have led to a decline in computing power, but currently still maintain the level of 100 TH / s.

In this crisis, Bitcoin remains the most secure decentralized network in the world. Secondly, you should notice that the basic situation of Bitcoin has improved a lot since the end of 2017. Due to the sharp increase in transaction volume at the end of 2017, the overall network speed has slowed down, but this time, Bitcoin standing in the storm has been able to absorb an entire transaction volume peak without any stalls.

05

Bitcoin still belongs to everyone

The high fluctuations in the price of bitcoin in the past week remind us that bitcoin still belongs to everyone and everyone can sell bitcoin freely. When Bitcoin depreciated by 50% within hours, the transaction continued.

At the same time, once the market falls more than 7%, Wall Street will suspend trading for 15 minutes. This fusing mechanism has been applied several times since the liquidity crisis broke out in the market.

Wall Street is not a free market. It belongs to a few powerful people who protect their interests at all costs. Once the market does not turn around and continues to fall, Wall Street will call on the Federal Reserve to maintain the current system.

The Federal Reserve ’s monetary stimulus measures have become less and less effective. It cut interest rates by 100 basis points on March 15, 2020. At the same time, it introduced a quantitative easing plan to reduce the bank deposit reserve ratio to zero. This series of measures was even affected Opposition to Wall Street. Once again, Bitcoin stands out in the current system with its strong fundamentals.
submitted by FinnHe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin’s Time Is Now. Don’t Miss It

Bitcoin’s Time Is Now. Don’t Miss It
Bitcoin is, according to some, facing its first great test—whether it can perform as a store of value during a wider market crash.

https://preview.redd.it/sa3rvdfplcn41.jpg?width=2250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2afb2120f653a629e52f31924fda90ad02b2540e
Bitcoin has, by this measure, failed spectacularly. The bitcoin price collapsed in the face of coronavirus-induced chaos, losing around half its value as traditional markets recorded historic falls.
But this isn't make or break for bitcoin: bitcoin's success isn't judged by its price but by its digital scarcity in a time of helicopter money, quantitative easing (QE) and record low interest rates.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to almost zero and fired a $1 trillion stimulus bazooka in an attempt to protect the world's largest economy from a coronavirus-induced shutdown.
This followed similar interest rate cuts around the world as governments and central banks scrambled to reassure markets. The rushed action largely failed, with the Dow suffering its worst day since the Black Monday market crash in 1987 and its third-worst day ever.
Today, U.S. Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was poised to write checks to millions of Americans to try to offsetting the economic burden of the coronavirus pandemic—an unconventional economic stimulus measure that's been popularized recently by some left-leaning economists as universal basic income (UBI) but was once known as helicopter money: freshly-printed cash that appears to drop from the sky into the pockets of the public (a concept some crypto investors will be familiar with).
"We are looking at sending checks to Americans immediately," Mnuchin said, speaking at a a White House press conference. "Americans need cash now, and the president wants to get cash now—and I mean now in the next two weeks."
Elsewhere, Spain is apparently weighing similar helicopter money style stimulus—something that could play havoc with the economically joined-up eurozone.
Many traditional economists dislike helicopter money. They say it's harder to remove from the system and could cause long-term inflation to soar.
The world's central banks are being forced to consider such extreme options due to the lingering effects of the 2008 global financial crisis, with many of their less radical policy tools still in effect.
"The U.S. is about to be addicted to that helicopter money really fast," bitcoin proponent and co-founder of hedge fund Morgan Creek Digital, Anthony Pompliano, said via Twitter.
Meanwhile, some market watchers are worried the broad sell-offs, combined with helicopter money proposals, could cause a cash glut.
"At the moment, what we're seeing from the market is an unprecedented move to cash," said Mati Greenspan, founder of financial advisory firm Quantum Economics.
"Everyone is liquidating everything they can. Once the dust settles, and we start to see how the end of the 'coronacrisis' might look, people are going to be sitting on way too much fiat."
The Fed's latest offering to the market, a special fund to keep credit flowing through the U.S. economy during coronavirus scare, has somewhat satiated investors today.
The Dow, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq each rose around 5% by the market close. Bitcoin was more-or-less unmoved by the news and has been treading water since taking a big step lower last weekend—hovering around $5,000 per bitcoin.
"Bitcoin is built for these events," said Keld van Schreven, co-founder and managing director at blockchain investment firm KR1.
"Bitcoin, ether and other crypto networks needs no bail out or QE. They just need a handful of servers to run, verify and complete transactions. Bitcoin, ether and other crypto has taken the weakest link (us) out. This only makes it stronger."
Whatever the bitcoin price does, it can't be artificially boosted by central banks or governments—it will only be supported by increased demand.
Bitcoin can't be printed or pasted from a clipboard. Bitcoin is, regardless of its extreme price volatility, consistency in inconsistent times.
submitted by MIEX_Official to u/MIEX_Official [link] [comments]

After the Bitcoin crash: do others fear me for greed?

At 6:30 pm on March 12, Bitcoin dropped from $ 7211 to $ 5555.55. The bitcoin price dived again this morning, slumping nearly $ 2,000 again in half an hour, the lowest fell to $ 3,782.13, a drop of more than 40% in 24 hours. According to the data of the contract emperor, only Huobi, OKEx, Binance, and BitMEX exchanges had a daily short position of 3.133 billion US dollars, which reached the highest in a single day in history. The number of liquidated positions exceeded 110,000, which was also the highest in a single day.
Also on March 12, the S & P index fell 260.74 points, triggering the fusing mechanism for the second time this week. The Dow hit its largest decline in history, at 2352.6 points. The Nasdaq fell 750.25 points to 7201.8 points. This is the third time in the history of US stocks. This fuse has been 33 years since the first fuse, but only 4 days have passed since the last fuse. Buffett shouted, "I only lived this way in 89 years." It is reported that Buffett lost $ 6.8 billion last night.
According to incomplete statistics, with the exception of the United States, the stock markets of 11 countries including Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan plummeted. The five largest US technology companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, had a cumulative market value of $ 416.63 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index shows that the top 15 richest people in the world lost a total of $ 46.4 billion.
Market panic or pullback demand? Regarding the meltdown of U.S. stocks this week, Yang Delong, chief economist of Qianhai Open Source Fund, believes that the spread of the epidemic is not the main reason. It is more a decade of bull market for U.S. stocks. Some factors driving the rise of U.S. stocks are quietly changing, such as the Federal Reserve ’s interest rate There is not much space. Regarding this crazy drop in Bitcoin, Apocalypse Capital told InfoQ that there are two main reasons for this drop in Bitcoin: on the one hand, the bearish demand caused by the expected global economic downturn, and on the other hand, Bitcoin Callback requirements themselves.
As we all know, Bitcoin will be halved in the second half of the year, but the trading market pays attention to speculation expectations. This round of rise has essentially halved the market. After hitting a high of 10500, Bitcoin is facing a callback demand. Of course, this round of downtrends is so rapid and there are only a handful of recurrences in the history of Bitcoin, which are inextricably linked to the decline in global stock markets, both of which are the result of expectations of a bearish global economy.
However, Johnson Xu, chief analyst of TokenInsight, told InfoQ that the Bitcoin dip was mainly due to market panic, because some market participants bought bitcoins by buying mining machines, borrowing, etc., and expected to reduce their expectations by half. A linkage effect caused by everyone being too optimistic about the market.
The market is overhyped because Bitcoin is halved, and some market participants are afraid to miss the opportunity to enter the market irrationally. The current market slump is driven by strong irrational behavior, which translates into a rapid downside response and quickly depletes market buyers' liquidity (flattening down). When the overall financial market panic or other unexpected events are caused by the New Crown virus and the global economic slowdown, market participants often seek to withdraw assets such as stocks and bitcoins and convert these assets into cash (cash is king). So has the recent gold sell-off.
When the market panics, people ask for cash in the beginning instead of investing in safe-haven assets such as gold. At the same time, because gold is considered a high-quality asset, investors usually start with liquidity crunch and market panic. Cash in on good assets (because inferior assets are more difficult to sell in panic times). The Bitcoin crash this time has a certain connection with the decline in global stock markets, because the entire financial market is a globalized market, and there is more or less linkage between each asset.
In addition, Forbes speculated that it may be because PlusToken scammers transferred bitcoins worth more than 100 million US dollars to the mixer, and then sold bitcoins, resulting in rising market supply.

Other people are greedy, I am afraid, others are afraid of me, greedy? In this case, should investors still expect "halving the market"? Johnson Xu believes that there is no such thing as a "half quotation", and most market participants are too optimistic about the halving of Bitcoin. Price fluctuations are not necessarily caused by halving, but may be caused by the sum of other factors. When everyone is saying that they are optimistic about the market, the existence of risk is ignored in the subconscious. At this time, the risk will be actually reflected, and the upside will gradually shrink. Bitcoin halving was written into the code, and it was not an accident. Bitcoin should be halved in a rational way. It is worth looking forward to, but not overly interpreting and speculation.
However, Tianqi Capital believes that this plunge is a callback period for bitcoin's halving of the market, and each round of sharp decline also indicates the opportunity of the market outlook: cheap chips will be hoarded, waiting for the next wave of hype and explosion. Therefore, Tianqi Capital still believes that the market outlook of Bitcoin is worth looking forward to, provided that it is not frightened by the current fierce washing of the chips, after all, when the bear market is the worst, it is also when gold is everywhere.
Regarding the future trend of Bitcoin, Apocalypse Capital stated that it should judge according to the current trend.
In this round of market, Apocalypse Capital initially chose to follow the downward trend of May 18, and Bitcoin has gradually dropped from a high of 10,000 to 3150 points, so the big support level predicted by this round happens to be 3700 today. Near the point. Data monitoring shows that some funds are involved in this price range. But whether it can hold on to this support remains to be tested. If the 3700 support cannot be maintained, it is very likely that it will hit the US $ 2000 level. Tianqi Capital believes that this is the market's last line of defense. Long-term investment is recommended to buy some relatively stable targets, such as BTC, ETH, etc. The bear market will eliminate many currencies, but if it survives, it will shine in the next round.
Johnson Xu believes that the plunge is also a test to promote the healthy development of the industry. Extreme market is a test for the entire industry, especially for infrastructure, risk management, etc., so it is still optimistic and supports the development of the industry for a long time.
For current investors, Johnson Xu offers the following suggestions:
  1. Other people are greedy, I am afraid, others are afraid of me, greedy.
  2. Global financial markets have also undergone major changes. From the data point of view, I don't think Bitcoin has the attributes of a safe-haven asset, but this market can test whether Bitcoin has a certain risk-avoidance capability. This is a global world. We need to analyze various markets, not just the digital asset market.
  3. In the long run, we are still optimistic about the digital asset industry.
Does Bitcoin have a fusing mechanism? On March 9, after the U.S. stock market crash triggered the fusing mechanism, the market began a discussion of "whether Bitcoin should set up a fusing mechanism". But at present, most people are not optimistic about the Bitcoin fusing mechanism. OKEx CEO Jay Hao said that the fusing mechanism is difficult to implement in the digital currency market. In the face of a highly volatile market, setting the fuse point is a difficult problem. At the same time, for a 7 * 24h market, when a certain exchange breaks down, the price difference between the digital currencies between the platforms will increase, leading to arbitrage, and the fuse mechanism will eventually become a decoration.
Du Wan, the co-founder of Contract Emperor, also said that it is unrealistic to use a fuse mechanism in the currency circle. The fusing mechanism first violates the original intention of the decentralization of the blockchain, and at the same time, it will touch the interests of the top of the currency circle ecological chain. For example, large trading teams can no longer use pins to obtain large profits. When the market is panic, exchanges with a fuse mechanism may lose traffic to exchanges without a fuse mechanism because of the run effect of traders.
It can be seen that the current risk aversion measures in the traditional stock market are difficult to transfer to the fickle currency market in a short time, and the regulation of this market still has a long way to go. Investors should still be cautious when investing.
submitted by FmzQuant to u/FmzQuant [link] [comments]

Why the debate about blocksize is irrelevent, and the next phase of Bitcoin

This is my first post here, but I'm well known and hated on BTC (I got banned from Bitcoin for calling that Bashco guy a fucking idiot, which he is). Anyways, since this is supposedly a market based Bitcoin sub, I thought maybe there's some people who appreciate cutting all the bullshit politics out of the Bitcoin conversation.
To summarize my position, it would be thus:
So, with that out of the way, here's why all this current debate about scalability is pointless.
The growth of Bitcoin up until now has been overwhelmingly been powered by crypto-tech geeks (the hobbyists, the coders, the anarcho capitalists, the ideologists etc). For these people, the underlying technology has been what's most important to them. For them, things like block size and scalability are of the utmost importance. These people often think that Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency, or replace the entire global financial system (it isn't. It's going to become a significant part OF the global financial system, but to think it will replace it is extremely naive and amateurish thinking that massively underestimates the enourmous complexity of the financial system, as well as the huge amount of inertia built into it). These are the people who brought Bitcoin from a weirdo techie project to a major $100 billion market. That's an impressive achievement, but that phase of Bitcoins growth is now coming to an end. We are now entering the next phase, where the primary drivers of growth will not be tech people, but finance people. The Big Boys. The institutional dollars that move all major markets (whether it be stocks, bonds, fx, commodities etc); the hedge funds, the pension funds, the mutual funds, ETF's, high net worth individuals etc. We're still in the very beginning stages of this second phase. Bitcoin is still too risky for most of this money (which is inherently conservative), but the more risk adverse members of this group (mostly the higher risk hedge funds and risk taking HNW individuals) are just now starting to dip their toes in. As the market becomes bigger and more liquid, the volatility will greatly go down and the percieved risk will go down as well, and eventually the more risk averse members of this group will take the plunge. That will take several years probably. The problem for the first group (the tech centric folks) is the finance boys have way, way, way more money then them, and it's THEIR money that's going to guide the development of Bitcoin. Everything follows price eventually, from miners to devs, to investments to infrastructure. And so unfortunately for the cryptoanarchists who thought that Bitcoin was going to bring down the System, it will be the System that determines what Bitcoin will be.
Which brings me to my main point: If you want to make money, you have to think about what each group values. Sure, for the tech group, perhaps things like block size or the minuatae of which SegWit is better is the most important factors in which coin you should invest in. But that group is no longer in control. The finance guys are. And so you need to ask yourself, what does THIS money value? I can promise you it isn't block size, or what's in the White Paper. For these guys, the most important thing for them is being able to get their money out if/when they need it. And for that, they need market size/liquidity. Of course, the underlying coin has to actually work (which Bitcoin clearly does). But it's far more important to these guys to be invested in the most liquid market then try to suss out the incremental tech improvements in each coin.
That's what the pro BCH crowd doesn't get. They may be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about their tech argument (that bigger blocks are better) and yet still get crushed, because the thing THEY are valuing is not what the market values. And I believe BTC's current size advantage gives it an insurmountable advantage. I say insurmountable because I believe it's too late for any other coin to catch up, as BTC's first move advantage has given it a positive feedback loop that will continue to power it further and further ahead.
It works like this: There's trillions of dolalrs poised to enter cryptos over the next few years. The vast majority of this money values market size/liquidity over all else, and so will naturally gravitate to the biggest/most liquid market (BTC). In turn, the very act of all this money flowing into BTC will make BTC even BIGGER and more liquid then it's competitors. In turn, this makes BTC even MORE attractive to the next round of money coming in, which means it gets bigger and eve more liquid still. Which in turn makes it even MORE attractive.....etc etc....
Think about it. If you have, say, $1 billion to put into crypto (an entirely reasonable sum for the types of ppl we're talking about. Bill Ackman put several billion on an Herbalife short ffs) are you going to put it into the $100 billion BTC market? Or the $5 billion BCH market jsut because you like big blocks? Of COURSE you're not going to put a stake equivalent to 20% of the entire market. The very act of buying would cause price to explode several hundred % only to crash back down when you, as the primary buyer, are finished. And after your hedge fund is fully invested, let's say you take heavy losses on your stock portfolio and you need to get your money out quickly. Try removing $1 billion quickly from a $5-$6 billion market and you're going to crash it. So you've bought in at extreme highs and sold out at extreme lows. This is how newbs trade, not multi billion dollar hedge funds.
So many people waste so much time and energy debating the shit that doesn't matter that they totally ignore the factors that do. It'd be like buying Apple shares based on which executives get the best parking spaces, rather then how many iPhones you expect them to sell this year.
This dynamic (BTC as the biggest market outperforming all other coins significantly) has been in effect since the Aug 1 fork, and I believe it's for the exact reason I state above. And we should expect this dynamic to be the driving force behind the crypto markets for the next few years going forward.
submitted by BTCrob to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Transcript of the community Q&A with Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Bitcoin SV development team. We talk about the path to big blocks, new opcodes, selfish mining, malleability, and why November will lead to a divergence in consensus rules. (Cont in comments)

We've gone through the painstaking process of transcribing the linked interview with Steve Shadders and Daniell Connolly of the Bitcoin SV team. There is an amazing amount of information in this interview that we feel is important for businesses and miners to hear, so we believe it was important to get this is a written form. To avoid any bias, the transcript is taken almost word for word from the video, with just a few changes made for easier reading. If you see any corrections that need to be made, please let us know.
Each question is in bold, and each question and response is timestamped accordingly. You can follow along with the video here:
https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Connor: 02:19.68,0:02:45.10
Alright so thank You Daniel and Steve for joining us. We're joined by Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly from nChain and also the lead developers of the Satoshi’s Vision client. So Daniel and Steve do you guys just want to introduce yourselves before we kind of get started here - who are you guys and how did you get started?
Steve: 0,0:02:38.83,0:03:30.61
So I'm Steve Shadders and at nChain I am the director of solutions in engineering and specifically for Bitcoin SV I am the technical director of the project which means that I'm a bit less hands-on than Daniel but I handle a lot of the liaison with the miners - that's the conditional project.
Daniel:
Hi I’m Daniel I’m the lead developer for Bitcoin SV. As the team's grown that means that I do less actual coding myself but more organizing the team and organizing what we’re working on.
Connor 03:23.07,0:04:15.98
Great so we took some questions - we asked on Reddit to have people come and post their questions. We tried to take as many of those as we could and eliminate some of the duplicates, so we're gonna kind of go through each question one by one. We added some questions of our own in and we'll try and get through most of these if we can. So I think we just wanted to start out and ask, you know, Bitcoin Cash is a little bit over a year old now. Bitcoin itself is ten years old but in the past a little over a year now what has the process been like for you guys working with the multiple development teams and, you know, why is it important that the Satoshi’s vision client exists today?
Steve: 0:04:17.66,0:06:03.46
I mean yes well we’ve been in touch with the developer teams for quite some time - I think a bi-weekly meeting of Bitcoin Cash developers across all implementations started around November last year. I myself joined those in January or February of this year and Daniel a few months later. So we communicate with all of those teams and I think, you know, it's not been without its challenges. It's well known that there's a lot of disagreements around it, but some what I do look forward to in the near future is a day when the consensus issues themselves are all rather settled, and if we get to that point then there's not going to be much reason for the different developer teams to disagree on stuff. They might disagree on non-consensus related stuff but that's not the end of the world because, you know, Bitcoin Unlimited is free to go and implement whatever they want in the back end of a Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV is free to do whatever they want in the backend, and if they interoperate on a non-consensus level great. If they don't not such a big problem there will obviously be bridges between the two, so, yeah I think going forward the complications of having so many personalities with wildly different ideas are going to get less and less.
Cory: 0:06:00.59,0:06:19.59
I guess moving forward now another question about the testnet - a lot of people on Reddit have been asking what the testing process for Bitcoin SV has been like, and if you guys plan on releasing any of those results from the testing?
Daniel: 0:06:19.59,0:07:55.55
Sure yeah so our release will be concentrated on the stability, right, with the first release of Bitcoin SV and that involved doing a large amount of additional testing particularly not so much at the unit test level but at the more system test so setting up test networks, performing tests, and making sure that the software behaved as we expected, right. Confirming the changes we made, making sure that there aren’t any other side effects. Because of, you know, it was quite a rush to release the first version so we've got our test results documented, but not in a way that we can really release them. We're thinking about doing that but we’re not there yet.
Steve: 0:07:50.25,0:09:50.87
Just to tidy that up - we've spent a lot of our time developing really robust test processes and the reporting is something that we can read on our internal systems easily, but we need to tidy that up to give it out for public release. The priority for us was making sure that the software was safe to use. We've established a test framework that involves a progression of code changes through multiple test environments - I think it's five different test environments before it gets the QA stamp of approval - and as for the question about the testnet, yeah, we've got four of them. We've got Testnet One and Testnet Two. A slightly different numbering scheme to the testnet three that everyone's probably used to – that’s just how we reference them internally. They're [1 and 2] both forks of Testnet Three. [Testnet] One we used for activation testing, so we would test things before and after activation - that one’s set to reset every couple of days. The other one [Testnet Two] was set to post activation so that we can test all of the consensus changes. The third one was a performance test network which I think most people have probably have heard us refer to before as Gigablock Testnet. I get my tongue tied every time I try to say that word so I've started calling it the Performance test network and I think we're planning on having two of those: one that we can just do our own stuff with and experiment without having to worry about external unknown factors going on and having other people joining it and doing stuff that we don't know about that affects our ability to baseline performance tests, but the other one (which I think might still be a work in progress so Daniel might be able to answer that one) is one of them where basically everyone will be able to join and they can try and mess stuff up as bad as they want.
Daniel: 0:09:45.02,0:10:20.93
Yeah, so we so we recently shared the details of Testnet One and Two with the with the other BCH developer groups. The Gigablock test network we've shared up with one group so far but yeah we're building it as Steve pointed out to be publicly accessible.
Connor: 0:10:18.88,0:10:44.00
I think that was my next question I saw that you posted on Twitter about the revived Gigablock testnet initiative and so it looked like blocks bigger than 32 megabytes were being mined and propagated there, but maybe the block explorers themselves were coming down - what does that revived Gigablock test initiative look like?
Daniel: 0:10:41.62,0:11:58.34
That's what did the Gigablock test network is. So the Gigablock test network was first set up by Bitcoin Unlimited with nChain’s help and they did some great work on that, and we wanted to revive it. So we wanted to bring it back and do some large-scale testing on it. It's a flexible network - at one point we had we had eight different large nodes spread across the globe, sort of mirroring the old one. Right now we scaled back because we're not using it at the moment so they'll notice I think three. We have produced some large blocks there and it's helped us a lot in our research and into the scaling capabilities of Bitcoin SV, so it's guided the work that the team’s been doing for the last month or two on the improvements that we need for scalability.
Steve: 0:11:56.48,0:13:34.25
I think that's actually a good point to kind of frame where our priorities have been in kind of two separate stages. I think, as Daniel mentioned before, because of the time constraints we kept the change set for the October 15 release as minimal as possible - it was just the consensus changes. We didn't do any work on performance at all and we put all our focus and energy into establishing the QA process and making sure that that change was safe and that was a good process for us to go through. It highlighted what we were missing in our team – we got our recruiters very busy recruiting of a Test Manager and more QA people. The second stage after that is performance related work which, as Daniel mentioned, the results of our performance testing fed into what tasks we were gonna start working on for the performance related stuff. Now that work is still in progress - some of the items that we identified the code is done and that's going through the QA process but it’s not quite there yet. That's basically the two-stage process that we've been through so far. We have a roadmap that goes further into the future that outlines more stuff, but primarily it’s been QA first, performance second. The performance enhancements are close and on the horizon but some of that work should be ongoing for quite some time.
Daniel: 0:13:37.49,0:14:35.14
Some of the changes we need for the performance are really quite large and really get down into the base level view of the software. There's kind of two groups of them mainly. One that are internal to the software – to Bitcoin SV itself - improving the way it works inside. And then there's other ones that interface it with the outside world. One of those in particular we're working closely with another group to make a compatible change - it's not consensus changing or anything like that - but having the same interface on multiple different implementations will be very helpful right, so we're working closely with them to make improvements for scalability.
Connor: 0:14:32.60,0:15:26.45
Obviously for Bitcoin SV one of the main things that you guys wanted to do that that some of the other developer groups weren't willing to do right now is to increase the maximum default block size to 128 megabytes. I kind of wanted to pick your brains a little bit about - a lot of the objection to either removing the box size entirely or increasing it on a larger scale is this idea of like the infinite block attack right and that kind of came through in a lot of the questions. What are your thoughts on the “infinite block attack” and is it is it something that that really exists, is it something that miners themselves should be more proactive on preventing, or I guess what are your thoughts on that attack that everyone says will happen if you uncap the block size?
Steve: 0:15:23.45,0:18:28.56
I'm often quoted on Twitter and Reddit - I've said before the infinite block attack is bullshit. Now, that's a statement that I suppose is easy to take out of context, but I think the 128 MB limit is something where there’s probably two schools of thought about. There are some people who think that you shouldn't increase the limit to 128 MB until the software can handle it, and there are others who think that it's fine to do it now so that the limit is increased when the software can handle it and you don’t run into the limit when this when the software improves and can handle it. Obviously we’re from the latter school of thought. As I said before we've got a bunch of performance increases, performance enhancements, in the pipeline. If we wait till May to increase the block size limit to 128 MB then those performance enhancements will go in, but we won't be able to actually demonstrate it on mainnet. As for the infinitive block attack itself, I mean there are a number of mitigations that you can put in place. I mean firstly, you know, going down to a bit of the tech detail - when you send a block message or send any peer to peer message there's a header which has the size of the message. If someone says they're sending you a 30MB message and you're receiving it and it gets to 33MB then obviously you know something's wrong so you can drop the connection. If someone sends you a message that's 129 MB and you know the block size limit is 128 you know it’s kind of pointless to download that message. So I mean these are just some of the mitigations that you can put in place. When I say the attack is bullshit, I mean I mean it is bullshit from the sense that it's really quite trivial to prevent it from happening. I think there is a bit of a school of thought in the Bitcoin world that if it's not in the software right now then it kind of doesn't exist. I disagree with that, because there are small changes that can be made to work around problems like this. One other aspect of the infinite block attack, and let’s not call it the infinite block attack, let's just call it the large block attack - it takes a lot of time to validate that we gotten around by having parallel pipelines for blocks to come in, so you've got a block that's coming in it's got a unknown stuck on it for two hours or whatever downloading and validating it. At some point another block is going to get mined b someone else and as long as those two blocks aren't stuck in a serial pipeline then you know the problem kind of goes away.
Cory: 0:18:26.55,0:18:48.27
Are there any concerns with the propagation of those larger blocks? Because there's a lot of questions around you know what the practical size of scaling right now Bitcoin SV could do and the concerns around propagating those blocks across the whole network.
Steve 0:18:45.84,0:21:37.73
Yes, there have been concerns raised about it. I think what people forget is that compact blocks and xThin exist, so if a 32MB block is not send 32MB of data in most cases, almost all cases. The concern here that I think I do find legitimate is the Great Firewall of China. Very early on in Bitcoin SV we started talking with miners on the other side of the firewall and that was one of their primary concerns. We had anecdotal reports of people who were having trouble getting a stable connection any faster than 200 kilobits per second and even with compact blocks you still need to get the transactions across the firewall. So we've done a lot of research into that - we tested our own links across the firewall, rather CoinGeeks links across the firewall as they’ve given us access to some of their servers so that we can play around, and we were able to get sustained rates of 50 to 90 megabits per second which pushes that problem quite a long way down the road into the future. I don't know the maths off the top of my head, but the size of the blocks that can sustain is pretty large. So we're looking at a couple of options - it may well be the chattiness of the peer-to-peer protocol causes some of these issues with the Great Firewall, so we have someone building a bridge concept/tool where you basically just have one kind of TX vacuum on either side of the firewall that collects them all up and sends them off every one or two seconds as a single big chunk to eliminate some of that chattiness. The other is we're looking at building a multiplexer that will sit and send stuff up to the peer-to-peer network on one side and send it over splitters, to send it over multiple links, reassemble it on the other side so we can sort of transition the great Firewall without too much trouble, but I mean getting back to the core of your question - yes there is a theoretical limit to block size propagation time and that's kind of where Moore's Law comes in. Putting faster links and you kick that can further down the road and you just keep on putting in faster links. I don't think 128 main blocks are going to be an issue though with the speed of the internet that we have nowadays.
Connor: 0:21:34.99,0:22:17.84
One of the other changes that you guys are introducing is increasing the max script size so I think right now it’s going from 201 to 500 [opcodes]. So I guess a few of the questions we got was I guess #1 like why not uncap it entirely - I think you guys said you ran into some concerns while testing that - and then #2 also specifically we had a question about how certain are you that there are no remaining n squared bugs or vulnerabilities left in script execution?
Steve: 0:22:15.50,0:25:36.79
It's interesting the decision - we were initially planning on removing that cap altogether and the next cap that comes into play after that (next effective cap is a 10,000 byte limit on the size of the script). We took a more conservative route and decided to wind that back to 500 - it's interesting that we got some criticism for that when the primary criticism I think that was leveled against us was it’s dangerous to increase that limit to unlimited. We did that because we’re being conservative. We did some research into these log n squared bugs, sorry – attacks, that people have referred to. We identified a few of them and we had a hard think about it and thought - look if we can find this many in a short time we can fix them all (the whack-a-mole approach) but it does suggest that there may well be more unknown ones. So we thought about putting, you know, taking the whack-a-mole approach, but that doesn't really give us any certainty. We will fix all of those individually but a more global approach is to make sure that if anyone does discover one of these scripts it doesn't bring the node to a screaming halt, so the problem here is because the Bitcoin node is essentially single-threaded, if you get one of these scripts that locks up the script engine for a long time everything that's behind it in the queue has to stop and wait. So what we wanted to do, and this is something we've got an engineer actively working on right now, is once that script validation goad path is properly paralyzed (parts of it already are), then we’ll basically assign a few threads for well-known transaction templates, and a few threads for any any type of script. So if you get a few scripts that are nasty and lock up a thread for a while that's not going to stop the node from working because you've got these other kind of lanes of the highway that are exclusively reserved for well-known script templates and they'll just keep on passing through. Once you've got that in place, and I think we're in a much better position to get rid of that limit entirely because the worst that's going to happen is your non-standard script pipelines get clogged up but everything else will keep keep ticking along - there are other mitigations for this as well I mean I know you could always put a time limit on script execution if they wanted to, and that would be something that would be up to individual miners. Bitcoin SV's job I think is to provide the tools for the miners and the miners can then choose, you know, how to make use of them - if they want to set time limits on script execution then that's a choice for them.
Daniel: 0:25:34.82,0:26:15.85
Yeah, I'd like to point out that a node here, when it receives a transaction through the peer to peer network, it doesn't have to accept that transaction, you can reject it. If it looks suspicious to the node it can just say you know we're not going to deal with that, or if it takes more than five minutes to execute, or more than a minute even, it can just abort and discard that transaction, right. The only time we can’t do that is when it's in a block already, but then it could decide to reject the block as well. It's all possibilities there could be in the software.
Steve: 0:26:13.08,0:26:20.64
Yeah, and if it's in a block already it means someone else was able to validate it so…
Cory: 0,0:26:21.21,0:26:43.60
There’s a lot of discussions about the re-enabled opcodes coming – OP_MUL, OP_INVERT, OP_LSHIFT, and OP_RSHIFT up invert op l shift and op r shift you maybe explain the significance of those op codes being re-enabled?
Steve: 0:26:42.01,0:28:17.01
Well I mean one of one of the most significant things is other than two, which are minor variants of DUP and MUL, they represent almost the complete set of original op codes. I think that's not necessarily a technical issue, but it's an important milestone. MUL is one that's that I've heard some interesting comments about. People ask me why are you putting OP_MUL back in if you're planning on changing them to big number operations instead of the 32-bit limit that they're currently imposed upon. The simple answer to that question is that we currently have all of the other arithmetic operations except for OP_MUL. We’ve got add divide, subtract, modulo – it’s odd to have a script system that's got all the mathematical primitives except for multiplication. The other answer to that question is that they're useful - we've talked about a Rabin signature solution that basically replicates the function of DATASIGVERIFY. That's just one example of a use case for this - most cryptographic primitive operations require mathematical operations and bit shifts are useful for a whole ton of things. So it's really just about completing that work and completing the script engine, or rather not completing it, but putting it back the way that it was it was meant to be.
Connor 0:28:20.42,0:29:22.62
Big Num vs 32 Bit. I've seen Daniel - I think I saw you answer this on Reddit a little while ago, but the new op codes using logical shifts and Satoshi’s version use arithmetic shifts - the general question that I think a lot of people keep bringing up is, maybe in a rhetorical way but they say why not restore it back to the way Satoshi had it exactly - what are the benefits of changing it now to operate a little bit differently?
Daniel: 0:29:18.75,0:31:12.15
Yeah there's two parts there - the big number one and the L shift being a logical shift instead of arithmetic. so when we re-enabled these opcodes we've looked at them carefully and have adjusted them slightly as we did in the past with OP_SPLIT. So the new LSHIFT and RSHIFT are bitwise operators. They can be used to implement arithmetic based shifts - I think I've posted a short script that did that, but we can't do it the other way around, right. You couldn't use an arithmetic shift operator to implement a bitwise one. It's because of the ordering of the bytes in the arithmetic values, so the values that represent numbers. The little endian which means they're swapped around to what many other systems - what I've considered normal - or big-endian. And if you start shifting that properly as a number then then shifting sequence in the bytes is a bit strange, so it couldn't go the other way around - you couldn't implement bitwise shift with arithmetic, so we chose to make them bitwise operators - that's what we proposed.
Steve: 0:31:10.57,0:31:51.51
That was essentially a decision that was actually made in May, or rather a consequence of decisions that were made in May. So in May we reintroduced OP_AND, OP_OR, and OP_XOR, and that was also another decision to replace three different string operators with OP_SPLIT was also made. So that was not a decision that we've made unilaterally, it was a decision that was made collectively with all of the BCH developers - well not all of them were actually in all of the meetings, but they were all invited.
Daniel: 0:31:48.24,0:32:23.13
Another example of that is that we originally proposed OP_2DIV and OP_2MUL was it, I think, and this is a single operator that multiplies the value by two, right, but it was pointed out that that can very easily be achieved by just doing multiply by two instead of having a separate operator for it, so we scrapped those, we took them back out, because we wanted to keep the number of operators minimum yeah.
Steve: 0:32:17.59,0:33:47.20
There was an appetite around for keeping the operators minimal. I mean the decision about the idea to replace OP_SUBSTR, OP_LEFT, OP_RIGHT with OP_SPLIT operator actually came from Gavin Andresen. He made a brief appearance in the Telegram workgroups while we were working out what to do with May opcodes and obviously Gavin's word kind of carries a lot of weight and we listen to him. But because we had chosen to implement the May opcodes (the bitwise opcodes) and treat the data as big-endian data streams (well, sorry big-endian not really applicable just plain data strings) it would have been completely inconsistent to implement LSHIFT and RSHIFT as integer operators because then you would have had a set of bitwise operators that operated on two different kinds of data, which would have just been nonsensical and very difficult for anyone to work with, so yeah. I mean it's a bit like P2SH - it wasn't a part of the original Satoshi protocol that once some things are done they're done and you know if you want to want to make forward progress you've got to work within that that framework that exists.
Daniel: 0:33:45.85,0:34:48.97
When we get to the big number ones then it gets really complicated, you know, number implementations because then you can't change the behavior of the existing opcodes, and I don't mean OP_MUL, I mean the other ones that have been there for a while. You can't suddenly make them big number ones without seriously looking at what scripts there might be out there and the impact of that change on those existing scripts, right. The other the other point is you don't know what scripts are out there because of P2SH - there could be scripts that you don't know the content of and you don't know what effect changing the behavior of these operators would mean. The big number thing is tricky, so another option might be, yeah, I don't know what the options for though it needs some serious thought.
Steve: 0:34:43.27,0:35:24.23
That’s something we've reached out to the other implementation teams about - actually really would like their input on the best ways to go about restoring big number operations. It has to be done extremely carefully and I don't know if we'll get there by May next year, or when, but we’re certainly willing to put a lot of resources into it and we're more than happy to work with BU or XT or whoever wants to work with us on getting that done and getting it done safely.
Connor: 0:35:19.30,0:35:57.49
Kind of along this similar vein, you know, Bitcoin Core introduced this concept of standard scripts, right - standard and non-standard scripts. I had pretty interesting conversation with Clemens Ley about use cases for “non-standard scripts” as they're called. I know at least one developer on Bitcoin ABC is very hesitant, or kind of pushed back on him about doing that and so what are your thoughts about non-standard scripts and the entirety of like an IsStandard check?
Steve: 0:35:58.31,0:37:35.73
I’d actually like to repurpose the concept. I think I mentioned before multi-threaded script validation and having some dedicated well-known script templates - when you say the word well-known script template there’s already a check in Bitcoin that kind of tells you if it's well-known or not and that's IsStandard. I'm generally in favor of getting rid of the notion of standard transactions, but it's actually a decision for miners, and it's really more of a behavioral change than it is a technical change. There's a whole bunch of configuration options that miners can set that affect what they do what they consider to be standard and not standard, but the reality is not too many miners are using those configuration options. So I mean standard transactions as a concept is meaningful to an arbitrary degree I suppose, but yeah I would like to make it easier for people to get non-standard scripts into Bitcoin so that they can experiment, and from discussions of I’ve had with CoinGeek they’re quite keen on making their miners accept, you know, at least initially a wider variety of transactions eventually.
Daniel: 0:37:32.85,0:38:07.95
So I think IsStandard will remain important within the implementation itself for efficiency purposes, right - you want to streamline base use case of cash payments through them and prioritizing. That's where it will remain important but on the interfaces from the node to the rest of the network, yeah I could easily see it being removed.
Cory: 0,0:38:06.24,0:38:35.46
*Connor mentioned that there's some people that disagree with Bitcoin SV and what they're doing - a lot of questions around, you know, why November? Why implement these changes in November - they think that maybe the six-month delay might not cause a split. Well, first off what do you think about the ideas of a potential split and I guess what is the urgency for November?
Steve: 0:38:33.30,0:40:42.42
Well in November there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules regardless of whether we implement these new op codes or not. Bitcoin ABC released their spec for the November Hard fork change I think on August 16th or 17th something like that and their client as well and it included CTOR and it included DSV. Now for the miners that commissioned the SV project, CTOR and DSV are controversial changes and once they're in they're in. They can't be reversed - I mean CTOR maybe you could reverse it at a later date, but DSV once someone's put a P2SH transaction into the project or even a non P2SH transaction in the blockchain using that opcode it's irreversible. So it's interesting that some people refer to the Bitcoin SV project as causing a split - we're not proposing to do anything that anyone disagrees with - there might be some contention about changing the opcode limit but what we're doing, I mean Bitcoin ABC already published their spec for May and it is our spec for the new opcodes, so in terms of urgency - should we wait? Well the fact is that we can't - come November you know it's bit like Segwit - once Segwit was in, yes you arguably could get it out by spending everyone's anyone can spend transactions but in reality it's never going to be that easy and it's going to cause a lot of economic disruption, so yeah that's it. We're putting out changes in because it's not gonna make a difference either way in terms of whether there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules - there's going to be a divergence whether whatever our changes are. Our changes are not controversial at all.
Daniel: 0:40:39.79,0:41:03.08
If we didn't include these changes in the November upgrade we'd be pushing ahead with a no-change, right, but the November upgrade is there so we should use it while we can. Adding these non-controversial changes to it.
Connor: 0:41:01.55,0:41:35.61
Can you talk about DATASIGVERIFY? What are your concerns with it? The general concept that's been kind of floated around because of Ryan Charles is the idea that it's a subsidy, right - that it takes a whole megabyte and kind of crunches that down and the computation time stays the same but maybe the cost is lesser - do you kind of share his view on that or what are your concerns with it?
Daniel: 0:41:34.01,0:43:38.41
Can I say one or two things about this – there’s different ways to look at that, right. I'm an engineer - my specialization is software, so the economics of it I hear different opinions. I trust some more than others but I am NOT an economist. I kind of agree with the ones with my limited expertise on that it's a subsidy it looks very much like it to me, but yeah that's not my area. What I can talk about is the software - so adding DSV adds really quite a lot of complexity to the code right, and it's a big change to add that. And what are we going to do - every time someone comes up with an idea we’re going to add a new opcode? How many opcodes are we going to add? I saw reports that Jihan was talking about hundreds of opcodes or something like that and it's like how big is this client going to become - how big is this node - is it going to have to handle every kind of weird opcode that that's out there? The software is just going to get unmanageable and DSV - that was my main consideration at the beginning was the, you know, if you can implement it in script you should do it, because that way it keeps the node software simple, it keeps it stable, and you know it's easier to test that it works properly and correctly. It's almost like adding (?) code from a microprocessor you know why would you do that if you can if you can implement it already in the script that is there.
Steve: 0:43:36.16,0:46:09.71
It’s actually an interesting inconsistency because when we were talking about adding the opcodes in May, the philosophy that seemed to drive the decisions that we were able to form a consensus around was to simplify and keep the opcodes as minimal as possible (ie where you could replicate a function by using a couple of primitive opcodes in combination, that was preferable to adding a new opcode that replaced) OP_SUBSTR is an interesting example - it's a combination of SPLIT, and SWAP and DROP opcodes to achieve it. So at really primitive script level we've got this philosophy of let's keep it minimal and at this sort of (?) philosophy it’s all let's just add a new opcode for every primitive function and Daniel's right - it's a question of opening the floodgates. Where does it end? If we're just going to go down this road, it almost opens up the argument why have a scripting language at all? Why not just add a hard code all of these functions in one at a time? You know, pay to public key hash is a well-known construct (?) and not bother executing a script at all but once we've done that we take away with all of the flexibility for people to innovate, so it's a philosophical difference, I think, but I think it's one where the position of keeping it simple does make sense. All of the primitives are there to do what people need to do. The things that people don't feel like they can't do are because of the limits that exist. If we had no opcode limit at all, if you could make a gigabyte transaction so a gigabyte script, then you can do any kind of crypto that you wanted even with 32-bit integer operations, Once you get rid of the 32-bit limit of course, a lot of those a lot of those scripts come up a lot smaller, so a Rabin signature script shrinks from 100MB to a couple hundred bytes.
Daniel: 0:46:06.77,0:47:36.65
I lost a good six months of my life diving into script, right. Once you start getting into the language and what it can do, it is really pretty impressive how much you can achieve within script. Bitcoin was designed, was released originally, with script. I mean it didn't have to be – it could just be instead of having a transaction with script you could have accounts and you could say trust, you know, so many BTC from this public key to this one - but that's not the way it was done. It was done using script, and script provides so many capabilities if you start exploring it properly. If you start really digging into what it can do, yeah, it's really amazing what you can do with script. I'm really looking forward to seeing some some very interesting applications from that. I mean it was Awemany his zero-conf script was really interesting, right. I mean it relies on DSV which is a problem (and some other things that I don't like about it), but him diving in and using script to solve this problem was really cool, it was really good to see that.
Steve: 0:47:32.78,0:48:16.44
I asked a question to a couple of people in our research team that have been working on the Rabin signature stuff this morning actually and I wasn't sure where they are up to with this, but they're actually working on a proof of concept (which I believe is pretty close to done) which is a Rabin signature script - it will use smaller signatures so that it can fit within the current limits, but it will be, you know, effectively the same algorithm (as DSV) so I can't give you an exact date on when that will happen, but it looks like we'll have a Rabin signature in the blockchain soon (a mini-Rabin signature).
Cory: 0:48:13.61,0:48:57.63
Based on your responses I think I kinda already know the answer to this question, but there's a lot of questions about ending experimentation on Bitcoin. I was gonna kind of turn that into – with the plan that Bitcoin SV is on do you guys see like a potential one final release, you know that there's gonna be no new opcodes ever released (like maybe five years down the road we just solidify the base protocol and move forward with that) or are you guys more on the idea of being open-ended with appropriate testing that we can introduce new opcodes under appropriate testing.
Steve: 0:48:55.80,0:49:47.43
I think you've got a factor in what I said before about the philosophical differences. I think new functionality can be introduced just fine. Having said that - yes there is a place for new opcodes but it's probably a limited place and in my opinion the cryptographic primitive functions for example CHECKSIG uses ECDSA with a specific elliptic curve, hash 256 uses SHA256 - at some point in the future those are going to no longer be as secure as we would like them to be and we'll replace them with different hash functions, verification functions, at some point, but I think that's a long way down the track.
Daniel: 0:49:42.47,0:50:30.3
I'd like to see more data too. I'd like to see evidence that these things are needed, and the way I could imagine that happening is that, you know, that with the full scripting language some solution is implemented and we discover that this is really useful, and over a period of, like, you know measured in years not days, we find a lot of transactions are using this feature, then maybe, you know, maybe we should look at introducing an opcode to optimize it, but optimizing before we even know if it's going to be useful, yeah, that's the wrong approach.
Steve: 0:50:28.19,0:51:45.29
I think that optimization is actually going to become an economic decision for the miners. From the miner’s point of view is if it'll make more sense for them to be able to optimize a particular process - does it reduce costs for them such that they can offer a better service to everyone else? Yeah, so ultimately these decisions are going to be miner’s main decisions, not developer decisions. Developers of course can offer their input - I wouldn't expect every miner to be an expert on script, but as we're already seeing miners are actually starting to employ their own developers. I’m not just talking about us - there are other miners in China that I know have got some really bright people on their staff that question and challenge all of the changes - study them and produce their own reports. We've been lucky with actually being able to talk to some of those people and have some really fascinating technical discussions with them.
submitted by The_BCH_Boys to btc [link] [comments]

How would you contend against Glen Weyl's prognosis that the "blockchain" is a dead end (at a technical level)?

In a recent episode of the 80000 Hours podcast, Glen Weyl made a number of critical remarks about the "blockchain" as a technical data structure, claiming it was inimical to his way of thinking.
I find it strange a political economist of Weyl's caliber and influence would think he has the expertise to condemn the blockchain from a "technical" standpoint (not trying to dismiss his other remarks). Personally, I do believe his concerns are mostly fair and on point at the present time, but will ultimately turn out to be unfounded over the longer-term due to the selective disclosures which will be made possible by widespread adoption of efficient zero-knowledge protocols. Given Weyl's prominence in Ethereum land, it may be a good idea to provide him with some technical clarifications or counter-arguments. Anyone care to parse through his statements and offer their thoughts?
Here's a slightly edited transcript of the relevant part of the interview:
Robert Wiblin: What do you think are the biggest downsides of the crypto-community? I guess I only have a vague exposure to it and it seems to me that whatever group came up with Bitcoin are clearly geniuses and Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, is otherworldly I think in his insightfulness. But I guess it has also attracted a lot of over-confidence in people and people who are drawn in by the ideology more than anything else and I guess at the worst end there's all sorts of scammers and bullshit artists who see their chance to make a quick buck. Do you see them as damaging the community or overall it's still a very good group?
Glen Weyl: I would say the technology that's currently called "blockchain", which has a bunch of different elements to it, is a dead end. I think it has very few applications if any where that's going to be the right kind of data structure to use. I also think it has very problematic social implications. I think the ideology instantiated by the actual technical protocols right now is dark and deeply problematic. There's a spectrum from a really intelligent person who has a good understanding of what's going on through deeply naive and somewhat like self-deluding deliberately because of potential greed and so forth issues through to outright scammers. If you ask where the center of gravity is in that, it's definitely in that latter end of the spectrum. So, there are like huge problems. However, capitalism has enormous problems, as I've been trying to say, and there's very little space in our society for seriously reconsidering that and for people to think boldly about these things. I think this is offering a space for that and that's extremely important.
Robert Wiblin: You're completely confounding my plan for this interview. I thought you were going to explain how blockchain was going to be very useful and I was going to explain why I was skeptical about those applications. Ok, talk to me about the technical side, why do you think the blockchain is overrated or harmful overall.
Glen Weyl: Yeah, so first of all, the data structure instantiates a view of where data originates and how it should be stored that is pretty inimical to what's the right way of thinking about where data is and how it should be stored. In particular, I'm a big fan of decentralization, but the blockchain isn't really based on that concept. It's really based on the notion that a large part of all data should be completely public; and then a bunch of stuff should be utterly private. And that is ultimately [...] the anathema of the way I think about things. I actually think everything has some sphere of intimacy where it should be shared and some other sphere of intimacy (or of society) into which its leaking would be problematic. It's almost never the case that you'd want things to be stored completely globally; and on the other hand it's almost always the case that you don't want them to be overly cloistered. So, data structures that instantiate the appropriate level of decentralization and that actually store data in relationship to the community to which it pertains have to be a much closer to optimal way of thinking about data structures. And so that's at the very core of how it's conceived; that's a fundamental problem with the blockchain.
Robert Wiblin: Can you cash that out in an example where the current approach would lead to things being too public and how it might be organized better?
Glen Weyl: Well, I mean basically the blockchain says you are anonymous online and then everything you do online is like totally public and completely transparent. But like think about your reputation. Your reputation isn't something you need to share with everybody and in every context; but on the other hand it's incredibly important that you not be anonymous, because if you're anonymous you're unaccountable. So instead the appropriate thing to do, like if I were to look into you Rob and see if you're a guy I should do a podcast with, like probably what I wouldn't want to do is go to some global repository where every action that you've ever taken is either listed or completely detached from you. Instead, I would go to some people, I would get, in confidence, references about you. You see what I'm saying? Like that's the way human societies are and should work. Things should not be either global or utterly individualistic and private. They should always be shared with some communities and not with other communities. And the blockchain just doesn't have the affordances, naturally, to allow for that sort of a structure, at a technical level.

submitted by lntrospectre to ethereum [link] [comments]

Pelican Brief - part 4

....Or How Craig will prove he is Satoshi.

I will just advise that I am not a coder or anything technical, I'm just positing a hypothesis and would like some feedback/help from anybody that actually is a coder. I've read quite extensively into Bitcoin and have been around the scene around 5 years or so though - and I'm not easily fooled. I just need to know if my hypothesis is feasible technically, so I'll just roughly sketch it out for now.
Here is a quote from Craig regarding his key signing “proofs” that have been widely criticized:
.” In recent sessions, I have used a total of 10 private keys are associated with bitcoin addresses. These were loaded into Electrum, an SPV wallet. In one of the exercises, I signed messages that I will not detail on this post for a number of individuals. “
These private signings were for people such as Gavin Anderson, John Matonis etc,( who said they were convinced) culminating in a well documented (and disputed) signing for the BBC and Economist.Apparently, the BBC proof seemed to point to the very first transaction Satoshi made to Hal Finney of 10 BTC but no message transaction appeared to be there:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true
Here is a Medium article by Craig from 2018:
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/nsequence-and-p2p-exchange-9e4cbf32124c
I read this and the links at the bottom to research all about “NlockTime” etc. This was removed from BTC code on 16th April 2016 by the looks of it - from what I understand of Github. This would be exactly the time (within days either way) of the Gavin Andersen and other signings:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
Now this is just too much to believe is a coincidence to my mind. Clearly one thing was likely a direct response to the other thing.
Hypothesis:
I think Craig saw what was being planned and thought “Bloody mongrel drongo baaarstards!”.....or similar and got straight on the phone to Gavin Andersen. There was an urgency about this – which I think is a clue.
The signings were not particularly about proving anything – they were about updating the terms of existing Nlocktime contracts with those that he already had them with. As the original code being removed was going to bugger them up, they had to co-sign to update them. Otherwise all the previous contracts/transactions that were planned to be executed/accepted on to the Blockchain at a later date would no longer be.
This would also indicate that Craig has been contracting those involved to do particular things for quite a while. This would also explain the apparent mystery of Craig stating he was forced to come out and do this with the BBC. The BBC proof was different to the private proofs though and was done for a very different reason. I believe this was probably the 10th of the private keys, though it could possibly be the 9th.
Anyway, the intention now is to put the code back to how it was, so early Nlocktime contracts can execute properly......so where does that leave us?
I think a message/transaction will appear on the Hal Finney block at a future time and it will say “I'm Gavin Andersen and my favourite number is 11 CSW” - or whatever the exact wording was. Similar messages will appear on other known Satoshi addresses. My guess is that there will be a big reveal in the Court case when maybe the 10th private key is used. I'm guessing that certain people I have mentioned may be called as witnesses to attest to what their messages were. It will be demonstrated by experts that only Satoshi could have done these things and it may or may not involve one last signing. What do we think.........possible?
Relevant things for technical people to consider I think, may include how certain things work such as raw transactions and Nlocktime and associated things and the fact that early Bitcoin code used "sequencing". This is just my layman's opinion though.
Any feedback would be much appreciated either in support of my hypothesis or in order to rule it out - either way I'm going to be more knowledgeable - so it's a win win!
Cheers
submitted by Henry_the_pelican to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191106 (Market index 53 — Neutral state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191106 (Market index 53 — Neutral state)

China — Wu Zhen

HK Regulator Announces Blockchain Collaboration With Subsidiary Of Institute Of Digital Currency Of PBoC The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) of China announces on Nov 6 that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the subsidiaries of Hong Kong Interbank Clearing Limited and Institute of Digital Currency of People’s Bank of China (PBoC) to conduct a Proof-of-Concept (PoC) trial. The trial aims to connect blockchain-based trade finance platform eTradeConnect and the PBoC Trade Finance Platform. The PoC is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2020.
EU Plans To Launch Public Cryptocurrency The draft text of the European Union, on Nov 5, urges the bloc to develop a common approach cryptocurrency. That is possibly including the ban projects deemed too risky. In its current form, EU finance ministers could adopt the document next month. That would intensify the EU’s cryptocurrency regulatory campaign, which has so far been only partially regulated in individual EU States. The European Central Bank and other central banks in the EU could usefully explore the opportunities and challenges of central banks issuing digital currencies. That is including by considering concrete measures to this end, the project said. That is prepared by the Finnish Presidency of the EU and subject to possible amendments.
North Korea Sets Up A Blockchain Firm To Launder Cash: UN North Korea has been using a Hong Kong-based blockchain company to launder money, according to a quarterly report from the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Committee on North Korea. As reported by South Korean newspaper Chosun, North Korea employed a shipping and logistics firm called Marine China, which runs on a blockchain platform, to avoid international sanctions by laundering stolen cryptocurrency.
Azerbaijan’s Central Bank To Introduce Blockchain-Based Digital Identification System The process of introducing a digital identification system based on blockchain technology in Azerbaijan will be completed by the end of 2019, Farid Osmanov, director of the information technology department of Azerbaijan’s Central Bank (CBA) said at the IV International Banking Forum in Baku, Trend reports Nov. 6. Osmanov said that this system will be commissioned in the first quarter of 2020.
https://preview.redd.it/h8nvfiv7a2x31.png?width=504&format=png&auto=webp&s=a51678e2a7c8f3f34eaf4886b8c4c744815a2277

After struggling to settle above $9,500, bitcoin started a downside correction against the US Dollar. BTC corrected lower and traded below the $9,400 and $9,350 levels. However, the price stayed above the $9,200 support and the 100 hourly simple moving average.
At the outset, the price is consolidating in a contracting range above the $9,200 support. The last swing high was near $9,435 and the last swing low was near $9,278. The price is currently moving higher above the $9,300 level.
Moreover, there was a break above the 23.6% Fib retracement level of the recent decline from the $9,435 high to $9,278 low. An immediate resistance is near the $9,350 and $9,375 levels.

Encrypted project calendar(November 6, 2019)

STEEM/Steem: The Steem (STEEM) SteemFest 4 conference will be held in Bangkok from November 6th to 10th. KIM/Kimcoin: Kimcoin (KIM) Bitfinex will be online at KIM on November 6, 2019 at 12:00 (UTC). Nebulas (NAS): 06 November 2019 Burn Deadline “Be sure to read this announcement & burn your $NAT by November 6th, 3:00p.m. (UTC+8, Beijing time).” Power Ledger (POWR): 06 November 2019 Book Launch ATTN Perth Power Ledger community, we will be hosting renowned economist Ross Garnaut at our WA office for the launch of his latest book… Credits (CS): 06 November 2019 Telegram AMA We are happy to announce an AMA session on WolfCryptoPub Telegram channel on the 6th November at 12:00 UTC. Fetch.ai (FET): 06 November 2019 Telegram AMA “Join @Fetch_ai CTO @pretzelsnake at 4pm UTC on Wednesday for an AMA on @Crypto_Players’ Telegram channel.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 7, 2019)

XRP (XRP): 07 November 2019 Swell 2019 Ripple hosts Swell from November 7th — 8th in Singapore. BTC/Bitcoin: Malta The A.I. and Blockchain summit will be held in Malta from November 7th to 8th. Waves (WAVES): 07 November 2019 Joins Odyssey “#Waves is joining Odyssey… We’re kicking off on Nov. 7 at Polaris…” Komodo (KMD) and 1 other: 07 November 2019 Block Party Amsterdam Block Party Amsterdam in Amsterdam from 17:30–22:00. Horizen (ZEN): 07 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. Molecular Future (MOF): 07 November 2019 Encrypted Wine Party Wuzhen Encrypted Wine Party held by global blockchain media coinvoice and JRR crypto in Zhejiang. NEO (NEO): 07 November 2019 Live on Telegram “Join us for Neo Live at our Telegram channel to chat with @OnTrade1 ! Make sure to join us at 8PM (UTC+8) on Thursday, November 7th!” Enigma (ENG): 07 November 2019 Waterloo Meetup “Come meet us Thursday evening before the hack to learn about privacy, “secret contracts”, and Salad, a coin-mixing application…” Ark (ARK): 07 November 2019 Slack AMA “Join the ARK Slack and ask questions — Thursday the 7th of November! This week will be about ARK Explorer & Website (Michel, 6pm UTC)…”

Encrypted project calendar(November 8, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2nd Global Digital Mining Summit will be held in Frankfurt, Germany from October 8th to 10th. IOTX/IoTeX: IoTex (IOTX) will participate in the CES Expo on November 08 TOP (TOP): 08 November 2019 Mainnet Launch “So excited to announce that on November 8th, TOP Network will officially launch the mainnet…” OKB (OKB): 08 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Valencia “Meet us at our next OKEx Talks in Valencia on 8 Nov with speaker Gustavo Segovia@sepu85 who will look at the benefits of creating Zenon (ZNN): 08 November 2019 Awareness Fund Payout “Distribution of the fund takes place every Friday until Pillars Lock-in Phase is completed.” Bytom (BTM): 08 November 2019 Keep Moving Conference “Bytom “Keep MOVing” conference will be held in Wuzhen World Conference. We will invite partners, core community members and devs to…” WAX (WAXP): 08 November 2019 Infinity Festival We’re at the Infinity Festival in LA this Friday, November 8th. Don’t miss Malcolm CasSelle speaking at this event on digital collectibles.

Encrypted project calendar(November 9, 2019)

CENNZ/Centrality: Centrality (CENNZ) will meet in InsurTechNZ Connect — Insurance and Blockchain on October 9th in Auckland. HTMLCOIN (HTML): 09 November 2019 (or earlier) Mandatory Wallet Update Mandatory Wallet Update: there will be a soft fork on our blockchain. This update adds header signature verification on block 997,655. Harmony (ONE): 09 November 2019 Indian Meetups Come & meet us in person on November 9th in our meetups in Bangalore & New Delhi!

Encrypted project calendar(November 10, 2019)

Bibox Token (BIX): 10 November 2019 Bibox Summit “Bibox Summit 2019 — Maximizing Profit On Uptrend Season” from 1 PM — 5 PM (ITV) in Ho Chi Minh City.

Encrypted project calendar(November 11, 2019)

PAX/Paxos Standard: Paxos Standard (PAX) 2019 Singapore Financial Technology Festival will be held from November 11th to 15th, and Paxos Standard will attend the conference. Crypto.com Coin (CRO): and 3 others 11 November 2019 Capital Warm-up Party Capital Warm-up Party in Singapore. GoldCoin (GLC): 11 November 2019 Reverse Bitcoin Hardfork The GoldCoin (GLC) Team will be “Reverse Hard Forking” the Bitcoin (BTC) Blockchain…” Horizen (ZEN): 11 November 2019 (or earlier) Horizen Giveaway — Nodes Horizen Giveaway — Win Free Node Hosting! Entries before November 11th. SINOVATE (SIN): 11 November 2019 Roadmap V3 SINOVATE (SIN) Roadmap V3 will be released with new upcoming technologies and proof of concepts!

Encrypted project calendar(November 12, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The CoinMarketCap Global Conference will be held at the Victoria Theatre in Singapore from November 12th to 13th Binance Coin (BNB) and 7 others: 12 November 2019 CMC Global Conference “The first-ever CoinMarketCap large-scale event: A one-of-a-kind blockchain / crypto experience like you’ve never experienced before.” Aion (AION) and 17 others: 12 November 2019 The Capital The Capital conference from November 12–13 in Singapore. Loom Network (LOOM): 12 November 2019 Transfer Gateway Update “If you have a dapp that relies on the Transfer Gateway, follow the instructions below to make sure you’re prepared.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 13, 2019)

Fetch.ai (FET): 13 November 2019 Cambridge Meetup “Join us for a@Fetch_ai #Cambridge #meetup on 13 November @pantonarms1.” Binance Coin (BNB) and 5 others: 13 November 2019 Blockchain Expo N.A. “It will bring together key industries from across the globe for two days of top-level content and discussion across 5 co-located events…” OKB (OKB): 13 November 2019 Dnipro, Ukraine- Talks Join us in Dnipro as we journey through Ukraine for our OKEx Cryptour on 11 Nov. Centrality (CENNZ): 13 November 2019 AMA Meetup “Ask our CEO@aaronmcdnz anything in person! Join the AMA meetup on 13 November in Singapore.” OKB (OKB): 13 November 2019 OKEx Cryptotour Dnipro “OKEx Cryptour Ukraine 2019 — Dnipro” in Dnipro from 6–9 PM (EET).

Encrypted project calendar(November 14, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2019 BlockShow Asia Summit will be held at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore from November 14th to 15th. Binance Coin (BNB): and 4 others 14 November 2019 BlockShow Asia 2019 BlockShow Asia 2019 at Marina Bay Sands Expo, Singapore from November 14–15. Basic Attention Token (BAT): 14 November 2019 London Privacy Meetup “If you’re in London on Nov. 14th, don’t miss our privacy meetup! The Brave research team, our CPO @johnnyryan, as well as @UoE_EFI Horizen (ZEN): 14 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. IOTA (MIOTA): 14 November 2019 Berlin Meetup From Construction to Smart City: IOTA, Maschinenraum & Thinkt Digital will explain, using concrete use cases, how to gain real value from.. Dash (DASH): 14 November 2019 Q3 Summary Call “Dash Core Group Q3 2019 Summary Call — Thursday, 14 November 2019” NEO (NEO): 14 November 2019 NeoFest Singapore Meetup “Glad to have@Nicholas_Merten from DataDash as our host for #NeoFest Singapore meetup on 14th Nov!”

Encrypted project calendar(November 15, 2019)

TRON (TRX): 15 November 2019 Cross-chain Project “The #TRON cross-chain project will be available on Nov. 15th” Bluzelle (BLZ): 15 November 2019 (or earlier) CURIE Release CURIE release expected by early November 2019. Zebi (ZCO): 15 November 2019 ZEBI Token Swap Ends “… We will give 90 days to all the ERC 20 token holders to swap out their tokens into Zebi coins.” OKB (OKB): 15 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Vilnius “Join us for a meetup on 15 Nov (Fri) for our 1st ever Talks in Vilnius, Lithuania.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 16, 2019)

Bancor (BNT): and 2 others 16 November 2019 Crypto DeFiance-Singapore “Crypto DeFiance is a new global DeFi event embracing established innovators, financial market disruptors, DApp developers…” NEM (XEM): 16 November 2019 Developer’s Event “BLOCKCHAIN: Creation of Multifirma services” from 10:50 AM — 2 PM.

Encrypted project calendar(November 17, 2019)

OKB (OKB): 17 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Lagos Join us on 17 Nov for another OKEx Talks, discussing the “Life of a Crypto Trader”.

Encrypted project calendar(November 18, 2019)

Maker (MKR): 18 November 2019 MCD Launch “BIG changes to terminology are coming with the launch of MCD on Nov. 18th Say hello to Vaults, Dai, and Sai.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 19, 2019)

Lisk (LSK): 19 November 2019 Lisk.js “We are excited to announce liskjs2019 will take place on November 19th. This all day blockchain event will include…”

Encrypted project calendar(November 20, 2019)

OKB (OKB): 20 November 2019 OKEx Cryptour Odessa Ukr “Join us in Odessa as we journey through Ukraine for our OKEx Cryptour!”

Encrypted project calendar(November 21, 2019)

Cardano (ADA): and 2 others 21 November 2019 Meetup Netherlands (AMS) “This meetup is all about how to decentralize a blockchain, the problems and differences between Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake…” Cappasity (CAPP): 21 November 2019 Virtuality Paris 2019 “Cappasity to demonstrate its solution for the interactive shopping experience at Virtuality Paris 2019.” Horizen (ZEN): 21 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. OKB (OKB): 21 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Johannesburg “Join us the largest city of South Africa — Johannesburg where we will host our OKEx Talks on the 21st Nov.” IOST (IOST): 22 November 2019 Singapore Workshop Join the Institute of Blockchain for their 2nd IOST technical workshop in Singapore on 22 Nov 2019. The workshop includes IOST’s key tech. OKB (OKB): 22 November 2019 St. Petersberg Talks “Join us in St. Petersberg on 22 Nov as we answer your questions on Crypto Security. “

Encrypted project calendar(November 22, 2019)

IOST (IOST): 22 November 2019 Singapore Workshop Join the Institute of Blockchain for their 2nd IOST technical workshop in Singapore on 22 Nov 2019. The workshop includes IOST’s key tech OKB (OKB): 22 November 2019 St. Petersberg Talks “Join us in St. Petersberg on 22 Nov as we answer your questions on Crypto Security. “

Encrypted project calendar(November 27, 2019)

OKB (OKB): 27 November 2019 OKEx Cryptour Vinnytsia “Join us in Vinnytsia as we journey through Ukraine for our OKEx Cryptour!” Fetch.ai (FET): 27 November 2019 London Meetup “Join us on 27 November @primalbasehq to hear an exciting progress report as we prepare for the launch of our #mainnet”

Encrypted project calendar(November 28, 2019)

Horizen (ZEN): 28 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA.

Encrypted project calendar(November 30, 2019)

Ethos (ETHOS): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) Rebranding “In November, we unveil the broker token, a dynamic utility token to power our commission-free crypto trading and broker platform, Voyager.” Digitex Futures (DGTX): 30 November 2019 Public Testnet Launch “…We can expect to see the world’s first zero-commission futures trading platform live on the Ethereum public testnet from 30th November.” Monero (XMR): 30 November 2019 Protocol Upgrade “Preliminary information thread regarding the scheduled protocol upgrade of November 30.” Chiliz (CHZ): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) Fiat to CHZ Exchanges “We will add another two fiat to $CHZ exchanges in November…” Skrumble Network (SKM): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) P2P & Group Calling “P2P & Group Video Calling,” during November 2019. Aergo (AERGO): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) Mainnet 2.0 Upgrade Mainnet 2.0 Protocol update by end of November. Akropolis (AKRO): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) Beta Release “All functionality has been deployed to mainnet.” Nash Exchange (NEX): 30 November 2019 (or earlier) Mobile Strategy Phase 2 “Phase 2 of our mobile strategy will be live soon with our wallet and portfolio app hitting stores in November!”

Encrypted project calendar(November 31, 2019)

Wanchain (WAN): 31 December 2019 (or earlier) Wanchain 4.0 Release Wanchain 4.0, which introduces private chains integration and multi-coin wallet, released in Dec 2019. QuarkChain (QKC): 31 December 2019 (or earlier) Token Testnet Release Testnet for Multi-Native-Token and New Consensuses.

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

Life in 2050 – Bitcoin dominates a climate neutral world, but we paid a price...

Today is 12 March 2050. Today is my birthday. I’m now 67 years old. My alarm clock goes off at 06:30. With a groan I wake up, and reluctantly kick away the warm, heavy bed sheets. I put my feet in the cold slippers below the bed, and shuffle to the kitchen, yawning. I pour myself a cup of hot surrogate chicory coffee. The cool morning makes me shiver, it looks like winters are getting colder each year. We heat up the house as little as possible. We're too greedy to enjoy comfort.

The bitter taste of the chicory makes me grimace, as it does every morning. Sitting at the table, I enjoy the first rays of sunshine that fall on my weather-beaten face. Our house comes alive with noises: on the upper floors I hear laughter and kids running around. My two sons descend from the stairs. The oldest checks the status of our solar panels on one of our computers. My youngest son looks at another screen, to check the status of our farmbots.

Musing about how things used to be, I look at my sons. When I see them, my heart fills up with pride, but also with compassion. They’ll never know the comfortable life that I led up to my 36 years. Yes, the world is climate neutral now, but we paid a price for it.

The big change started in 2019, with two unfortunate events that happened together: the Brexit, and the impeachment of Donald Trump. But the first seeds of the destruction of our society had been sown a lot earlier, in 2009.

Brexit happened on 29 March 2019, and gave cause for great political tensions within the UK. The classical parties where torn apart or became irrelevant. After a series of chaotic elections and re-elections, the extreme right-wing party Norsefire came to power. The country went into a dark and deep recession, but this gave Norsefire only more power and control over the citizen’s daily life.

In October 2019 came the other scandal: Donald Trump, the president of the United States, had already been executing for 3 years secret orders from his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Apparently Putin had been blackmailing him with a “golden shower” movie, in which Trump played a not very presidential role. The impeachment procedure was concluded in less than 24 hours after the start of the scandal. The next day came the well-known effect: a Wall Street crash of epic proportions.

The fall of the Dow Jones also made the stock markets in Europe, London and Japan tremble and shake. In London the bank Barclays went bankrupt. Millions of UK citizens suddenly couldn’t reach the pounds on their savings accounts anymore. However complicated the explanation given by economists was, the simple fact remained: the money was gone. Of course, bloody riots ensued. Politicians were slaughtered in horrible ways. A bitter-comical news item I remember from those times, is the story of David Cameron asking political asylum in Cuba, where he was on vacation. (The demand was denied and he was deported to the UK).

In the midst of these turbulent times, a monster reared its head from the darkest depths of the internet. Bitcoin.

In their fearful search for certainty, the British converted their remaining Pounds in Bitcoin. Soon their entire society ran on a black circuit of Bitcoin. The British Pound wasn’t worth a penny anymore. The value of Bitcoin however, rose to unseen heights. And that did not pass unnoticed in the rest of the world.

To save the paralyzed economies of Europe and the United States, the policy makers only saw one cure: inject massive amounts of money in the economy. However, this only drove the value of the Dollar and Euro downwards, and the good savers finally followed the panic investors, into the ever-growing mighty tentacles of Bitcoin. The network had by then been declared illegal, but this had no effect.

Life in a society with a deflating currency is strange, if you look at it with eyes of 2019. First of all, you will try to avoid spending money as much as possible. Why buy a coffee today, if you can buy two tomorrow? This reasoning caused a global shrinkage of the economy. Investments where postponed. Vital items, such as fruit, vegetables, bread, medicines, rose in price. Superfluous items remain unsold. Factories producing those closed. Hundreds of millions of people lost their job. And for the first time in centuries, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere diminished.

A second effect of this unregulated currency is that nobody payed taxes anymore. The government became poor.

This made our society evolve to an ultra-liberal society. The right of strongest, richest or luckiest ruled. National and international laws where of no significance anymore. Citizens organized themselves via the internet, and local groups took over the tasks of the failing government. Carrying arms is now taken for granted. Justice is no longer done in a court of law, but in online forums, where the majority votes for the verdict and the punishment.

Together with the failure of the government, came the failure of the energy grid. People switched over to local production, and storage of energy. First with diesel generators, but soon with solar panels and batteries. Even though the price of oil was extremely low because of the global recession, still people preferred to buy solar panels. They pay back their value, whereas the value of a gallon of diesel – once it’s burned – is gone forever.

The discussion on nuclear power, which had been very actual only years before, became a joke. How could a failing government ever find the necessary funds to build new nuclear plants?

In the meantime I have, as most people, retrained myself to farmer. It’s not a heavy job, robots do most of the work. But it’s also no luxurious. We mainly eat bread, vegetables and fruit. We only eat meat once a year. The slaughtering of the sheep is always a festive occasion.

I have accepted this existence now, and can also see the pretty side of it. There are no more superpowers, waging war. They simply do not have the money to buy bombs. The gap between rich and poor is closing, albeit very slowly. A poor man must simply save harder and spend less than a rich man. Since the money is gaining in value, this strategy works, although it will take many generations.

My son’s generation was too young to see the decline of our society as something abnormal. They are optimistic and strong, and look for creative solutions to the problems of these times. Health care is extremely expensive. Insurances no longer exist. If you’re seriously ill, you’ve got bad luck.

It’s especially the millennials, people who are born around the year 2000, that are unhappy in today's society. They remember a youth full of opportunities and dreams, that have all vanished now. Weekend trips to Barcelona or New York are a distant dream today.

I often discuss with my wife if things could have been different. She thinks: yes, if the Brexit and Trump-scandals hadn’t happened. I see things differently. The seeds of the decline had been sown long before. The fall of our society was inevitable.

I wake up from my reveries, and join my sons. We’re going to check our farmbots. Each armed with a rifle, we get on our bikes. I put in the headphones of an mp3-player, a small luxury I permit myself. A song from a long time ago, the Rolling Stones.
“You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find… You get what you need.”
submitted by ThisUsernaymIsTaken to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin Too Low? PayPal Blockchain, Tether Explodes, Bitcoin Development & Litecoin As Money Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain Andreas Antonopoulos - Slow Big Banks and the Bitcoin Internet of things Mizuho Securities Chief Economist: I Find The Blockchain Concept Extraordinarily Interesting  CNBC Bitcoin Too Big To Fail, Bitcoin Targeting $40,000, Blockchain Bill & Litecoin Dolphins

Blockchain The next big thing. Or is it? Special report May 7th 2015 edition. May 7th 2015. ASKED TO NAME an event that has reshaped finance in recent years, bankers will point to the collapse of ... r/Bitcoin: A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money … Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. r/Bitcoin. log in sign up. User account menu. 157. Blockchain: The next big thing - The Economist. Close. 157. Posted by. u/MercadoBitcoinNet. 4 years ago ... Every January, the world's top economists gather to discuss what matters most for the profession. And while it is easy to mistake the belligerent hostility of Nouriel Roubini (aka Dr. Doom) as… Enthusiasts are also beginning to realise that even when a blockchain might be a suitable tool for the job at hand, they will still need to resolve the same sorts of problems as for any other big ... Blockchain technology is more than just bitcoin and digital or cryptocurrencies. In fact, using a blockchain for cryptocurrencies is probably near the bottom of the list when thinking of what and how it can be properly leveraged. A blockchain system is a distributed database that maintains a continuously growing list of data records secured from tampering and revision.

[index] [30714] [29817] [11723] [24906] [5067] [45408] [9416] [921] [35726] [11955]

Is Bitcoin Too Low? PayPal Blockchain, Tether Explodes, Bitcoin Development & Litecoin As Money

Is Bitcoin Too Low? PayPal Blockchain, Tether Explodes, Bitcoin Development & Litecoin As Money PayPal Blockchain, Tether Explodes, Bitcoin Development & Litecoin As Money The Modern Investor There is growing recognition of the revolutionary potential of the blockchain technology, which first saw the light of day as the software underpinning bitcoin. The Economist has run a cover story ... In this video I talk about the bitcoin block chain. I've gotten lots of emails asking if there is positive or negative effects of a ever growing block chain size. I discuss that and mush more in ... Bitcoin Too Big To Fail, Bitcoin Targeting $40,000, Blockchain Bill & Litecoin Dolphins The Modern Investor. Loading... Unsubscribe from The Modern Investor? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working ... Steven Ricchiuto, Mizuho Securities, and David Bailin, Citi Private Bank, weigh in on bitcoin, blockchain and the U.S. economy. » Subscribe to CNBC: http://c...

#