Bitcoin and the Rise of the Cypherpunks - CoinDesk
Cypherpunk Steve Schear: 'Bitcoin Is a Viable Alternative ...
The Cypherpunks - NAKAMOTO
Von Cypherpunks und Hashfunktionen: Bitcoin und seine ...
The three core values of @BullBitcoin_ 1. Skin in the game 2. Bitcoin Maximalism 3. The cypherpunk ethos In part… https://t.co/sytq1XAWYg - Crypto Dynamic Info - Whales's
Posted at: February 2, 2019 at 03:44AM By: The three core values of @BullBitcoin_ 1. Skin in the game 2. Bitcoin Maximalism 3. The cypherpunk ethos In part… https://t.co/sytq1XAWYg Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : http://bit.ly/2GynF9t Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
Hi fellas, this is my first ever post on privacy. I recently wrote about the existence of an open source DLT-based decentralized marketplace with a mission to enable free and private trade of goods and services. The marketplace description was posted on another subreddit but I think it's worth posting the description here too. Tbh I cant think of anything that qualifies more as "The intersection of technology, privacy, and freedom in a digital world" I hope my own description of the marketplace and its technology bellow will fuel your interest to read more about it. My even bigger hope is that some of you will decide to become first-hand beta testers as soon as the upcoming v3.0 of the marketplace hits the testnet (eta: a few weeks). You can also use the existing version (currently 2.3.5) of the marketplace to buy or sell products on the publicly accessible single community market there (or just play with it). The marketplace: It is called the Particl Marketplace and its ground breaking V3.0 is set to be released after 3 years of hard development work. The V3.0 will be the first version aimed at a wider public (normies and not only tech geeks). It will allow anyone to create easily decentralized personal storefronts or community markets or simply buy/sell goods on existing markets. The user-created markets/storefronts on the marketplace can be public if the access key is publicly announced on the Particl network or absolutely invisible to anyone that doesn’t know the access key (held by the creator). This is an intentional privacy feature and simply put, if you dont have the market access key (essentially a decryption key) there is absolutely no way to see/detect that some market exists. The marketplace is private by design and decentralized, with no middlemen or intermediaries whatsoever. The trades are protected by a two-way automated escrow via smart-contracts that de-incentivize and penalize dishonest behavior on both sides. In particular, the buy-flow forces the buyer to deposit 1x item value + payment and the seller 1x item value (+ sends item) into a common smart contract. If the buyer receives the product/service and its all good, then he unlocks the escrow so both can get their 1x item value deposits back and the seller receive his payment. The marketplace takes no sales commissions from the storefronts/markets and charges only a tiny listing fee (<0.01$) to prevent product listings spamming. All the marketplace generated fees go to the staking nodes that provide the hardware infrastructure for the p2p network to operate. The network nodes can be public or you can run them as Tor hidden services. The technology: The Particl Marketplace is crypto-agnostic and currently supports payments in BTC, PART, ZCoin (XMR, DAI, NIX, USDC, USDT are next in the pipeline and many more to come). It uses as a settlement layer its native coin PART and own blockchain, which is an up-to-date Bitcoin codebase with added privacy features like CT, RingCT (up to 32 mixins), Stealth addresses, etc. These privacy features are used in combination to keep the financial data, like escrows and transactions, private and most importantly un-linkable to the actual market buys/sells. For the users and markets related data exchange like posted listings, buy/sell flows, encrypted user communication, built-in cryptocurrency exchange, etc, the marketplace uses a DSN, currently its a custom Bitmessage variant called SMSG, which allows metadata stripped encrypted p2p data exchange (no sender, no receiver) Last but not least the marketplace desktop app (Particl Desktop) has a built-in option for using the Tor network via proxy. The important people: The cypherpunks behind Particl Marketplace have been OGs freedom advocates and pioneers in the privacy DLT field. For example, they were the first ever to implement features like RingCT, Bulletproofs, PoS, cold staking, etc on a Bitcoin codebase. Their privacy features implementations have been audited successfully by several respectable academics and security R&D providers, like QuarksLab. The team behind the project has been so far focused on building without any marketing/awareness efforts and thus have remained intentionally in the shadows. The latter is planned to change with the v3.0 release. One of the steps towards that will be the initiation of several long-planned awareness campaigns, like the Vendor Onboarding and Outreach Program, the Particl Academy (an easy to understand and learn about the technology portal) and many more. Me: I am a passionate freedom and privacy advocate that discovered the project 1.5 year ago and since then has become a member of their small but like-minded community ([email protected]/discord). My personal belief is that the Particl Marketplace provides a game-changing/breaking usecase to the world. At the minimum, due to the open source nature of the project, it will be a proof of concept that is bound to shift the global eCommerce paradigm.
Yesterday a post of mine got a good amount of attention in this, my favourite, sub. So I have decided to post it here in full... More than mildly, it annoys us that we have the tools to be truly sovereign and yet we continue to submit our ourselves, and our bitcoin, to centralised authorities. "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age"; yet KYC is demanded before we can trade. "Not your keys, not your coins"; yet millions of bitcoin sit in the vaults of custodial exchanges and wallets. For monetary liberty to be widespread it must be part of the social contract. We must come together to deploy decentralised systems that maintain Bitcoin's promise of sovereignty. These tools already exist and they are improving.
Bitcoin maintains its sovereignty through technological, cryptographic means. First and foremost, private keys provide the only means of control and ownership. Second, and most famously, Proof of Work defends the network against attack. Attackers, however, are not limited to attacking the cryptography or the hashpower in order to limit our sovereignty. They route around and seek any weak links. "Trusted third parties are security holes". We increase the perimeter of defence by eliminating these trusted third parties.
Ethereum is Bitcoin’s Testnet
We will splice the DNA of DeFi into Bitcoin. We will increase Bitcoin's defense perimeter. The tools already exist. Ethereum is our testnet. Let it provide the radioactive pool where mutations are many. Let us observe it as it moves fast and breaks things. We will adopt it's best tools and learn to defend against its worst. Rootstock, a Bitcoin sidechain, can be our CRISPR in this genetic adoption. We will splice the code from Ethereum dapps and improve upon them.
Cypherpunks write code, share code, review code and copy code. Sovereign individuals use this code. Like the X-men's Rouge, Bitcoiners will absorb the superpowers of others. I have been working on a DeFi dapp for decentralised bitcoin trading and lending. Hopefully you will join me, or better yet, compete with me. "Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase a little temporary convenience, will have neither Liberty nor convenience." That will be our code. Onwards.
Stakenet (XSN) - A DEX with interchain capabilities (BTC-ETH), Huge Potential [Full Writeup]
Preface Full disclosure here; I am heavily invested in this. I have picked up some real gems from here and was only in the position to buy so much of this because of you guys so I thought it was time to give back. I only invest in Utility Coins. These are coins that actually DO something, and provide new/build upon the crypto infrastructure to work towards the end goal that Bitcoin itself set out to achieve(financial independence from the fiat banking system). This way, I avoid 99% of the scams in crypto that are functionless vapourware, and if you only invest in things that have strong fundamentals in the long term you are much more likely to make money. Introduction
Stakenet is a Lightning Network-ready open-source platform for decentralized applications with its native cryptocurrency – XSN. It is powered by a Proof of Stake blockchain with trustless cold staking and Masternodes. Its use case is to provide a highly secure cross-chain infrastructure for these decentralized applications, where individuals can easily operate with any blockchain simply by using Stakenet and its native currency XSN.
Ok... but what does it actually do and solve? The moonshot here is the DEX (Decentralised Exchange) that they are building. This is a lightning-network DEX with interchain capabilities. That means you could trade BTC directly for ETH; securely, instantly, cheaply and privately. Right now, most crypto is traded to and from Centralised Exchanges like Binance. To buy and sell on these exchanges, you have to send your crypto wallets on that exchange. That means the exchanges have your private keys, and they have control over your funds. When you use a centralised exchange, you are no longer in control of your assets, and depend on the trustworthiness of middlemen. We have in the past of course seen infamous exit scams by centralised exchanges like Mt. Gox. The alternative? Decentralised Exchanges. DEX's have no central authority and most importantly, your private keys(your crypto) never leavesYOUR possession and are never in anyone else's possession. So you can trade peer-to-peer without any of the drawbacks of Centralised Exchanges. The problem is that this technology has not been perfected yet, and the DEX's that we have available to us now are not providing cheap, private, quick trading on a decentralised medium because of their technological inadequacies. Take Uniswap for example. This DEX accounts for over 60% of all DEX volume and facilitates trading of ERC-20 tokens, over the Ethereum blockchain. The problem? Because of the huge amount of transaction that are occurring over the Ethereum network, this has lead to congestion(too many transaction for the network to handle at one time) so the fees have increased dramatically. Another big problem? It's only for Ethereum. You cant for example, Buy LINK with BTC. You must use ETH. The solution? Layer 2 protocols. These are layers built ON TOP of existing blockchains, that are designed to solve the transaction and scaling difficulties that crypto as a whole is facing today(and ultimately stopping mass adoption) The developers at Stakenet have seen the big picture, and have decided to implement the lightning network(a layer 2 protocol) into its DEX from the ground up. This will facilitate the functionalities of a DEX without any of the drawbacks of the CEX's and the DEX's we have today. Heres someone much more qualified than me, Andreas Antonopoulos, to explain this https://streamable.com/kzpimj 'Once we have efficient, well designed DEX's on layer 2, there wont even be any DEX's on layer 1' Progress The Stakenet team were the first to envision this grand solution and have been working on it since its conception in June 2019. They have been making steady progress ever since and right now, the DEX is in an open beta stage where rigorous testing is constant by themselves and the public. For a project of this scale, stress testing is paramount. If the product were to launch with any bugs/errors that would result in the loss of a users funds, this would obviously be very damaging to Stakenet's reputation. So I believe that the developers conservative approach is wise. As of now the only pairs tradeable on the DEX are XSN/BTC and LTC/BTC. The DEX has only just launched as a public beta and is not in its full public release stage yet. As development moves forward more lightning network and atomic swap compatible coins will be added to the DEX, and of course, the team are hard at work on Raiden Integration - this will allow ETH and tokens on the Ethereum blockchain to be traded on the DEX between separate blockchains(instantly, cheaply, privately) This is where Stakenet enters top 50 territory on CMC if successful and is the true value here. Raiden Integration is well underway is being tested in a closed public group on Linux. The full public DEX with Raiden Integration is expected to release by the end of the year. Given the state of development so far and the rate of progress, this seems realistic. Tokenomics 2.6 Metrics overview (from whitepaper)
Ticker: XSN. Currency type: Coin.
Consensus: Minting Proof of Stake, Trustless Proof of Stake.
XSN is slightly inflationary, much like ETH as this is necessary for the economy to be adopted and work in the long term. There is however a deflationary mechanism in place - all trading fees on the DEX get converted to XSN and 10% of these fees are burned. This puts constant buying pressure on XSN and acts as a deflationary mechanism. XSN has inherent value because it makes up the infrastructure that the DEX will run off and as such Masternode operators and Stakers will see the fee's from the DEX. Conclusion We can clearly see that a layer 2 DEX is the future of crypto currency trading. It will facilitate secure, cheap, instant and private trading across all coins with lightning capabilities, thus solving the scaling and transaction issues that are holding back crypto today. I dont need to tell you the implications of this, and what it means for crypto as a whole. If Stakenet can launch a layer 2 DEX with Raiden Integration, It will become the primary DEX in terms of volume. Stakenet DEX will most likely be the first layer 2 DEX(first mover advantage) and its blockchain is the infrastructure that will host this DEX and subsequently receive it's trading fee's. It is not difficult to envision a time in the next year when Stakenet DEX is functional and hosting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trading every single day. At $30 million market cap, I cant see any other potential investment right now with this much potential upside. This post has merely served as in introduction and a heads up for this project, there is MUCH more to cover like vortex liquidity, masternodes, TOR integration... for now, here is some additional reading. Resources
I thought I'd write about the last four years, an eventful time for Bitcoin and me. For those who don't know me, I'm Hal Finney. I got my start in crypto working on an early version of PGP, working closely with Phil Zimmermann. When Phil decided to start PGP Corporation, I was one of the first hires. I would work on PGP until my retirement. At the same time, I got involved with the Cypherpunks. I ran the first cryptographically based anonymous remailer, among other activities. Fast forward to late 2008 and the announcement of Bitcoin. I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it. When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction. I was more positive. I had long been interested in cryptographic payment schemes. Plus I was lucky enough to meet and extensively correspond with both Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, generally acknowledged to have created ideas that would be realized with Bitcoin. I had made an attempt to create my own proof of work based currency, called RPOW. So I found Bitcoin facinating. When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them. Today, Satoshi's true identity has become a mystery. But at the time, I thought I was dealing with a young man of Japanese ancestry who was very smart and sincere. I've had the good fortune to know many brilliant people over the course of my life, so I recognize the signs. After a few days, bitcoin was running pretty stably, so I left it running. Those were the days when difficulty was 1, and you could find blocks with a CPU, not even a GPU. I mined several blocks over the next days. But I turned it off because it made my computer run hot, and the fan noise bothered me. In retrospect, I wish I had kept it up longer, but on the other hand I was extraordinarily lucky to be there at the beginning. It's one of those glass half full half empty things. The next I heard of Bitcoin was late 2010, when I was surprised to find that it was not only still going, bitcoins actually had monetary value. I dusted off my old wallet, and was relieved to discover that my bitcoins were still there. As the price climbed up to real money, I transferred the coins into an offline wallet, where hopefully they'll be worth something to my heirs. Speaking of heirs, I got a surprise in 2009, when I was suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease. I was in the best shape of my life at the start of that year, I'd lost a lot of weight and taken up distance running. I'd run several half marathons, and I was starting to train for a full marathon. I worked my way up to 20+ mile runs, and I thought I was all set. That's when everything went wrong. My body began to fail. I slurred my speech, lost strength in my hands, and my legs were slow to recover. In August, 2009, I was given the diagnosis of ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the famous baseball player who got it. ALS is a disease that kills moter neurons, which carry signals from the brain to the muscles. It causes first weakness, then gradually increasing paralysis. It is usually fatal in 2 to 5 years. My symptoms were mild at first and I continued to work, but fatigue and voice problems forced me to retire in early 2011. Since then the disease has continued its inexorable progression. Today, I am essentially paralyzed. I am fed through a tube, and my breathing is assisted through another tube. I operate the computer using a commercial eyetracker system. It also has a speech synthesizer, so this is my voice now. I spend all day in my power wheelchair. I worked up an interface using an arduino so that I can adjust my wheelchair's position using my eyes. It has been an adjustment, but my life is not too bad. I can still read, listen to music, and watch TV and movies. I recently discovered that I can even write code. It's very slow, probably 50 times slower than I was before. But I still love programming and it gives me goals. Currently I'm working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets. It's almost ready to release. I just have to do the documentation. And of course the price gyrations of bitcoins are entertaining to me. I have skin in the game. But I came by my bitcoins through luck, with little credit to me. I lived through the crash of 2011. So I've seen it before. Easy come, easy go. That's my story. I'm pretty lucky overall. Even with the ALS, my life is very satisfying. But my life expectancy is limited. Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy.
Toxicity is extremely unattractive and usually a net detractor.
Positive association is more powerful than the converse.
Most of us hold/believe in more than one asset.
Decred bulls are usually pretty intelligent.
Education and conversation is convincing.
The Campaign Idea The idea is to project that one supports/holds/is bullish on Decred and this is sufficient information for someone who is not into Decred to know. The remainder of the tweet/post/conversation should focus on the honest reasons why you hold other coins/assets/opinions OR could be why you hold Decred to balance your other holdings. These views could be because you hedge Decred or coin X's limitations. It could be that you believe both assets have a compelling parallel success story. It could be that Decred is the perfect contrarian bet against it and is in fact the hedge to your majority BTC position. It could be that you are just uber bullish on Coin X and Decred just happens to be one of your other holdings. The Idea The Value Proposition
Signals your Decred support (Decred content could end here, up to you).
Signals that your thinking is not one dimensional and you are open minded, more than a maxi.
Extends an olive branch to like-minded individuals from other tribes
Everyone reading this post probably has multiple tribes. This creates dynamic + organic conversation from those who engage with you. I.e. I want to hear about YOUR views outside the Decred echo chamber.
The important part is to focus on the questions and conversations that new people ask when they follow up. Should they seek to engage with your main comment on their coin X, use it to talk about coin X.
If they don't ask about Decred, don't talk about it, talk about coin X and build raport. This is not about force feeding DCR, it is about constructive conversation.
Example 1 I am a Decred Bull. I also hold Bitcoin as I believe its reputation, liquidity and network effects make its ability to challenge state money unparalleled. Decred is the perfect contrarian hedge in case in fails. Example 2 I am a Decred Bull. I also hold Monero. It is one of the few cypherpunk and private by default coins. Privacy is an essential human right, and in an age of surveillance capitalism, Monero is best in class insurance. Example 3 I am a Decred Bull. I also hold Potcoin. I too was an idiot in 2017. It's also stuck on Cryptopia. GG. Thoughts, comments and feedback welcomed as always.
dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance
I found this article on internet. It's repost of it to help educate people about all DXDao advantages: These are positive and necessary steps for DeFi. The new governance structures are intended to help coordinate across community stakeholders and make better decisions. These dynamics are influenced by the issues covered in Dose of DeFi, but I believe they deserve their own focused analysis. Govern Thisaims to educate token holders and make them better voters. Emphasis will be placed on specific governance proposals and relaying community governance discussions on forums and weekly calls. Governance is a coordination technology that has helped countries and companies build more than the sum of their parts. Blockchains are also a coordination technology, but for computers, not humans***.*** Govern Thiswill track the development of the melding of these two over the coming years. Like governance,Govern Thisis a work in progress. I would appreciate any feedback on format, topics covered or any other suggestions to make the newsletter better. Just hit reply. The first issue ofGovern Thisis below. Pleaseclick here to subscribe. Thanks for reading, Chris 📷 dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance Gnosis launched a long-awaited DEX last week with batched auctions for low-liquidity trade pairs. The front-end, Mesa.Eth.Link is owned and operated by dxDAO, a decentralized collective that hopes to power other DeFi protocols. While dYdX does not have any specific governance plans (yet), this tweet from dYdX founder Antonio Juliano is a common approach to governance. 📷Antonio Juliano @AntonioMJuliano3) 0x should focus less on governance in the short term. It’s way more important to first build something with a large amount of adoption that’s worth governing December 6th 2018 3 Retweets62 Likes The tweet at the end of 2018 was in response to 0x and its native token, ZRX. The project was popular but the token had no use case outside of governance. This governance strategy – build now, decentralize later – is widely accepted in the space and is perhaps best exemplified by the A16Z’s Jesse Walden’s post, “Progressive Decentralization: A Playbook for Building Crypto Applications”, which the A16Z-backed Compound has essentially implemented (more in the section below). dxDAO, on the other hand, maintains that decentralization must come at the beginning or else the core team and investors will have an outsized influence on the project in formal (token voting) or informal ways (dictators for life). Background dxDAO was launched in May 2019, spun out of a collaboration between Gnosis and DAOstack over managing the DutchX platform. dxDAO’s key governance design is separating financial rights to the DAO (DXD) from voting power over the DAO (Reputation). It used an Edgeware-style lock drop to distribute reputation to stakeholders in May of last year. Any user could lock up ETH or an accepted ERC-20 for a month and receive Reputation, which are voting rights in dxDAO, even though it is not a token and cannot be transferred. Over 400 unique Ethereum addresses participated in the distribution scheme. Gnosis went through a pretty extensive process in July 2019 to “step back” from its involvement in the DAO, and since then, the community and dxDAO have aligned behind a mission of “putting the ‘De’ in Decentralized Finance”. Following on last week’s launch of Mesa.ETH.Link, dxDAO is conducting a fundraiser or (“DAICO”?) to help fund its new slate of DeFi products, including a prediction market platform (Omen) and a privacy-centric DeFi dashboard (Mix). Project launch is typically when a project is most centralized. Execution is hard and direction and accountability are important. dxDAO’s approach will be an interesting counterexample to the “decentralize later” trend and may provide insight into new governance strategies. Click here for more information about the dxDAO fundraiser. Here’s what is on the dxDAO docket this week:
There are no explicit plans yet, but the widely held assumption is that the COMP distribution will be determined by the interest earned and paid by users on the protocol since its inception. This is a clever way that only incentivizes more use of the protocol and is hard to game because interests accrues over time. But the question still remains, what will the COMP community look like and what values will it espouse? Can emergent cultures arise out of Silicon Valley too? Here’s what is on the Compound docket this week:
Governance AMA with Compound CEO Robert Leshner - Robert answered a variety of questions on ETH2.0 (staking yield is of great interest), Chainlink (Compound’s oracle system is better), contentious forks (Compound would signal a preference on chain) and how Covid-19 changed his mind about remote work. They also announced…
Proposal: Add USDT Support – announced on the AMA, USDT was approved by Compound users in a poll last September but had yet to be included. The proposal to add the largest stablecoin in the world is the first test for the new governance portal. (Very) notably, the proposal does not allow USDT to be used as collateral, as Compound currently does with wBTC. It’s not clear if Compound wants to be in the largest stablecoin market or not and underscores the governance challenges of straddling both worlds.
Head of Community Rich started off with a new meme for governance: the path from intent to implementation, discussing how forums, polls and other initiatives are designed to capture the intent of the community, and then “empowered people” are tasked with implementing that, foreshadowing upcoming changes.
Half of the call was devoted to the addition of WBTC as collateral with representatives from WBTC, Bitgo and CoinList in attendance. CoinList’s WBTC announcement gives WBTC the type of liquidity needed for Maker’s auctions (“can redeem WBTC in less than 2 minutes and burn less than that”). Most of the discussion revolved around the circular loop from BTC->DAI in times of high volatility. While there was some concern that WBTC liquidity was dependent on acceptance as Maker collateral, most on the call seemed to support the addition. The strongest support seemed to come from the Maker Foundation’s market making team, who is reportedly the largest market maker for WBTC. There’s more in the Maker forum thread.
State of the peg – Vishesh’s overview (graphs can be seen here) showed that the peg had come down to $1.01x area but most of the discussion was around the debt ceiling. At the time of the call it was 4 million away from its 90m debt ceiling. Vishesh advocated for a more programmatic lifting of the debt ceiling. Update: Dai hit the 90m debt ceiling Friday evening ET. Should help the peg.
Single Collateral Dai shutdown – the process has begun. A poll passed with May 12 as the official SCD shutdown. Just yesterday, an executive just passed yesterday to make the MKR oracle fee-less, which will help with migration. Many in the community think the migration of debt from SCD will do more than enough to restore the peg. 13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals – Core to the new Maker governance process is the “Maker Improvement Proposals (MIPs), which are modeled off of BIPs (for Bitcoin) and EIPs (for Ethereum). The two sub-proposals are to appoint the Smart Contracts Team and assign Charles St. Louis as the MIP editor. The 13 MIPs are listed below:
By and large, the MIPs codify many of the informal Maker governance processes. There is currently a request for comments period (MIP forum) and there will be an informal poll on Monday, April 27 on whether to proceed with the 13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals. If it’s a “Yes”, than an executive for an official ratification vote would start on May 1 and lasts for 4 days. If it passes, the official governance cycle will begin and the rest of the MIPs will likely be approved from May 4 – 6. Other Governing Things
Synthetix trials incentivzation program to encourage ETH shorts to balance debt position Link
PieDAO community call on audit and post imBTC actions Link
Coinbase Custody double downs on DeFi governance Link
Terra considers punishing validators that don’t vote Link
0x governance proposal to decrease epoch length to 7 days Link
That’s it! Feedback definitely appreciated. Just hit reply. Written in Brooklyn where it rained all day. No euchre today, but yesterday was epic. Govern This is written byChris Powers. Opinions expressed are my own. All content is for informational purposes and is not intended as investment advice.
The Blockchain Paradox: Decentralization Through Centralized Institutions
Link to Cointelegraph article:https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-blockchain-paradox-decentralization-through-centralized-institutions Institutional adoption of blockchain can offer great benefits, as truly decentralized control often comes from the roots of centralization. The power of blockchain technology to decentralize control of our financial economy is well documented. It is one of the cornerstones of the origins of the technology, with the genesis block of Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin (BTC) containing a reference to the 2008–2009 financial crisis: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." The message, although never explicitly outlined by Bitcoin’s creator, is from the headline of a London Times article dated Jan. 3, 2009 that details banks being bailed out by the British government. Bitcoin, according to Nakamoto, is a means of reforming this corrupt and inefficient financial system to create a fairer, more democratic system of financial governance. What, then, would Nakamoto say to the current state of the blockchain and crypto industry? Increasingly, it is institutions rather than individuals that appear to be garnering control of the means of production in the blockchain sector. Facebook’s announcement of plans for its digital payments platform, Libra, was the initial public icebreaker for many last summer. However, the reality is that many governments and incumbent institutions from a range of sectors — including the likes of Walmart, JPMorgan Chase and PayPal — have been quietly building blockchain operations and capabilities for several years now. The recent decision by the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to allow nationally chartered banks in the U.S. to provide custody services for cryptocurrencies is another significant affirmation of the legitimacy of crypto, which is likely to spark a race among financial institutions to build or acquire secure custody solutions. Such centralization appears to be at odds with the vision of the fair, democratic system of finance envisioned by Nakamoto and the original cypherpunks. Critics decry the end of the decentralized blockchain utopia as governments and institutions adopt the technology — but the situation is far more complex than such a black and white reading allows. Rather than institutions being fundamentally antithetical to the democratic ideals of crypto, I would argue that they are actually essential to fulfilling such a vision. The entry of centralized institutions to the crypto economy cannot possibly represent in itself a blow to the values of crypto. While public trust in centralized institutions may be at a historical low in countries such as the U.S., such institutions are not by their nature inherently malevolent or corrupt. The same counterpoint applies to decentralized organizations: They do not make inherently trustworthy or morally responsible actors. Numerous scandals in the crypto industry involving wallet hacks, initial coin offering scams and dubious projects illustrate that often, this is anything but the case. Institutional adoption of blockchain can offer tremendous benefits to the blockchain ecosystem as a whole: It is a key step in the evolution of the sector, which can significantly scale up adoption from a limited cohort of tech-savvy users (limited in terms of gender, age range and location) to truly global demographic spanning markets that the fractured crypto industry is incapable of reaching in its current form.
08-03 02:05 - 'Democracy is dead, long live (crypto)extremism' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Careless-Device7893 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1476-1486min
''' Have you noticed the phenomenon of radicalisation and fanaticism within the crypto-space, notably on twitter, by (not so) nascent extremist groupuscules? Romanticism of the cult-like appearances of the crypto space. Crypto-evangelism. We are all believers who preach the gospel of decentralisation by way of memes and stickers, so help you god. We all identify with the genius and misunderstood of aspis, obsessively making the rabbit hole. Obsessively. That's the key word. Along with the grandiose self that will save the world. The danger that emerges out of ideological existential battles is the ever-present imminent threat of extinction should the battle not be won. This contributes to the radicalisation of ideas and their expression. [https://[link]2 Outlier groups were at the chore of bitcoin, in no particular order: cypherpunks, anarchists, libertarians, right wingers, criminals… Add to the mix an echo chamber as well as twitter which advantages radical statements, and you might very well be in the presence of a crypto-extremist. Crypto only because it belongs to the subset of crypto-twitter. Extremist because of its rhetoric, aggressivity, inability and/or unwillingness to accept any different world views, a spam-like attitude, a tendency to personally attack someone who dares question their speak to coerce them into giving up their positions, etc. As a consequence, the space where the extremist evolves is not safe anymore for holders of doubt, indifference, or contrarian opinions. The censorship effect. Audience is turned off and leaves the space, which becomes narrower and narrower. The values for which the extremist fights for may very well be legit values we should actually pursue. But the extreme rhetoric and posture adopted by these prophets are so violent that it inhibits people from even getting to the substance: form above matter. It can even have the opposite effect of polluting the values and associating them with extremists that exhibit little to no tolerance, unable to engage in constructive dialogues. The sad thing is that the extremist will never admit that it is one - self-defeating thought. Extremists need to be there to mark the outer boundaries of positions. Necessary collateral damage. I had just hoped that the vital promise of blind inclusivity given by Satoshi and its technology would not be sacrificed in the process. ''' Democracy is dead, long live (crypto)extremism Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Careless-Device7893 1: *revi*w.*ed*.*t/i**2crvxp**51.p*g?**dth=54*&*m*;f*rm**=p*g*amp*auto=**bp&am*;*=b54*53b47ab*7b6*081cd*46128d0e7c24d994*5 2: www.quora.com\/What-are-common-symptoms-of-fanaticism-found-in-totalitarian-ideologues-such-as-fascist-communist-radical-feminist-extreme-SJW-Islamist-etc]^^1 Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Time to rotate out of a mid tier coin to one with better prospects?
I have some Ravencoin (RVN). I mined it in its early days, and accumulated a modest stake from a few months of mining. The Ravencoin network is, in essence, a fork of bitcoin that enables asset ownership and transfer. It has an active, fully decentralized set of devs that maintain the cypherpunk ethos of pre-2014 bitcoin. It’s been sitting in a wallet since then. At the height of interest in tokenization of RL assets last year, RVN traded at over 1400 sats. It’s now barely above 200 sats per coin. However, even at these prices, my position is profitable. Im weighing the value of this coin in my portfolio. I hold mostly ETH and BTC, but also some competing platform coins such as ADA and ALGO. Could those familiar with RVN offer perspective? - hold RVN & wait for sentiment and prices to improve - consolidate to an existing position - roll into a new coin ( would require time investment for DD) I also hold some Ripple stock acquired in a private investment deal, so I won’t consider their XRP coin.
None of the Bitcoin projects are actually Bitcoin.
None of the Bitcoin projects are actually Bitcoin. I can say that simply and categorically because 'what Bitcoin is' was laid out clearly and simply in the Bitcoin white paper entitled "Bitcoin: A peer to peer electronic cash system". The clue is in the title. It's electronic cash. So why is BTC, BCH, BSV etc etc not electronic cash? Well, let's take a look at the properties of cash. Wiki lists the properties as being Fungibility, Durability, Portability, Cognizability and Stability. So let's look at fungibility. Fungibility means all coins are of equal value. If a coin/address can have a history then it isn't fungible. Fungibility in Blockchain requires privacy by default at the base layer. People mistakenly use fungibility to mean 'cleaned'. But if you think about it, the fact that coins might need to be cleaned (ie they weren't of equal value) shows the currency to not be fungible. Do any of the Bitcoin projects pass the fungibility test? No, categorically and emphatically no. We've already seen freshly minted BTC commanding a higher price than circulated BTC. Also we've seen circulated BTC trade for less than market value on DEXs like Bisq. Why is fungibility important? Well, fungibility ensures that a merchant can confidently accept a coin, and that when he goes to spend it, he isn't told that actually that particular coin is tainted and is infact worth significantly less than market value (or confiscated outright). So why don't any of the Bitcoin projects switch to private by default to become sound money? Well a number of reasons. Firstly, it would require a hardfork, something a lot of OG bitcoiners would consider an action of last resort. A change like this would break a lot of the existing infrastructure (wallets etc) that have been built on the transparent blockchain technology. Secondly, people are fearful that a 'private by default' Bitcoin would become a target for regulators. That it would be banned. "But surely the whole cypherpunk ethos of Bitcoin is decentralized censorship resistance?" It was in it's beginning, however over the years (and the increase in price) it has become more centralized, and more utilized as a speculative vehicle than an actual government resistant currency. A lot of people's fortunes and security are tied up in Bitcoin continuing to raise steadily in value. Even the hint of a regulatory crackdown wouldn't sit right with them at all. So the outcome? We have multiple projects that all claim to be Bitcoin, while infact none of them are. And while they all still might give you a return during the next speculative bullrun, the underlying utility that promised their future value is missing and unlikely to ever be reclaimed.
Hey guys, This is my second post here and I would like to ask the community about bitcoin. The other day I wrote here about btc or gold. However, I made this post not ask about which is a better investment, but which one is going to take place more than the other in the near-distant future. Again, not as investment, but as an asset to be used in the future and be part of it (not because it will be the trend but I don't want to stuck with fiats). Then a lot of fellow redditors helped me understand bitcoin better. One of them was kind enough to send me links about btc. I realized that btc created by cypherpunks. Wow what a shock!! Yeah I knew about it, but I didn't know that it is connected with the 92 cypherpunk group. Jeez is long damn post. The 90s cypherpunks were using cryptic messages in order to achieve maximum privacy over the gov or other groups. Time has passed and some of those are really famous now. One of them created pgp, another one tor browser and the list goes on. Even Julian Assange was one of them. What I am trying to say is btc in order to be a worldwide currency must be used just like the fiats now. However a lot of people are buying btc in order to be rich or they are trying to, because of what Satoshi wrote during his/hers/their email conversation with Mike Hearn. Saying that if btc used like fiats now then btc will cost 10mil usd. That's great news, but wait! The other creations of the cypherpunks are great too but are widely used? I mean pgp is great, but who uses it? 10%? 20%? 30? Of the population? I don't think so. Julian Assange is in prison. Tor? Again the same with pgp. I am not saying about cryptocurrencies back then (even the 90s yes), because the world wasn't ready during that period. So what makes us think that btc is going to work since those creations are not widely used? What makes us think that btc will work when a large percentage is buying it due to its store of value? Satoshi says that store of value usage will have exact the opposite effect of what he/she/they created it for. That is the information that I know. If something is wrong please say it so because the internet some times is playing games. Long post - sorry about that!
Transcript of Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet presenting at the Bitcoin Cash City conference on September 5th, 2019
I tried my best to be as accurate as possible, but if there are any errors, please let me know so I can fix. I believe this talk is important for all Bitcoin Cash supporters, and I wanted to provide it in written form so people can read it as well as watch the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOv0nmOe1_oFor me, this was the first time I felt like I understood the issues Amaury's been trying to communicate, and I hope that reading this presentation might help others understand as well. Bitcoin Cash’s Culture “Okay. Hello? Can you hear me? The microphone is good, yeah? Ok, so after that introduction, I’m going to do the only thing that I can do now, which is disappoint you, because well, that was quite something. So usually I make technical talks and this time it’s going to be a bit different. I’m going to talk about culture in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. So first let’s talk about culture, like what is it? It’s ‘the social behaviors and norms found in human society.’ So we as the Bitcoin Cash community, we are a human society, or at least we look like it. You’re all humans as far as I know, and we have social behaviors and norms, and those social behaviors and norms have a huge impact on the project. And the reason why I want to focus on that point very specifically is because we have better fundamentals and we have a better product and we are more useful than most other cryptos out there. And I think that’s a true statement, and I think this is a testimony of the success of BCH. But also, we are only just 3% of BTC’s value. So clearly there is something that we are not doing right, and clearly it’s not fundamental, it’s not product, it’s not usefulness. It’s something else, and I think this can be found somewhat in our culture. So I have this quote here, from Naval Ravikant. I don’t know if you guys know him but he’s a fairly well known speaker and thinker, and he said, “Never trust anyone who does not annoy you from time to time, because it means that they are only telling you what you want to hear.” And so today I am going to annoy you a bit, in addition to disappointing you, so yeah, it’s going to be very bad, but I feel like we kind of need to do it. So there are two points, mainly, that I think our culture is not doing the right thing. And those are gonna be infrastructure and game theory. And so I’m going to talk a little bit about infrastructure and game theory. Right, so, I think there are a few misconceptions by people that are not used to working in software infrastructure in general, but basically, it works like any other kind of infrastructure. So basically all kinds of infrastructure decay, and we are under the assumption that technology always gets better and better and better and never decays. But in terms of that, it actually decays all the time, and we have just a bunch of engineers working at many many companies that keep working at making it better and fighting that decay. I’m going to take a few examples, alright. Right now if you want to buy a cathode ray tube television or monitor for your computer (I’m not sure why you want to do that because we have better stuff now), but if you want to buy that, it’s actually very difficult now. There are very little manufacturers that even know how to build them. We almost forgot as a human society how to build those stuff. Because, well, there was not as high of a demand for them as there was before, and therefore nobody really worked on maintaining the knowledge or the know how, and the factories, none of that which are required to build those stuff, and therefore we don’t build them. And this is the same for vinyl discs, right? You can buy vinyl disk today if you want, but it’s actually more expensive than it used to be twenty years ago. We used to have space shuttles. Both Russia and US used to have space shuttles. And now only the US have space shuttles, and now nobody has space shuttles anymore. And there is an even better counter example to that. It’s that the US, right now, is refining Uranium for nuclear weapons. Like on a regular basis there are people working on that problem. Except that the US doesn’t need any new uranium to make nuclear weapons because they are decommissioning the weapons that are too old and can reuse that uranium to build the new weapon that they are building. The demand for that is actually zero, and still there are people making it and they are just basically making it and storing it forever, and it’s never used. So why is the US spending money on that? Well you would say governments are usually pretty good at spending money on stuff that are not very useful, but in that case there is a very good reason. And the good reason is that they don’t want to forget how it’s done. Because maybe one day it’s going to be useful. And acquiring the whole knowledge of working with uranium and making enriched uranium, refining uranium, it’s not obvious. It’s a very complicated process. It involves very advanced engineering and physics, a lot of that, and keeping people working on that problem ensures that knowledge is kept through time. If you don’t do that, those people are going to retire and nobody will know how to do it. Right. So in addition to decaying infrastructure from time to time, we can have zero days in software, meaning problems in the software that are not now exploited live on the network. We can have denial of service attack, we can have various failures on the network, or whatever else, so just like any other infrastructure we need people that essentially take care of the problem and fight the decay constantly doing maintenance and also be ready to intervene whenever there is some issue. And that means that even if there is no new work to be done, you want to have a large enough group of people that are working on that everyday just making it all nice and shiny so that when something bad happens, you have people that understand how the system works. So even if for nothing else, you want a large enough set of people working on infrastructure for that to be possible. So we’re not quite there yet, and we’re very reliant on BTC. Because the software that we’re relying on to run the network is actually a fork to the BTC codebase. And this is not specific to Bitcoin Cash. This is also true for Litecoin, and Dash, and Zcash and whatever. There are many many crypotos that are just a fork of the Bitcoin codebase. And all those crypos they actually are reliant on BTC to do some maintenance work because they have smaller teams working on the infrastructure. And as a result any rational market cannot price those other currencies higher than BTC. It would just not make sense anymore. If BTC were to disappear, or were to fail on the market, and this problem is not addressed, then all those other currencies are going to fail with it. Right? And you know that may not be what we want, but that’s kind of like where we are right now. So if we want to go to the next level, maybe become number one in that market, we need to fix that problem because it’s not going to happen without it. So I was mentioning the 3% number before, and it’s always very difficult to know what all the parameters are that goes into that number, but one of them is that. Just that alone, I’m sure that we are going to have a lower value than BTC always as long as we don’t fix that problem. Okay, how do we fix that problem? What are the elements we have that prevent us from fixing that problem? Well, first we need people with very specific skill sets. And the people that have experience in those skill sets, there are not that many of them because there are not that many places where you can work on systems involving hundreds of millions, if not billions of users, that do like millions of transactions per second, that have systems that have hundreds of gigabytes per second of throughput, this kind of stuff. There are just not that many companies in the world that operate on that scale. And as a result, the number of people that have the experience of working on that scale is also pretty much limited to the people coming out of those companies. So we need to make sure that we are able to attract those people. And we have another problem that I talked about with Justin Bons a bit yesterday, that we don’t want to leave all that to be fixed by a third party. It may seem nice, you know, so okay, I have a big company making good money, I’m gonna pay people working on the infrastructure for everybody. I’m gonna hire some old-time cypherpunk that became famous because he made a t-shirt about ERISA and i’m going to use that to promote my company and hire a bunch of developers and take care of the infrastructure for everybody. It’s all good people, we are very competent. And indeed they are very competent, but they don’t have your best interest in mind, they have their best interest in mind. And so they should, right? It’s not evil to have your own interest in mind, but you’ve got to remember that if you delegate that to others, they have their best interest in mind, they don’t have yours. So it’s very important that you have different actors that have different interests that get involved into that game of maintaining the infrastructure. So they can keep each other in check. And if you don’t quite understand the value proposition for you as a business who builds on top of BCH, the best way to explain that to whoever is doing the financials of your company is as an insurance policy. The point of the insurance on the building where your company is, or on the servers, is so that if everything burns down, you can get money to get your business started and don’t go under. Well this is the same thing. Your business relies on some infrastructure, and if this infrastructure ends up going down, disappearing, or being taken in a direction that doesn’t fit your business, your business is toast. And so you want to have an insurance policy there that insures that the pieces that you’re relying on are going to be there for you when you need them. Alright let’s take an example. In this example, I purposefully did not put any name because I don’t want to blame people. I want to use this as an example of a mistake that were made. I want you to understand that many other people have done many similar mistakes in that space, and so if all you take from what I’m saying here is like those people are bad and you should blame them, this is like completely the wrong stuff. But I also think it’s useful to have a real life example. So on September 1st, at the beginning of the week, we had a wave of spam that was broadcasted on the network. Someone made like a bunch of transactions, and those were very visibly transactions that were not there to actually do transactions, they were there just to create a bunch of load on the network and try to disturb its good behavior. And it turned out that most miners were producing blocks from 2 to 8 megabytes, while typical market demand is below half a megabyte, typically, and everything else above that was just spam, essentially. And if you ask any people that have experience in capacity planning, they are going to tell you that those limits are appropriate. The reason why, and the alternative to raising those limits that you can use to mitigate those side effects are a bit complicated and they would require a talk in and of itself to go into, so I’m going to just use an argument from authority here, but trust me, I know what I’m talking about here, and this is just like raising those limits is just not the solution. But some pool decided to increase that soft cap to 32 megs. And this has two main consequences that I want to dig in to explain what is not the right solution. And the first one is that we have businesses that are building on BCH today. And those businesses are the ones that are providing value, they are the ones making our network valuable. Right? So we need to treat those people as first class citizens. We need to attract and value them as much as we can. And those people, they find themselves in the position where they can either dedicate their resources and their attention and their time to make their service better and more valuable for users, or maybe expand their service to more countries, to more markets, to whatever, they can do a lot of stuff, or they can spend their time and resources to make sure the system works not when you have like 10x the usual load, but also 100x the usual load. And this is something that is not providing value to them, this is something that is not providing value to us, and I would even argue that this is something that is providing negative value. Because if those people don’t improve their service, or build new services, or expand their service to new markets, what’s going to happen is that we’re not going to do 100x. 100x happens because people provide useful services and people start using it. And if we distract those people so that they need to do random stuff that has nothing to do with their business, then we’re never going to do 100x. And so having a soft cap that is way way way above what is the usual market demand (32 megs is almost a hundred times what is the market demand for it), it’s actually a denial of service attack that you open for anyone that is building on the chain. We were talking before, like yesterday we were asking about how do we attract developers, and one of the important stuff is that we need to value that over valuing something else. And when we take this kind of move, the signal that we send to the community, to the people working on that, is that people yelling very loudly on social media, their opinion is more valued than your work to make a useful service building on BCH. This is an extremely bad signal to send. So we don’t want to send those kind of signals anymore. That’s the first order effect, but there’s a second order effect, and the second order effect is to scale we need people with experience in capacity planning. And as it turns out big companies like Google, and Facebook, and Amazon pay good money, they pay several 100k a year to people to do that work of capacity planning. And they wouldn’t be doing that if they just had to listen to people yelling on social media to find the answer. Right? It’s much cheaper to do the simple option, except the simple option is not very good because this is a very complex engineering problem. And not everybody is like a very competent engineer in that domain specifically. So put yourself in the shoes of some engineers who have skills in that particular area. They see that happening, and what do they see? The first thing that they see is that if they join that space, they’re going to have some level of competence, some level of skill, and it’s going to be ignored by the leaders in that space, and ignoring their skills is not the best way to value it as it turns out. And so because of that, they are less likely to join it. But there is a certain thing that they’re going to see. And that is that because they are ignored, some shit is going to happen, some stuff are going to break, some attacks are going to be made, and who is going to be called to deal with that? Well, it’s them. Right? So not only are they going to be not valued for their stuff, the fact that they are not valued for their stuff is going to put them in a situation where they have to put out a bunch of fires that they would have known to avoid in the first place. So that’s an extremely bad value proposition for them to go work for us. And if we’re going to be a world scale currency, then we need to attract those kinds of people. And so we need to have a better value proposition and a better signaling that we send to them. Alright, so that’s the end of the first infrastructure stuff. Now I want to talk about game theory a bit, and specifically, Schelling points. So what is a Schelling point? A Schelling point is something that we can agree on without especially talking together. And there are a bunch of Schelling points that exist already in the Bitcoin space. For instance we all follow the longest chain that have certain rules, right? And we don’t need to talk to each other. If I’m getting my wallet and I have some amount of money and I go to any one of you here and you check your wallet and you have that amount of money and those two amounts agree. We never talk to each other to come to any kind of agreement about how much each of us have in terms of money. We just know. Why? Because we have a Schelling point. We have a way to decide that without really communicating. So that’s the longest chain, but also all the consensus rules we have are Schelling points. So for instance, we accept blocks up to a certain size, and we reject blocks that are bigger than that. We don’t constantly talk to each other like, ‘Oh by the way do you accept 2 mb blocks?’ ‘Yeah I do.’ ‘Do you accept like 3 mb blocks? And tomorrow will you do that?’ We’re not doing this as different actors in the space, constantly worrying each other. We just know there is a block size that is a consensus rule that is agreed upon by almost everybody, and that’s a consensus rule. And all the other consensus rules are effectively changing Schelling points. And our role as a community is to create valuable Schelling points. Right? You want to have a set of rules that provide as much value as possible for different actors in the ecosystem. Because this is how we win. And there are two parts to that. Even though sometimes we look and it’s just one thing, but there are actually two things. The first one is that we need to decide what is a valuable Schelling point. And I think we are pretty good at this. And this is why we have a lot of utility and we have a very strong fundamental development. We are very good at choosing what is a good Schelling point. We are very bad at actually creating it and making it strong. So I’m going to talk about that. How do you create a new Schelling point. For instance, there was a block size, and we wanted a new block size. So we need to create a new Schelling point. How do you create a new Schelling point that is very strong? You need a commitment strategy. That’s what it boils down to. And the typical example that is used when discussing Schelling points is nuclear warfare. So think about that a bit. You have two countries that both have nuclear weapons. And one country sends a nuke on the other country. Destroys some city, whatever, it’s bad. When you look at it from a purely rational perspective, you will assume that people are very angry, and that they want to retaliate, right? But if you put that aside, there is actually no benefit to retaliating. It’s not going to rebuild the city, it’s not going to make them money, it’s not going to give them resources to rebuild it, it’s not going to make new friends. Usually not. It’s just going to destroy some stuff in the other guy that would otherwise not change anything because the other guys already did the damage to us. So if you want nuclear warfare to actually prevent war like we’ve seen mostly happening in the past few decades with the mutually assured destruction theory, you need each of those countries to have a very credible commitment strategy, which is if you nuke me, I will nuke you, and I’m committing to that decision no matter what. I don’t care if it’s good or bad for me, if you nuke me, I will nuke you. And if you can commit to that strongly enough so that it’s credible for other people, it’s most likely that they are not going to nuke you in the first place because they don’t want to be nuked. And it’s capital to understand that this commitment strategy, it’s actually the most important part of it. It’s not the nuke, it’s not any of it, it’s the commitment strategy. You have the right commitment strategy, you can have all the nuke that you want, it’s completely useless, because you are not deterring anyone from attacking you. There are many other examples, like private property. It’s something usually you’re going to be willing to put a little bit of effort to defend, and the effort is usually way higher than the value of the property itself. Because this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever, and you’re pretty committed to it, and therefore you create a Schelling point over the fact that this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever. People are willing to use violence and whatever to defend their property. This is effectively, even if you don’t do it yourself, this is what happens when you call the cops, right? The cops are like you stop violating that property or we’re going to use violence against you. So people are willing to use a very disproportionate response even in comparison to the value of the property. And this is what is creating the Schelling point that allows private property to exist. This is the commitment strategy. And so the longest chain is a very simple example. You have miners and what miners do when they create a new block, essentially they move from one Schelling point when a bunch of people have some amount of money, to a new Schelling point where some money has moved, and we need to agree to the new Schelling point. And what they do is that they commit a certain amount of resources to it via proof of work. And this is how they get us to pay attention to the new Schelling point. And so UASF is also a very good example of that where people were like we activate segwit no matter what, like, if it doesn’t pan out, we just like busted our whole chain and we are dead. Right? This is like the ultimate commitment strategy, as far as computer stuff is involved. It’s not like they actually died or anything, but as far as you can go in the computer space, this is very strong commitment strategy. So let me take an example that is fairly inconsequential in its consequences, but I think explains very well. The initial BCH ticker was BCC. I don’t know if people remember that. Personally I remember reading about it. It was probably when we created it with Jonald and a few other people. And so I personally was for XBC, but I went with BCC, and most people wanted BCC right? It doesn’t matter. But it turned out that Bitfinex had some Ponzi scheme already listed as BCC. It was Bitconnect, if you remember. Carlos Matos, you know, great guy, but Bitconnect was not exactly the best stuff ever, it was a Ponzi scheme. And so as a result Bitifnex decided to list Bitcoin Cash as BCH instead of BCC, and then the ball started rolling and now everybody uses BCH instead of BCC. So it’s not all that bad. The consequences are not that very bad. And I know that many of you are thinking that right now. Why is this guy bugging us about this? We don’t care if it’s BCC or BCH. And if you’re doing that, you are exactly proving my point. Because … there are people working for Bitcoin.com here right? Yeah, so Bitcoin.com is launching an exchange, or just has launched, it’s either out right now or it’s going to be out very soon. Well think about that. Make this thought experiment for yourself. Imagine that Bitcoin.com lists some Ponzi scheme as BTC, and then they decide to list Bitcoin as BTN. What do you think would be the reaction of the Bitcoin Core supporter? Would they be like, you know what? we don’t want to be confused with some Ponzi scheme so we’re going to change everything for BTN. No, they would torch down Roger Ver even more than they do now, they would torch down Bitcoin.com. They would insult anyone that would suggest that this was a good idea to go there. They would say that everyone that uses the stuff that is BTC that it’s a ponzi scheme, and that it’s garbage, and that if you even talk about it you are the scum of the earth. Right? They would be extremely committed to whatever they have. And I think this is a lesson that we need to learn from them. Because even though it’s a ticker, it’s not that important, it’s that attitude that you need to be committed to that stuff if you want to create a strong Schelling point, that allows them to have a strong Schelling point, and that does not allow us to have that strong of a Schelling point. Okay, so yesterday we had the talk by Justin Bons from Cyber Capital, and one of the first things he said in his talk, is that his company has a very strong position in BCH. And so that changed the whole tone of the talk. You gotta take him seriously because his money is where his mouth is. You know that he is not coming on the stage and telling you random stuff that comes from his mind or tries to get you to do something that he doesn’t try himself. That doesn’t mean he’s right. Maybe he’s wrong, but if he’s wrong, he’s going bankrupt. And you know just for that reason, maybe it’s worth it to listen to it a bit more than some random person saying random stuff when they have no skin in the game. And it makes him more of a leader in the space. Okay we have some perception in this space that we have a bunch of leaders, but many of them don’t have skin in the game. And it is very important that they do. So when there is some perceived weakness from BCH, if you act as an investor, you are going to diversify. If you act as a leader, you are going to fix that weakness. Right? And so, leaders, it’s not like you can come here and decide well, I’m a leader now. Leaders are leaders because people follow them. It seems fairly obvious, but … and you are the people following the leaders, and I am as well. We decide to follow the opinion of some people more than the opinion of others. And those are the defacto leaders of our community. And we need to make sure that those leaders that we have like Justin Bons, and make sure that they have a strong commitment to whatever they are leading you to, because otherwise you end up in this situation: https://preview.redd.it/r23dptfobcl31.jpg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=750fbd0f1dc0122d2791accc59f45a235a522444 Where you got a leader, he’s getting you to go somewhere, he has some goal, he has some whatever. In this case he is not that happy with the British people. But he’s like give me freedom or give me death, and he’s going to fight the British, but at the same time he’s like you know what? Maybe this shit isn’t gonna pan out, you gotta make sure you have your backup plan together, you have your stash of British pound here. You know, many of us are going to die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make. That’s not the leader that you want. I’m going to go to two more examples and then we’re going to be done with it. So one of them is Segwit 2x. Segwit 2x came with a time where some people wanted to do UASF. And UASF was essentially people that set up a modified version of their Bitcoin node that would activate segwit on August 1, no matter what. Right? No matter what miners do, no matter what other people do, it’s going to activate segwit. And either I’m going to be on the other fork, or I’m going to be alone and bust. Well, the alternative proposal was segwit 2x. Where people would activate segwit and then increase the size of the block. And what happened was that one of the sides had a very strong commitment strategy, and the other side, instead of choosing a proportional commitment strategy, what they did was that they modified the activation of segwit 2x to be compatible with UASF. And in doing so they both validate the commitment strategy done by the opposite side, and they weaken their own commitment strategy. So if you look at that, and you understand game theory a bit, you know what’s going to happen. Like the fight hasn’t even started and UASF has already won. And when I saw that happening, it was a very important development to me, because I have some experience in game theory, a lot of that, so I understood what was happening, and this is what led me to commit to BCH, which was BCC at the time, 100%. Because I knew segwit 2x was toast, even though it had not even started, because even though they had very strong cards, they are not playing their cards right, and if you don’t play your cards right, it doesn’t matter how strong your cards are. Okay, the second one is emergent consensus. And the reason I wanted to put those two examples here is because I think those are the two main examples that lead to the fact that BTC have small blocks and we have big blocks and we’re a minority chain. Those are like the two biggest opportunities we had to have big blocks on BTC and we blew both of them for the exact same reason. So emergent consensus is like an interesting technology that allows you to trade your bigger block without splitting the network. Essentially, if someone starts producing blocks that are bigger than … (video skips) ,,, The network seems to be following the chain that has larger blocks, eventually they’re going to fall back on that chain, and that’s a very clevery mechanism that allows you to make the consensus rules softer in a way, right? When everybody has the same consensus rules, it still remains enforced, but if a majority of people want to move to a new point, they can do so by bringing others with them without creating a fork. That is a very good activation mechanism for changing the block size, for instance, or it can be used to activate other stuff. There is a problem, though. This mechanism isn’t able to set a new point. It’s a way to activate a new Schelling point when you have one, but it provides no way to decide when and where or to what value or to anything to where we are going. So this whole strategy lacks the commitment aspect of it. And because it lacks the commitment aspect of it, it was unable to activate properly. It was good, but it was not sufficient in itself. It needs to be combined with a commitment strategy. And especially on that one there are some researchers that wrote a whole paper (https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) unpacking the whole game theory that essentially come to that conclusion that it’s not going to set a new size limit because it lacked the commitment aspect of it. But they go on like they model all the mathematics of it, they give you all the numbers, the probability, and the different scenarios that are possible. It’s a very interesting paper. If you want to see, like, because I’m kind of explaining the game theory from a hundred mile perspective, but actually you can deep dive into it and if you want to know the details, they are in there. People are doing that. This is an actual branch of mathematics. Alright, okay so conclusion. We must avoid to weaken our commitment strategy. And that means that we need to work in a way where first there is decentralization happening. Everybody has ideas, and we fight over them, we decide where we want to go, we put them on the roadmap, and once it’s on the roadmap, we need to commit to it. Because when people want to go like, ‘Oh this is decentralized’ and we do random stuff after that, we actually end up with decentralization, not decentralization in a cooperative manner, but like in an atomization manner. You get like all the atoms everywhere, we explode, we destroy ourself. And we must require a leader to have skin in the game, so that we make sure we have good leaders. I have a little schema to explain that. We need to have negotiations between different parties, and because there are no bugs, the negotiation can last for a long time and be tumultuous and everything, and that’s fine, that’s what decentralization is looking like at that stage, and that’s great and that makes the system strong. But then once we made a decision, we got to commit to it to create a new Schelling point. Because if we don’t, the new Schelling point is very weak, and we get decentralization in the form of disintegration. And I think we have not been very good to balance the two. Essentially what I would like for us to do going forward is encouraging as much as possible decentralization in the first form. But consider people who participate in the second form, as hostile to BCH, because their behavior is damaging to whatever we are doing. And they are often gonna tell you why we can’t do that because it’s permissionless and decentralized, and they are right, this is permissionless and decentralized, and they can do that. We don’t have to take it seriously. We can show them the door. And not a single person can do that by themself, but as a group, we can develop a culture where it’s the norm to do that. And we have to do that.”
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 didn’t 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 rightscan 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
Hi everybody, I'm holding a meetup in the DFW area for people interested in Urbit next month. If you're interested in the project or want to learn more about it, come hang out! Details are at the end of the post. I've got the blessing of u/ZorbaTHut to post this here contingent on explaining why Urbit is interesting, both in general and for this audience, so I'll give you a brief outline of the project if you're not familiar, and answer questions you may have once I'm home from work on Monday (though I encourage anybody else who'd like to to chime in until then -- I have to go to bed soon.)
What is Urbit?
Urbit is an interenet decentralization project, and a full networked computing stack from the ground up. Urbit's ultimate goal is to build a new internet on top of the old one, that is architecturally designed to avoid the need for centralized services by allowing individuals to run and program robust personal servers that are simple to manage. When Urbit conquers the world, your digital identity will be something you personally permanently own as a cryptographic key, not an line in a corporation's database; Facebook and Twitter will be protocols -- encrypted traffic and data shared directly between you and your friends & family, with no middlemen spying on you; your apps, social software and anything you program will have secure cryptocurrency payment mechanisms as a system call, payed out of a wallet on a device you fully control; and you will tangibly own and control your computer and the networked software you use on it. As I said, Urbit is a stack; at its core is Nock, a minimal, turing-complete function. Nock is built out into a deterministic operating system, Arvo, with its own functional programming language. For now, Arvo runs as a process, with a custom VM/interpreter on *nix machines. Your Arvo instance talks to other instances over a native, encrypted peer-to-peer network, though it can interface with the normal internet as well. Urbit's identity management system is called Azimuth, a public key infrastructure built on Ethereum. You own proof of your Urbit instance's identity as a token in the same way you own your Bitcoin wallet. Because the peer-to-peer network is built into Arvo, you get it 'for free' with any software you write or run on it. You run your own personal server, and run all the software you use to communicate with the world yourself. Because all of your services are running on computer you control using a single secure identity system, you can think of what it aspires to like a decentralized, cypherpunk version of WeChat -- a programmable, secure platform for everything you want to do with your computer in one place, without the downsides of other people running your software.
Why is it interesting?
Urbit is extremely ambitious and pretty strange. Why throw out the entire stack we've spent half a century building? Because it's a giant ball of mud -- millions of lines of code in the Linux kernel alone, with all the attendant security issues and complexity. You can run a personal server today if you're technically sophisticated; spin up a VPS, install all the software you need, configure everything and keep it secure. It's doable, but it sucks, and your mom can't do it. Urbit is designed from the beginning to avoid the pitfalls that led to cascading system complexity. Nock has 12 opcodes, and Arvo is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 lines of code. The core pieces of Urbit are also ticking towards being 'frozen' -- reaching a state where they can no longer be changed, in order to ensure that they remain absolutely minimal. The point of all of this is to make a diamond-hard, unchanging core that a single person can actually understand in its entirety, ensure the security of the architecture, prevent insane dependency hell and leaky abstractions from overgrowing it, and allow for software you write today to run in a century. It also aims to be simple enough that a normal person can pay a commodity provider $5/mo (or something), log into their Urbit on their devices, and control it as easily as their phone. Urbit's network also has a routing hierarchy that is important to understand; while the total address space is 128-bit, the addresses are partitioned into different classes. 8-bit and 16-bit addresses act as network infrastructure, while human instances use 32-bit addresses. To use the network, you must be sponsored by the 16-bit node 'above' you -- which is to say 'be on good terms'. If you aren't on good terms, that sponsorship can be terminated, but that goes both ways -- if you don't like your sponsor, you can exit and choose another. Because 32-bit addresses are finite, they're scarce and have value, which disincentivizes spam and abuse. To be clear, the sponsor nodes only sign/deliver software updates, and perform peer discovery and NAT traversal; your connections with other people are direct and encrypted. Because there are many sponsor nodes, you can return to the network if you're kicked off unfairly. In the long term, this also allows for graceful political fragmentation of the network if necessary. The world created by Urbit is a world where individuals control their own data and digital communities live according to their mores. It's an internet that isn't funded by mass automated surveillance and ad companies that know your health problems. It's also the internet as a frontier like it once was, at least until this one is settled. Apologies if this comes off a little true-believer-y, but this project is something I'm genuinely excited about.
The world that Urbit aims to build is one not dissimilar from Scott's archipelago communism -- one of voluntaristic relations and communities, and exit in the face of conflict & coercion. It's technical infrastructure to move the internet away from the chokepoints of the major social media platforms and the concentration of political power that comes with centralized services. The seismic shifts affecting our institutions and society caused by the internet in the last decade have been commented on at length here and elsewhere, but as BTO said, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I suspect many people with a libertarian or anti-authoritarian bent would appreciate the principle of individual sovereignty over their computing and data. The project is also something I've discussed a few times with others on here, so I know there's some curiosity about it. The original developer of Urbit is also rather well known online, especially around here. Yarvin is a pretty controversial figure, but he departed the project in early 2019.
There's a lot more that I haven't mentioned, but I hope this has piqued your interest. If you're in DFW, you can find details of the first meetup here. There will be free pizza and a presentation about Urbit, help installing & using it (Mac & Linux only for now), as well as the opportunity to socialize. All are welcome! Feel free to bring a friend. If you're not in North Texas but are interested, there are also other regional meetups all over the world coming up soon.
Since fiat currencies are not backed by anything, even gold anymore, they should all collapse eventually through hyperinflation as the temptation to devalue the currency (and associated debt obligations) through printing is just too great (see also the Cantillion Effect) This process should be accelerated by Bitcoin as an unstoppable deflationary alternative store of value by causing speculative attacks on all fiat (I give a rough estimate of 50 years perhaps a lot sooner). As they hyperinflate and collapse Bitcoin price in each fiat currency should approach infinity (i.e. how many Zimbabwe dollars is a bitcoin worth? Near infinite as it is no longer in circulation and only has collectible value). Eventually all fiat currencies will have failed (including the dollar but it will probably be the last one as they will start to fail weakest first like Venezuela) and bitcoin is the only global unit of account, meaning nothing is priced in dollars or euros anymore as they no longer exist, everything is priced in bitcoin and there is no other frame of reference to price things in other than perhaps gold (but hey we're talking like 2070 at this point and who wants to pay for things with a shiny rock when we have augmented reality built into our vision or whatever cypherpunk future we are living in at the time). As these currencies fail Bitcoin's value should increase faster and faster asymptotically approaching infinity when priced in fiat terms until people stop using the fiat currency as it is seen as worthless (a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf a bread, etc.) at which point there is no objective way to measure Bitcoin's value in the failed fiat and we will instead measure Bitcoin's value in it's purchasing power. Once all fiat currencies have failed Bitcoin will be the single global unit of account then at that point the purchasing power of bitcoin would continue to grow but at a decreasing rate until it has absorbed all the store of value function for the planet and settled at a "stable" final price which would then only grow or shrink in relation to global production output. This is the latter half, flattening of the S-curve after universal adoption but we have not even hit the inflection point yet so there is many orders of magnitude of growth remaining before that point.
Stegos: Ground-Up Privacy Blockchain from the Palm of Your Hand [Great Staking Coin]
Stegos is a built-from-scratch custom privacy blockchain that emphasizes usability and versatility. In doing so, the blockchain functionalities are all accessible via a lightweight mobile application. Through the mobile app, you can manage wallets, record contacts, send currency, private chat, and interact with staking pools. Beyond that, the team looks to work with the community to build out a "privacy app store" (like WeChat but private) that will include additional interface for the likes of microblogging, marketplaces, etc. The mobile application has been released on mainnet internally, and a public release is expected by the end of April. You can read about the current progress of the app and link back to demo video releases here. Circulating supply is roughly 1.1 billion STG with no additional locked tokens Stegos currently trades at about US$0.0005, for a market cap of just $550,000. Stegos is trading at Bithumb Global. Privacy coins across the board have been under fire for being wholly inaccessible to the vast majority of the population. Cypherpunks can maintain anonymity perfectly find using the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum intelligently. They don't need Grin, Monero, etc., and nobody beyond these crypto-savvy is equipped to bother with these privacy coins. By emphasizing a one-stop, easy to use mobile interface, Stegos is looking to position itself as the accessible privacy solution. How it Works Most privacy coins further restrict the nature of network transactions to support sufficient privacy. This very much limits the utility of these coins, in terms of smart contracts, data transmission, and nuanced network activity in general. Stegos took the complete opposite approach. Transactions were expanded and reinvisioned as a "fast message bus". This means that, in exactly the same capacity and with the exact same level of privacy, users can communicate messages, media, and data as on-chain transactions the same as they would a standard currency transaction. With no extra resource burden, smart phones can interact with network apps the same as a desktop alternative. This also makes development of network applications like the aforementioned (messaging, microblogging, marketplace) far more straightforward and accessible to users and developers alike. For a more in-depth explanation of this approach, as well as the technical details behind the custom Snowball privacy protocol in place, check out this recent write up by Daily Chain. Staking Opportunity: Gamified Proof-of-Stake Stegos employs a unique gPoS consensus model which makes staking particularly enticing for small stakers. The total block reward is 36 STG per block, and with a block every 8 seconds, that's about 14% ROI for stakers at face value. But the interesting component is that 1/3 of this block reward is stored and pooled into the "Validator Service Award", which operates like a winner-take-all jackpot. When a certain string is observed in a block hash (happens once every 5-6 days, on average), the accumulated VSA is delivered in full to a random staking node. Every node has an equal chance to claim the prize, regardless of their stake size. The average award is over 700k STG. Currently, there are anywhere between 150-200 eligible nodes per VSA cycle. The minimum stake required is 50k STG (about $25). Hit it once and you've got a huge ROI. There is no limits or constraints on running multiple min-staking nodes, so you could set up 15 at once and double your STG the first time you hit the jackpot. With 15 nodes, you're on pace to hit it once every 2 or 3 months. Wrap Up Actually unique and worthwhile project, live on mainnet, in a demanded niche + real growth potential. 550k market cap. No reason not to pick up a bag just in case.
A HODLer's dilemma - There are likely much fewer Bitcoin millionaires than you think
I first learned about bitcoin through a newsletter reporting a Mt Gox hack in 2011. After reading about its potential to be seriously disruptive, I still avoided making any purchases due to the limited (and shady) means of acquiring any. But I kept my eye on it. I saw the small pattern of boom-bust cycles but there were too few at the time to consider this pattern to be normal. I bought my first bitcoins in April 2013. I'd FOMO'ed the runup from $15 to $100 and finally bought in at $138. One of the only ways to buy bitcoin at the time was to deposit cash into some rando's bank account and cross your fingers that they'd actually send you bitcoin in return. I was lucky. They did. Bitcoin continued to rally to $230. I'd nearly doubled my money in a few days. I finally applied for a Mt Gox account and was hooked. It only took 3 more months to watch my initial investment be cut in half after the retrace to $66. My point here is it took balls to invest in the chaotic sphere of crypto from a total bystander who's not a cypherpunk. I had a spare $500, my career was built on the industry Bitcoin was poised to disrupt, so I bought a few as a "hedge" in my mind. So I hedl. The price eventually stabilized and slowly crept up to my initial buy in. I learned about coinbase and registered an account right before the second bull run of the year. Bitcoin ran up to $1,100. I was amped. Bought in a ton more on the way up. Convinced buddies to buy in at over $1,000. Then it tanked again. I praised friends who "called the top" and got out while I hedl. But at that time I was a lot more convinced that long term growth was inevitable. I explained to my buddies that this is normal and that they should think of their money spent as a shitty night at the casino. They can pull it out now or just forget about it and see where it goes. They listened. And I kept buying randomly. I set a DCA calendar event but rarely listened to it. I bought here and there with spare funds over the next few years as it traded sideways. Overall, I spent about $15,000 over the course of 4 years. Who spends $15,000 on an unproven volatile asset with naysayers around every corner? Anyone with any financial sense would think I was insane to put that much money into the space. Now I own 25 bitcoin and a decent number of the other top coins. I'm in a great position. But I want you all to heed this story as a means to prepare yourselves for strong hands over the next boom/bust cycle. I watched my $15k investment balloon to over $600k during the 2017 bull run. Then I watched my portfolio shrink $350k in like 6 weeks. Then another $150k over the following months. It was painful. But I'm still hodling. I often wonder about how strong my hands can be when I finally see my crypto portfolio in the 8-figure range. I truly believe that Bitcoin stands to insanely disruptive and coexist on a massive level with the fiat powerhouses of today. But how am I going to react when that valuation means I can retire at age 35? How am I going to react if it grows to unfathomable levels and the next bust sees me losing millions of dollars over a few short months? I can't tell you. I don't know myself. I know I'll not be happy to sell out at 1MM if it climbs to 10MM in a few years. But I'll have reached a FIRE benchmark at an age that a very rare few can even dream of. It's an insane concept to be able to say you turned $15k into a million dollars. Even more so if it's multi-millions. That's why I think a lot fewer bitcoin millionaires exist than you think. When reflecting on how much is made over such a little investment, the idea that it could go even higher simply escapes logic. Even if you truly believe that Bitcoin will cement itself as an alternative or replacement to currency/payments/store-of-value, there's still a huge risk it can all collapse at some point. So. What would you do? How much will you be willing to put on the table once it's real? Once you literally have hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line?
Bylls — the Canadian Bitcoin bill payment service by Bull Bitcoin — celebrates its 6th birthday
I sometimes find it hard to believe that it has already been 6 years since the public launch of Bylls on January 13 2014. What started out as a simple and humble “garage startup”, the world’s first Bitcoin bill payment service, evolved into so much more. Bylls eventually became the company that people know today as Bull Bitcoin, and it is from Bylls’ UASF advocacy that sprouted the Cyphernode open-source project. I also like to think of Bylls as a “bitcoin culture” institution that served as the vanguard of the Bitcoin Maximalist and Cypherpunk movements within the Bitcoin exchange and payments industry. Happy Birthday Bylls! 🎂
What is Bylls?
For those of you who don’t know about Bylls, here’s a short summary:
Bylls lets Bitcoin users pay any bill in Canada with Bitcoin. We offer a comprehensive list of nearly 9000 billers (credit cards, utilities, telcos, taxes, brokerage accounts, law firms, “joe the plumber”, etc.)
Bylls lets Bitcoin users pay anyone or any business in Canada with Bitcoin by adding them as a personal payee (rent, employees, suppliers, friends).
The recipient of the payment doesn’t need to do anything and doesn’t even need to know you are using Bitcoin, as long as they are on our biller list or the user has his banking details.
Bylls is available exclusively to residents of Canada and all the recipients must also be, exclusively, individuals or companies residing in Canada.
Mission: Building the software and financial infrastructure for the Bitcoin Standard.
Short history of world’s first Bitcoin bill payment service
Bylls was founded in 2013 by Eric Spano, a Montreal entrepreneur part of the original Bitcoin Embassy team. Eric, one of my earliest and most influential mentors, is a true Bitcoin OG. Check out his 2014 Bitcoin Ted Talk or his 2019 Podcast on Tales From the Crypt which describes in great detail the inception of Bylls. When Bylls was launched, I was Public Affairs Director at the Bitcoin Embassy, the world’s first physical Bitcoin hub (a 14,000 square feet building downtown Montreal). Bylls was effectively a one-man operation, with Eric doing pretty much everything himself. I wasn’t directly involved with the company, but Bylls was one of the startups in the Embassy’s incubator program, so I was helping out in various ways. My first “public appearance” in the Bitcoin industry was actually to man the Bylls booth at the Toronto Bitcoin Expo in 2014! In 2015, Eric was offered a huge career opportunity that he couldn’t accept without stepping down from running Bylls. It was to me an inconceivable tragedy for Bitcoin to let Bylls quitely close down. For the past 2 years, whenever somebody asked me “what can you do with Bitcoin?”, I would always reply “well, for starters, you can pay all your bills in Canada, even your taxes and your credit card”. What was I going to say now? I had just founded my company Satoshi Portal Inc. with the aim of developing a non-custodial Bitcoin exchange (which eventually became Bull Bitcoin). And so, I acquired Bylls from Eric and it immediately became the focus of all my energy. For the first year, our team consisted of only 2 people including our lead developer Arthur which is still working on Bylls features to this day. From the beginning until today, we are still 100% self-funded. We grew organically and slowly. My philosophy on entrepreneurship and startup scaling is articulated in this medium post.It has been an incredibly intense journey. I cannot think of a more challenging professional experience than being a startup founder and entrepreneur in the Bitcoin industry. The number of Bitcoin startups that have perished since is a stark reminder. Some of them sank quietly, but many went down in flames taking down their users with them. The fact that Bylls is still standing — without VC funding and with its reputation intact — is my proudest achievement. Over the past 4 years. we completely redesigned the software, continuously adding new features, but the core of the service remained the same. Most importantly, we added the ability for users to pay any individual or business in Canada by creating a personal biller from their bank details. Previously, they were limited to Bylls’ biller list of around 9000 billers. One of the defining moments in the history of Bylls was UASF. Bylls was one of the first Bitcoin companies to support BIP-148 for the activation of Segwit (second after Bitconic). Not only that, but we were the first to run a public BIP-148 block explorer and public UASF electrum server. We had done a “seppuku pledge” regarding BIP-148, meaning that we would only accept coins from the UASF segwit chain and would pay the Bitcoin market price for them. If UASF had failed, we would not have survived. This cemented our ideology of “skin-in-the-game”. We would never compromise on our values, no matter the cost. Our policy on forks (2017) was described here. But the jist of it is:
Satoshi Portal is a Bitcoin-only company and does not conduct any transaction in any altcoin, including altcoins that are the result of a fork of the Bitcoin blockchain and which can be spent with Bitcoin private keys. This includes, but is not limited to, the coins commonly referred to as BCash, Segwit2X, BGold, Clams and Lumens.We strongly oppose the “New York Agreement” and will under no circumstance ever recognize the Segwit2X blockchain (and BTC1 client) as Bitcoin, regardless of market response or hashing power. In the unlikely event that an overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin ecosystem migrates to the Segwit2X blockchain, Satoshi Portal will continue nevertheless to support the Bitcoin blockchain.
Following the UASF/NO2X “war” in 2017, we devoted a large prortion of ressources to building Cyphernode, an open-source project that makes it very easy for startups to build and deploy Bitcoin applies without any third-parties, using exclusively their own full nodes. We are still developing this project today and plan on actively maintaining it in the future. It is also worth noting that Bylls has never accepted any altcoins and was one of the first company to pledge never to accept altcoins in the future, leading to what became the “Bitcoin-Only” movement. We were also the first Bitcoin exchange and payment processing company, to our knowledge, that has integrated coinjoin as part of its processes.
Unbanking yourself with Bylls
The coolest feature of Bylls is that you can pay pretty much all your expenses with Bitcoin without needing to go through a bank account. In Canada, you can obtain a credit card without having it linked to a bank account. In 2016, the last of my personal bank accounts was closed due to my activities in the Bitcoin industry. I decided not apply at another bank and try the experiment of living completely unbanked. I’m happy to report it was a success, and serves as a powerful testament for the use-cases provided by Bylls. I really like the idea of not owning any fiat. You can pay pretty much all daily expenses with a credit card, and pay back the debt with Bitcoin. Of course you have fiat-denominated debts which conveniently tends to diminish in price over time. You can withdraw cash from a credit card and pay it off instantly with Bylls, so you can get access to cash at any time, in any country across the world, without having a bank account. The only inconvenience is the cash advance fee. When you have to pay larger amounts such as rent or whatever services don’t accept cash or credit card, you can find the biller in the Bylls list or ask the recipient for his banking details, the same as you would for a wire transfer.
The future of Bylls
Many people ask us if we intend to expand outside of Canada. The answer is, unequivocally, no. We will always be a Canada-only, Bitcoin-only company. That doesn’t mean that we stop working hard to improve our services. We will continue to be the first to integrate the cutting-edge Bitcoin technologies that Here is are some of the features you can expect in 2020:
Pay billers via Interac E-Transfer instead of Direct Deposit only
More advanced Coinjoin and privacy features
Bylls merchant services: Bitcoin-payable invoices to clients
Another really huge issue with the btc community in general, and this reddit especially, is the lack of nuance on price. And again, an unwillingness to accept critique. There are several scenario that can play out with price, but in some of those scenario, we may even see a huge price pump, while *still failing at adoption*. And I think that's an important distinction to make. Just because wallstreet pumps the price for reasons that only concern the rich and institutions, does not equate to adoption. It does not equate to us making vital changes for the betterment of the network and adoption. It just doesn't. Wallstreet is perfectly content with hyper regulated bitcoin that is totally irrelevant for the common man and unadopted and unused, they are perfectly fine treating bitcoin as a glorified sovereign bond and international form of settlement. That is how the institutions and rich see it. They see it much like they see bonds and gold, and are willing to treat it as such. This is even a positive in some regard because it brings monetary transparency into the banking and wealth sector. But it does not address cypherpunk, emancipatory politics, or global poverty, or individual sovereignty. And it is acheived largely through extreme centralization and hyper invasive surveillance. Be clear, they can pump the price to 250,000 while still controlling everything through Patriot Act, AMLD5, NDAA, and FACTA and the banking secrecy Act. All of which Bitcoin is entirely ideologically incompatible with. But that's just fine, because the rich already comply with those laws (mostly). They already price in the regulatory and compliance costs of an institution, of an offshore tax haven. That's just it. IT's fine for them to do this to btc, because the laws are designed for them. They create the barriers only they can afford to play in, while hurting it for everyone else. The average common man in the world, and any developing country should be able to easily acquire btc without kyc. Period. It shouldn't be a surveillance state. I recently listened to Peter McCormack interview a darkmarket guy and I completely agree. We need to engineer away from on ramps, we need to engineer away from payment gates that involve fiat, and we need to all use coinjoiners and mixing technology. It needs to be the standard. There are so many reasons to use coinjoining for non illegality. Privacy is a fundamental need. And internet 4.0 for finance is contingent on a lot of technology. These aren't really coins either. It is backbone technology to better facilitate bitcoin. But we have to have layer two solutions. It doesn't matter whether it's RSK or plasma, or both, we just need the secondary layer to pay for distributed processing, server function, matching, liquidity, file storage, atomic swaps, network gas, etc. DeFi network value cannot be conflated with the supply and demand of btc itself, we don't need permissioned side chains, we need permissionless open source side chains and interoperatibilty platforms that will protect the privacy of bitcoin and facilitate it on decentralized exchanges. On exchanges that cannot be taken down. To do that we need staggering amounts of technology innovation and thoroughput, that will require people to host nodes, mine and stake these ancillary services to protect the backbone of bitcoin commerce. Anyone who is into toxic maximalism. Let it be known that you are willfully promoting corporate bitcoin supported by massive centralized players who will treat it as a bond or settlement statist instrument. You're promoting the support of bitcoin on an entirely captured regulatory framework and an entirely captured unsafe unsecure regular internet controlled by the clearnet and amazon and google and heavily surveiled. .Org just privatize for fuck sakes. And any DNS can be compromised, any .com site can be siezed. This normal backbone is entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. Centralized exchanges and payment apps like cash app are entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. You should be able to visit a IFPS site, connect a hardware wallet to any DEX or DAPP and immediately trade with the same speed and liquidity of binance and bitmex. The user interface should be simple and approachable to the layman. We need a liquidity interbank controlled by SPV server and dark node. Payment incentives for people to host liquidity to the network on plasma, radon, cosmos, uniswap, eventually all the DEX will simply be connected by interchain liquidity. Crypto has to be extremely unfettered. The regulators and wallstreet have strangled it and will continue to do so. Some people have forgotten that this is a battle for financial sovereignty and protection against wealth confiscation. Only when they realize that they can't control us, will they be forced to sit down at the legislative table and negotiate with common people. You have to bring your government to heel.
Bitcoin is the most censorship resistant money in the world.
You don't have to buy a “whole” bitcoin so don't freak out if you look at the price. You can buy a piece of one no problem.
The Dallas Mavericks accept Bitcoin on their website. You don't trust Mark Cuban. He's the best shark.
Bitcoin is the best performing asset of the last decade (better than S&P500).
Diversify your current portfolio.
It's not illegal in the USA.
You holding just one satoshi slightly limits the supply and can rise the price for everyone else.
[In late 2019] hash rate is the highest it has ever been
Suicide insurance; if Bitcoin rises in price there is no worse feeling than regret.
Some of the smartest people in computer science and cryptography are working on it. Trust nerds.
Look at the all time historical chart. No technical analysis just tell me what you think when you look at it.
Money is a belief system... and I want to believe.
Transparent ledger, no funny business going on it's easy to audit.
Elon Musk appears to be a fan. How's that for an appeal to authority
There is a fixed limit in the number of bitcoins that will exist. 21 million bitcoin, 7 billion people on earth. Do the math.
There are so many examples of governments inflating their currency to the point where it becomes unusable. Read the wikipedia page for Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
Altcoins make sacrifices in either security or centralization. There are altcoins out there that claim to be innovating but just check the scoreboard nothing has flipped Bitcoin in market value or even gotten close.
With technology developing at a rate faster than law, governments and for-profit businesses have the ability to monitor our purchases, location, our habits, and all of this has happened without consent. People made jokes and conspiracy theory, but sometimes conspiracy is real. Most people are good, but there is absolutely evil out there. There are absolutely evil people in positions of power. There are absolutely evil people that work together in positions of power. Does anyone actually believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. Go read about Leslie Wexner. Go read the cypherpunk manifesto.
The upcoming halvening in 2020 will reduce the number of Bitcoin created in each block, making them more scarce, and if history repeats more valuable.
Bitcoin has lower fees than traditional banking.
Gold has the advantage of being a physical thing. But unlike gold you know Bitcoin is not forged, or mixed with another metal, and you can easily break it into tiny pieces and send it over the internet to someone.
Bitcoin could spark new interests maybe you start to read more into economics, computer science, or Brock Pierce.
Bitcoin has survived with no leader, marketing team, public relations, or legal team.
Because Wired magazine said Bitcoin was dead at $2, Forbes said it was dead at $15, NY Times at $208, and CNN at $333.
Just do a cost benefit analysis. What happens if Bitcoin fails and it goes to zero vs. what happens if it succeeds, and becomes world money.
Bitcoin encourages long term thinking, planning, saving. Due to inflation we are punished by holding on to cash. Look up the statistics on the average savings account while we are bombarded with consumerist bullshit like Funko pop heads, Loot crate subscription services, and new syrup flavors for coffee. Currently we are encouraged to spend now, seek immediate gratification, and ignore what we are becoming as Amazon picks out our clothes and toothpaste ships it to the house and we sit and watch streaming services where content is pushed to us and I'm supposed to buy that this garbage is actually “trending”. Our lives have become so comfortable that idiots spend $60 to escape a room and have someone take your picture when you get out. What would our ancestors think.
Maybe you're a day trader looking to use a trading bot in an unregulated market.
Bitcoin has 7 letters in it. Lucky number 7.....
Bitcoin promises to bank the unbanked, and provide services to those not otherwise “qualified” to open a bank account.
It's just cool, don't you want to seem smart to all your friends.
The origin story is so nuts there's going to be a movie or several movies about the early days of Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto remains anonymous to this day. Imagine if the inventor of the cell phone was anonymous.
If you have money to burn, don't buy soda, weed, or some girls private snapchat it's a dead end put it towards Bitcoin and give it to your child in the future.
To avoid getting ripped off by foreign exchange fees just because you were born one place and your friends were born in another place.
Can't live off the grid in your log cabin and still use Mastercard. Bitcoin is one piece of opting out.
If one country adopts BTC as the national currency, it doesn't take much thought to realise that others will follow.
Join a welcoming and unique community. Everyone is super nice because they want your money.
You can stick it to the baby boomers.
You can stick it to the vegans.
You can stick it Roger Ver.
Maybe your IQ is 70 and you'll do whatever CNBC Fast Money recommends.
Maybe a hacker infects your computer, records you doing that thing, and threatens to release the tape if you do not pay them 1.5 Bitcoin.
You're a risk taker looking for some risky investment.
Aliens attack like Independence Day, blow up major cities in major countries, your money is still safe with Bitcoin. As long as there is a some guy, some person, living on an island with a copy of the ledger out there on your'e good. We're all good.
Many proposals to scale the number of transactions, may the best plan win.
One day you might have to use BTC to pay taxes, buy food, and charge your Tesla.
You want to support a political group and remain private.
You can trust math more than you can trust people to set an emission rate.
Government don't know how much you have.
The first response to Bitcoin being published by Hal Finney stated that Bitcoin was positioned to reach million dollar valuation. Hal was the first bull and passed away in 2014, missing a lot #doitforHal.
Baddies can't freeze your money if they mad at you.
The Big Bang Theory mentioned it, maybe you want to be like Sheldon the bazinga guy.
Be contrarian. In a world where everyone zigs it's sometimes good to zag.
Don't have any hobbies, and you just need a reason to get up in the morning.
Enjoy learning? Bitcoin is a topic where there is so much to learn, and so much development, that it really becomes a never ending journey. For someone who likes learning, it's more productive than speedrunning a video game.
Yolo. You only live once. This isn't a dress rehearsal, if there's something your kind of interested in pursue it. That's true for anything not just Bitcoin. But if you're reading this I'm assuming you're interested.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. The difference is Bitcoin does not need new people buying in to work, blocks being added will continue even if the community stopped growing.
With religion on the decline maybe you want to join a cult. Crypto twitter is a great echo chamber to meet like minded people.
Satoshi Nakamoto found a way to distribute a global currency in a fair way with the ability to adjust the mining difficulty as we go, it's really incredible. You still need computers and electricity to mine new bitcoin today but it's an extremely fair way for people to earn. There was no premine of Bitcoin. Everyone who has Bitcoin either bought it at what the market said, or they earned it.
No CEO in charge of Bitcoin to make bad decisions or a board of directors that can make changes. The users, an ever growing number, are in charge.
Bitcoin has no days off, it has no workers in charge who can get sick or take a holiday.
Bitcoin has survived 10 years (and more). While there will always be dangers, I'd argue that those first few years it was most vulnerable to fail.
Have some trust in the cypherpunks. Anyone who held and didn't sell bitcoin as it went from pennies to five figures is not looking to get rich. They want to change the world.
Potential president Tulsi Gabbard disclosed owning some.
Digital money is the future, anyone who has tried Venmo can see that. Well Bitcoin is a digitally native asset.
Refugees can use Bitcoin to store their wealth as they flee a failing country.
Bitcoin is an open source project. Anthony Pompliano likes to call it a virus but I like how the author of the Bitcoin Standard describes it. Bitcoin is like a song. As long as one person remembers it you can't destroy a song.
Triple entry accounting. When humans first started recording who owes who what we had single-entry accounting. The king's little brother would keep everything written down, but we had to really trust this guy because he could simply erase a line and that money would be gone. When double-entry accounting started to spread 500 years ago it brought with it massive innovation. Businesses could now form relationships across the ocean as they each kept a record. We did not have innovation again until Satoshi's Bitcoin, where blockchain can be used as the neutral third party to keep record. It might not sound important but blockchain allows us to agree upon an objective reality.
Bitcoin is non-political.
Bitcoin is easy to accept. I mean kind of. It's certainly easier than setting up a bank account.
A sandwich used to cost 10 cents in America, I walk into Subway and they don't even have $5 foot longs anymore. Inflation man..
It's a peaceful protest.
Critics say that mining wastes electricity, but if Bitcoin adoption continues the world will actually be incentivized to produce more renewable energy. There are so many waterfalls and sources of energy in the middle of nowhere right now. People might not see a reason to build a power plant over there now, but in the future it can make business sense. Take that waterfall mine bitcoin, and sell them to the people who can't mine. It allows for a business to sell their energy anywhere.
Get into debates around Bitcoin, build those critical thinking skills.
“Predicting rain doesn't count, building arks does”
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.”
"I never considered for one second having anything to do with it. I detested it the moment it was raised. It’s just disgusting. Bitcoin is noxious poison.”
The immaculate conception. No cryptocurrency can have a start the grassroots way Bitcoin did, it's just impossible given how the space has changed.
There are more than 1000x more U.S. dollars today than there were a hundred years ago.
Bitcoin is the largest transfer of wealth this decade from the least curious to the curious.
The concept of the Star Wars Cantina, Galt's Gulch, or young Beat Generation kids sitting in a basement smoking cigarettes and questioning the world can only exist if money remains fungible.
You can send money to your Dad even if he lives in a country run by bad boys.
Memorize your key, and walk around the world carrying your money in your head.
The Federal Reserve is objectively way too powerful.
John Mcafe promised that if bitcoins were not valued at 1 million dollars by the end of 2020 he would eat his own penis on national television. It will be a sad day if we don't hit that 1 million.
The Apple credit card.
If we ever get artificial intelligence it'll be able to interact with Bitcoin.
Katy Perry is aware of crypto so if by some chance you run into her, you get one chance to strike up conversation, so here's your chance to shine. You don't ask for a picture, you don't say she's pretty, or name your favorite song. Take your shot and ask about what type of cold storage she uses for her bitcoin.
Many people are afraid of a world currency because it's associated with a centralized world power taking control. Bitcoin allows for neutral world money.
Schear gives our readers a glimpse into the early days of the cypherpunks, the birth of Bitcoin, and how he sees the cypherpunk movement evolving today. Also read: How One of the Original ... To understand the link between cypherpunks and Bitcoin, one must first understand the history of the cyberpunk movement. One could argue cyberpunk began in fiction with the writings of authors like Isaac Asimov or that it started with the ARPAnet. The first cyberpunks fostered the development of what became the Internet then forked like a … Bitcoin and the Cypherpunks Read More » CoinDesk contributor Jameson Lopp traces the history of the cypherpunks, the band of innovators whose beliefs helped inspire the bitcoin movement. As long as forks have a value on the open market, people will be incentivized to transact according to their investment thesis. With "Cypherpunks Write Code" being a guiding principle, rather than lecture Bitcoin users, we put together these tools and processes to help close this leak. Bitcoin and the Rise of the Cypherpunks. While many of the innovations in the space are new, they’re built on decades of work that led to this point. By tracing this history, we can understand the motivations behind the movement that spawned bitcoin and share its vision for the future. Jameson Lopp. Read more posts by this author. Jameson Lopp. 9 Apr 2016 • 15 min read. From bitcoin to ...
Cypherpunks and Bitcoin by Paul Rosenberg - YouTube
https://alfremancera.com Historia de la criptología moderna para entender mejor de donde viene Bitcoin. Un relato cronológico que destaca una selección de personas e hitos importantes en los ... Aujourd'hui je reçois Manuel Valente, directeur de la Maison du Bitcoin. Il nous raconte l'histoire des cypherpunks, le mouvement à l'origine de la cryptomonnaie (et de bien d'autres choses ... Presentation at the Chicago Bitcoin and Open Blockchain Meetup February 18, 2017 Paul Rosenberg discusses the early history of the cypherpunks and their inte... Bitcoin 101 - Modelling the Price of Bitcoin - Is a $100,000 bitcoin possible? ... What You Need to Know About the Cypherpunks - Duration: 2:47. Crypto Tips 5,628 views. 2:47. Block Digest #217 ... Recebemos o brilhante Avelino Morganti, criador do site cypherpunks.com.br para falar sobre os Cypherpunks, anarcocapitalismo, agorismo x gradualismo, bitcoin como ferramenta anarquista e muito ...