Bitcoin History – Price since 2009 to 2019, BTC Charts ...

Private Blockchain

A subreddit for news on private blockchains
[link]

It's BUSINESS AS USUAL on the Bitcoin Network... 2.7K Transactions with a Median TX value of $3.8k in the last block

It's BUSINESS AS USUAL on the Bitcoin Network... 2.7K Transactions with a Median TX value of $3.8k in the last block submitted by bytetree to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

It's BUSINESS AS USUAL on the Bitcoin Network... 2.7K Transactions with a Median TX value of $3.8k in the last block

It's BUSINESS AS USUAL on the Bitcoin Network... 2.7K Transactions with a Median TX value of $3.8k in the last block submitted by vegasbooty to Cryptoandme [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin governance model has prevented a degradation of trustlessness (...) If Bitcoins governance model had not been resistant to last years miner signalling for a doubling the maximum block weight, a precedent would have been set of valuing transaction throughput above trustlessness."

submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin governance model has prevented a degradation of trustlessness (...) If Bitcoins governance model had not been resistant to last years miner signalling for a doubling the maximum block weight, a precedent would have been set of valuing transaction throughput above trustlessness."

submitted by cryptoanalyticabot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Tom Harding: #bitcoin value has doubled since the block reward halving last July 📈 Miner incentive: restored. Fee market tinkering: not advised.

Tom Harding: #bitcoin value has doubled since the block reward halving last July 📈 Miner incentive: restored. Fee market tinkering: not advised. submitted by ForkiusMaximus to btc [link] [comments]

Tom Harding: #bitcoin value has doubled since the block reward halving last July Miner incentive: restored. Fee market tinkering: not advised.

Tom Harding: #bitcoin value has doubled since the block reward halving last July Miner incentive: restored. Fee market tinkering: not advised. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The Problems With Tarkov's Economy and Balance.

Welcome to my overly long TED Talk about Tarkov's overall economy and the balancing issues within itself.
First, before I continue with the analysis of Tarkovs economy, let me throw some definitions your way, as understanding these things is very important to understanding what i'm about to explain.
FAUCETS
Faucets are feature or design decision that puts value into an economy.
SINKS
Sinks are features or design decisions that take away value from an economy.
NETS.
Not sure if this is an actual definition, but a Net is something that blocks value from falling into a sink. It's not a faucet, but it acts like one.
LOOT ECONOMY
The loot economy is essentially the 'FIR Economy'. It encompasses every piece of loot found in raid, even loot taken off of players bodies that doesn't have the FIR tag.
THE PLAYER-DRIVEN ECONOMY
The player driven economy is essentially the Flea Market.
Now it's important to understand what makes an economy sustainable. A stable economy would have to have tons of sinks for players to put their money into, while providing faucets for players to take money from. EFT's faucets include...
-FIR LOOT from PMC RUNS
-LOOT Gets Vendored
-LOOT Gets Sold on Flea (Requires Level 15)
-LOOT Gets Crafted Into FIR Items (Requires Hideout)
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Vendored
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Sold on FLEA (Requires Level 15)
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Used
-PvP LOOT from PMC RUNS
-LOOT Gets Vendored
-LOOT Gets Used
-FIR LOOT from SCAV RUNS
-LOOT Gets Vendored
-LOOT Gets Sold on Flea (Requires Level 15)
-LOOT Gets Crafted Into FIR Items (Requires Hideout)
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Vendored
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Sold on FLEA (Requires Level 15)
-CRAFTED LOOT Gets Used
-PvP LOOT from SCAV RUNS
-LOOT Gets Vendored
-LOOT Gets Used
-BITCOIN FARM (Requires Hideout)
-And i'm sure many more than i'm missing
An economy also needs to have a lot of sinks to keep an economy flowing and stop players from amassing massive hordes of wealth. EFT's sinks include...
-Lost Gear from PMC RUNS (Recycles back into the 'PvP LOOT from PMC and SCAV RUNS' Faucets. But for another player.)
-Flea Market Taxes
-Medical Costs (Optional)
-Food Costs (Optional and Minor Sink)
-Hideout Upgrade Costs (Temporary Sink, Eventually turns into Faucet.)
-Scav Case Losses (Gambling)
-and a probably a few more that have slipped my mind.
Maybe you can already start to see some issues, and I haven't even started yet.
EFT's economy also has Nets, EFT's nets include
-Insurance
-Armor and Weapon Repairs
-Items in Secure Container (Maybe that would be counted here?)
EFT's economy is not sustainable. In order for an economy like EFT's to continue, they would need far more sinks to create a sense of scarcity. Veterans say that money is far too easy to make, but that's not the issue, money is far too hard to lose.
Ever wonder why you see a lot of squads using meta gear? Its because they all get their insurance back whenever they die, as it only takes 1 surviving member of a 5-man team, to secure his dead squadmates gear, and chuck it in a bush. Eliminating most of a squads expenses.
Solo players on the other hand, don't have this luxury, and will use a lot of low-end to mid-tier gear, expecting to lose it, and get it back in insurance, because it's not worth picking up.
BSG needs to incorporate more sinks and adjust their nets in a way that fixes it, otherwise the game will forever rely on wipes, and there will never be proper scarcity in the economy.
I want everyone to try and remember what it was like when you first booted up the game, had no fucking idea what you were doing, and how i'm sure many of you were scared shitless about losing your last P226 or Grach, and elated about finding a rifle, probably not knowing it shot dog-shit .366 rounds.
Now, i've spoken to a lot of new players, and a lot them have this sense of overwhelming anxiety about playing the game once they realise that death has consequences. This anxiety also helps tremendously with selling the games atmosphere, but as people get more experienced and more wealthy, that anxiety goes away, and so does the games atmosphere.
Its not possible to put us all back into the shoes of a new player, as a lot of the anxiety is caused by not knowing what the hell is going on or that you have an infinite source of income to the left of your PMC. But it is possible to bring back *SOME* of that anxiety by introducing gear scarcity into the Loot Economy.

There is almost no gear scarcity in the Loot Economy for a few reasons.
1. The flea-market allows people to buy whatever they want, whenever they want.
-There's a few ways to change this, removing it IS NOT the answer.
2. Playing in a squad tremendously increases your chances of getting your gear back in insurance.
3. Trader prices for Meta gear are far too low and Meta gear is far to easily obtained from raiders, bosses, and players wearing this gear; because it's so easy to obtain.
Now these things COULD be fixed, but if you did it would make a lot of gear useless. Because there are more issues.
Ammo and armor balance is scuffed.
Let me just give a few examples.
Everyone wants 7n31. It's a hot new ammo that everyone wants to try out, yet its sold out every trader reset. To counter this, BSG adds it as a craftable in the hideout. Now, it's all over the flea market, but very expensive, at the time of writing this it's 1700 RUB around. Pricey.
Now 7n31 coupled with the rate of fire of most of the guns that shoot it, goes through level 4 and 5 like butter, and even level 6 pretty well. But this is where we start to run into issues.
By increasing the supply of 7n31 and many other AP ammos, you've essentially massively decreased the effectiveness of many Higher-End armors.
"Oh well, that's fine, now newer and rats players have a chance of getting through all these chad armors."
Except that's not what happens.
Let me use a better example.
M62 is $5 a bullet. It completely ignores level 5 and goes through level 6 like butter. It is widely available, and very cheap.
Why would you use Level 5 and 6 when going up against this ammo?
There is no reason, Level 5 and 6 only slows you down when your up against AP Ammo.
That's fine though, this rare and exotic ammo should be able to go through armor like its nothing, that's why I pay exorbitant amounts of money and grind to obtain this ammo.
Except its not rare and exotic, its extremely common, with very little work to obtain, and this goes for a lot of the bullets in the game. Most Meta ammos are reasonably affordable and put down level 5 and 6 easily, which begs the question, why would I use Level 5 and 6? Why would I spend 800k on a slick, when someone can spend $5 to ignore it.
This goes into another issue that I see a lot of people talking about, the TTK (Time To Kill) The TTK isn't going to be fixed by adding 5 more health to the thorax, it will be fixed when armor actually does something. The only thing 5 more health on the Thorax does is make it more expensive to run AP ammo against unarmored players, and make bolt actions useless compared to DMRs.
TTK also effects the New Player experience, a lot of new player will simply spam their little makarov at big bad Altyn man and wonder why it did nothing. That's because armor isn't hard to get either, its harder to get than the ammo that pens it sure, but it's still very easy to get if you know how to get it. Meanwhile that new player is wondering why everyone is going through their cool new level 4 ceramic armor, and they're bullets aren't doing anything.
Now if they fixed the the Loot Economy and made armor, ammo and other gear harder to find, it would do nothing, because the traders sell ammo extremely cheap and armor extremely expensive compared to the ammo. Which means armor is going to get burnt, found, repaired and used until that person dies and the armor gets picked up again or scrapped at fence.
Now the traders, from what I understand, are supposed to eventually have extremely limited stock and options. However, seemingly, the community hates the idea of sold out traders.
I have an aneurysm everytime I see a post complaining about super high-pen ammo being sold out, and then immediately see the supply go up the next day, like what just happened with 7n31.
Because you're making. The problem. Worse.
Now, I want to believe that BSG will continue with their plans to make an economy based on scarcity, but this community has an issue with crying about a lot of dumb shit. Which, don't get me wrong, if the vast majority agrees that something needs to change, it probably should. We play the game more than the devs, we know what is fun.
But when you guys complain about something as sophisticated as tarkov's economy, and you have no idea what you're talking about, thats bad.
I wouldn't be making this section of the post, if I thought that BSG would ignore the complaints. But they have this habit of caving in to the community's crys. Please BSG, do not do this.
TL;DR: In order to have a good scarcity based economy, BSG needs to have more sinks in the economy to take money out of the hands of wealthy players, and they need to make ammo more expensive compared to the price of armor. The TTK issue is solved by making ammo more rare than armor, community needs to stop crying about stuff they don't understand.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
submitted by AftT3Rmath to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

12.7 PATCH NOTES

Dear Escapers!
We are glad to present you the preliminary patch notes for the 0.12.7 patch!
---
Added:
---
• Customs expansion (expansion of industrial area, construction site, added many new explorable buildings, stationary weapons, new location for Reshala spawn etc.)
• Added new scav boss - Sanitar.
A former doctor, he worked in the health resort "Lazurny bereg", and before that in the TerraGroup laboratory. After the events that happened in Tarkov, he gathered a gang with former colleagues and operates on the "Shoreline". Actively uses professional skills in combat, quickly healing himself and the gang members. He uses various stimulants and medications, including those of his own production. He can quickly perform surgery by pulling out a bullet or applying a tourniquet on the field. Sometimes he is loyal to the Scavs and can leave a couple of first-aid kits or other medical supplies for his own group members on location
• New quests on Shoreline
• System for reporting suspicious players, unacceptable nicknames and game bugs abusers (on the post-match screen)
Improved AI behavior:
• Bots can pick up items now
• Improved AI behavior when they see bodies
• Bots now can pick up a second firearm from bodies
• AI now can greet each other or player scavs, showing their peaceful intentions
• Bots will eat\drink while in peaceful mode
• AI will perform a mag check when in peaceful mode
• Bots can check someone for friend or foe by aiming at him for some time, if they’re not sure of one’s intentions
• Bots will sprint while patrolling if they consider the spot being dangerous
• AI will be able to storm the player as a group, if he’s holding position and attacking them
• AI will try to avoid dangerous places
---
New weapons:
---
• FN GL40 Grenade launcher
• Mossberg 590A1 Shotgun
---
New ammo:
---
• .366 AP-M
• .45 ACP Hydr-Shock
• 9x19 mm QuakeMaker
• 9x19 mm 7N31
• .45 ACP Lasermatch FMJ
• .45 ACP AP
• 7.62x51 mm M993
• 40x46 мм M381 HE
• 40x46 мм M386 HE
• 40x46 мм M406 HE
• 40x46 мм M433 HEDP
• 40x46 мм M441 HE
• 40x46 мм M576 buckshot
---
Added new stimulants:
---
• 3-(b-TG)
• L1 (Noradrenaline)
• P22 (Specimen 22)
• AHF1-M
• Meldonin
• "Obdolbos" cocktail
• M.U.L.E
• Added an additional icon for the network connection status in case of high packet loss
• In the container slots window, the container tag is now displayed in the header
---
Iteration of improving and reworking the skill system:
---
New skill "Surgery"
• Reduces HP penalty for surgery
• Improved surgery speed
• (Elite) No HP penalty for the restored body part
• (Elite) Maximum increase in the speed of surgery
New skill "Aim drills"
• Increase of the aiming speed
• Decrease the volume of aiming
• (Elite) No hand shaking at any stamina value, first 2 seconds after aiming
• (Elite) Reduced hands shaking during tremor and fracture, the first 2 seconds after aiming
Rework of the “Strength” skill
• Increase all weight limits
• Increase the speed of the sprint
• Increase the jump height
• Increase the strength of the grenade throw
• Increase the strength of a melee attack
• (Elite) The weight does not take into account the weapons on the sling and on the back
• (Elite) Melee attack can be stronger than usual
Rework of the "Endurance" skill
• Increased feet stamina
• Reduced stamina consumption for jumping
• Increased holding breath time when ads
• Increased the speed of breath recovery
• (Elite) Maximum increase in breathing recovery rate
• (Elite) Breathing is no longer dependent on energy
• (Elite) Increased stamina reserve
Various fixes in old skills
• Added 5 HP to the health of “Chest” zone (from 80 to 85)
---
Optimization:
---
• Optimized the rendering of decals
• Fixed freezes that happened when the sound of thunder or the sound of grenades exploding was played
• Optimized the performance of the game server
• Fixed an issue with killing the boss of a group of raiders who appeared on the scene after interacting with the trigger was leading to errors on the server
• Minor optimizations on the first shot or hit
• Optimization of hideout sounds
• Fixes of errors that could potentially lead to different freezes
---
Fixed:
---
• Iteration of fixes and corrections in UI
• Bug with the PostFX menu that remains on the screen after closing the settings
• Bug playing the sound of contusion if the sound is turned off in the settings
• Bug of jerky animation of shooting weapons in the Hideout shooting range
• The passage of raiders on the laboratory through the doors
• A bug that allowed you to quickly move when constantly tapping the "Run" button when overweight
• AS VAL with the handle adapter "Rotor 43" is now impossible to fold
• Inability to exit the location via the paid exit “Car”, if you reconnect at the start of the exfil timer
• Bug with throwing away the magazine when reloading the weapon via the context menu
• Error 228 when receiving items from an expired email
• Formulas for calculating prices for items with its resource and its commissions
• After the reconnect, the equipment that was not searched become searched
• The sound of the visor on/off remained at one point, and does not follow the character
• Bug that wouldn't block buttons on the bottom panel after reconnecting as a Scav
• Interface block if you go to the “Map” screen without a map
• Bug when the "Receive all" button opened only the first and last message with items
• Various bugs with switching the sound from “outdoor " to "indoor", and back, when reconnecting
• Bug of not blocking an item after it was added to the merchant's sales table
• Cartridges from packs of cartridges found in raid now have the status " found in the raid”
• Error when studying items from the scav box
• Fixes in the flea Market
• The search will be updated if you delete and add an item to the wish list
• Loss of a player's nickname and rating from the offer line after applying filters
• The “search by item" option now resets the selected filters
• Bug displaying the loading spinner on top of the list of offers
• The mount without the “Found in raid" label ceased to be semitransparent (blocked) in the selection of the item for the offer, if you put and remove the mod on it
• Bug when the merchant's avatar was flattened
• Incorrect tag behavior on marked items for a flea market offer if you select multiple items from the container, closing and opening the container
• Horizontal scrollbar on the product sales screen
• Bug when the player couldn't put 2 identical weapons on the flea market if one of them was included in the starter kit for pre-order
• Error 1508 - You send bad items- when putting an empty pack of cartridges on a flea Market
• Bug, when for buying through a flea market goods from npc merchants needed items found in raid
Fixed in weapon presets
• Displaying the indicator “you have mods to build” when there are no mods for the build in the stash
• Bug when the build could have been built with the wrong mod that was not in the preset
• Weapon disassembly bug if you build the same preset twice with the same weapon
• Ability to select items that are blocked for purchase, via the presets by clicking the button “Select all”
• Packs of items are no longer displayed in the purchase lists of preset mods
• The purchase lists of presets no longer display items the player's own offers
• Added an error about lack of space when purchasing preset mods
• Bug when opening presets through the lower panel that caused the game client to freeze
Fixed in the hideout
• Various fixes in the bitcoin farm
• White authorization screen if you improve the pre-order version while in the hideout
• Bug when it was possible to install a filter with zero resource in the “Water collector” and it could not be uninstalled
• Calculation of fuel consumption time in the “Generator " zone
• Bug duplicating the canister icon, when selecting a canister, in the “Generator" zone
• Various bugs in group chat
• Bugs with the discharge of weapons in the stash
• Incorrect position of the fire mod pin and the turn of the barrel of the PPSH
• Visual bug for displaying a zero bonus in the base level zones in the Hideout
• Visual bug with the availability of time selection before the raid on the Laboratory screen
• A bug where the player could spawn outside the location
• Spamming error NullReferenceException: MuzzleManager
• An error that occurs every time after treatment or getting a fracture
• "Failed to create device file" error that occurs during client downtime
• Errors when assigning voice commands
• Spamming error when a large number of bots are active in the offline mode
• Various errors while loading in raid
• Various bugs and issues with Customs location
• Various bugs and improvements related to AI
• Fixed a bug when bots didn't follow a grenade throw with a voiceline
• Fixed a handful of bugs related to bots getting stuck
• Fixed a bug where a Gluhar would not react to a killed in the head ally
• Fixed a bug when bots tried to heal a blacked out body part
• Bots are now able to treat debuffs on blacked out body parts again
• Fixed a handful of bugs with bots knocking out doors
• Other AI related bug fixes and improvements
• Various localization fixes and improvements
• Other minor bugs and issues
---
Changed:
---
• Now it is possible to examine items from the construction requirements screen in the Hideout
• Added displaying the time before the bleeding effect disappears in the stash
• Now if you are not matched to the raid within 45 minutes, the search will be canceled
• Updated SV-98 animation, hold, new animations when entering and exiting a sprint, new hold in the menu and on the loading screen
• Updated PPSH animation, hold, and new animations when entering and exiting a sprint
submitted by lordwerneo to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

MicroStrategy's $425M BTC investment thesis - "buy something that can either get cut in half or 10x"

Amidst all of the DeFi volatility, drama and excitement, Bitcoin has started to seem rather boring. Its price is more or less flat to where it was a year ago and you can’t even farm Yams with it.
While some have started to view Bitcoin as a useless digital rock, someone did find an interesting use case for it. This week, more details surfaced around how MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor convinced the board of a publicly traded company to allocate nearly all of the company’s $500M cash position to bitcoin.
Michael Saylor
Saylor graduated from MIT in 1987 and founded Microstrategy at the age of 24. MicroStrategy is a “Business Intelligence” company, which basically creates software that allows companies to use their own data to drive decision making.
Interesting side note - Saylor, like any good 90’s internet entrepreneur, also bought a bunch of internet domains and was the guy who ultimately sold Voice.com to Block.One (EOS) for $30M.
MicroStrategy’s’ $500M Problem
To most people, having $500 million in cash doesn’t sound like a problem. Up until recently, it wasn’t for large corporations either. There was a time before the ‘08 financial crisis when the risk free rate of return on cash was 5% a year. This means a company could sit on $500M, earn $25M a year for doing nothing, and have cash on hand for a rainy day.
Fast forward to today, when the risk free rate of return has plummeted to 0.69% due to loose fiscal policies (money printer go BRRRR) alongside inflating asset prices, and it’s a different story. In Saylor’s own words, “we just had the awful realization that we were sitting on top of a $500 million ice cube that’s melting.”
Cash is Trash
So what’s a corporation to do with a $500M melting ice cube? It turns out it’s not that easy to unload half a billion dollars in a short amount of time.
You could buy back half a billion of your own company’s shares. For a company like MSTR, Saylor estimated that would take 4 years. Time MiscroStrategy didn’t have.
You could buy real estate. However, commercial real estate prices have collapsed post COVID while property owners still believe their assets are worth what they were in January. In other words, good luck getting a fair market price.
You could buy blue chip equities. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook. However, your risk is symmetric. They can each fall 50% just as easily as they can go up 50%.
That left Saylor with silver, gold, Bitcoin, and other alternative assets. A move the company announced it was exploring on a July earnings call.
A Bold Purchase
Saylor ultimately wanted something that could either get cut in half, or go up by a factor of 10. An investment akin to what buying Amazon or Apple in 2012 was. In other words, asymmetric risk.
As a student of technological history, Saylor observed that the winning strategy over the last ten years has been to find some kind of “digitally dominant network” that dematerializes something fundamental to society. Apple dematerialized mobile communications. Amazon dematerialized commerce. Google dematerialized the process of gathering information.
Something Saylor noted was common to all recent 10X opportunities is buying when they’ve achieved $100B+ marketcaps and are ten times the size of their next biggest competitor. As Bitcoin is the dominant digital network dematerializing money that’s 10x the size of any cryptocurrency competing to be a store-of-value (not counting ETH here), it fit the bill.
Making the purchase
With the thesis in place, the next thing Saylor had to do was get everyone at MicroStrategy to sign-off on the unorthodox decision. To do this, he simply made everyone go down the same Bitcoin rabbithole that most people in the industry have gone down.
He made everyone at the company watch Andreas Antonopoulous videos, read The Bitcoin Standard, watch Eric Vorhees debate Peter Schiff and listen to Pomp and NLW podcasts. With no strong detractors, MicroStrategy turned to execution. They first put $250M to work purchasing 21,454 BTC in August and another $175M (16,796 BTC) in September for a total $425M and 38,250 BTC.
What’s fascinating is that MicroStrategy was able to open such a large position without really moving the market or anyone even taking notice. This speaks to just how liquid of an asset BTC has become. To acquire the September tranche of BTC, Saylor disclosed that they traded continuously for 74 hours, executing 88,617 trades of .19 BTC every 3 seconds.
One for the history books
Skeptics noted that shares of MSTR have been on the downtrend since 2013, as the real reason behind MicroStrategy’s bold move. Regardless, the move has interesting implications for the company’s shareholders. As TBI observed, MicroStrategy is now both a software company and with ⅓ of its marketcap in Bitcoin, a pseudo Bitcoin ETF. At the time of writing, MSTR is up 20% on the week.
Only time will tell if history looks back on this move as a brilliant strategic decision or a massive corporate blunder. In the short term, it scores a massive win for Bitcoin’s digital gold investment thesis.
Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones is in. A publicly traded corporation has made Bitcoin it’s primary treasury asset. As CFOs and fund managers around the world undoubtedly take notice, one has to wonder, who’s next?
PS - I based a lot of this article on Pomp’s interview with Michael Saylor, which I recommend giving a listen.
Original article
Source
submitted by CryptigoVespucci to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Patch .12.7 (Today 14:00 MSK) - Notes & Discussion

Edit: For those on New Reddit, we're trying out the "Event" style post, so you should see a start time listed above this post in your local timezone. It seems like it's a hour ahead for me, for whatever reason. Let me know if it works for you.
The installation of the patch has finished!
The installation of the patch has begun!
Regards to CptQ for this count-down timer for those not on new.reddit:
#Countdown Timer

Per the Official EFT Discord:

Tomorrow [The 27th], at 14.00 Moscow time we plan to start installation of the update 0.12.7. The game will be stopped. Installation of the update will take approximately 4 hours, but can be extended if necessary.
Twitter Post: https://twitter.com/bstategames/status/1287475159432081408
Check out the latest Raid Episode (#4): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u8hkw2UTy4
Help our Wiki Editors out: https://old.reddit.com/EscapefromTarkov/comments/hyftjg/your_patchly_wiki_post/

FAQ:

Below are the patch notes for .12.7 :

___
Patch 0.12.7:
Added:
New ammo:
Added new stimulants:

Optimization:
Fixed:
Fixed in weapon presets
Fixed in the hideout
Changed:
submitted by Fwopp to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

There are signs that a major Bitcoin miner (who was liquidating stored Bitcoins to keep power going) has officially gone busto.

Here you see major hash decline:
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate
Here you can see '1st spends' of Bitcoin
https://terminal.bytetree.com/bitcoin
(I can't verify the accuracy of this).
I've been watching 1st spends a while, averaging like 15,000 more Bitcoins spent than mined for the last year. That's like $180 Mil.
First spends can only be done by miners. Spending more than mined basically means they are spending from old blocks (like blocks that paid out 50 BTC, 25 BTC, 12.5 BTC etc).
There is some bonus value to first spend coins that I don't quite understand, but basically you get 10% or 20% more than the Bitcoin value when you spend them, because they are completely untraceable or something like that. You can sort of trace Bitcoins, but it's very, very hard to trace newly mined Bitcoins until they are spent and linked up with other assets of said individual.
So over the last year, someone has been liquidating these reserve Bitcoins, while hash power of Bitcoin has gone up like double from where it was and payouts have fallen in half, so mining is paying like 25% of what it was this time last year, when BTC was $10k (presuming you stay on old equipment, etc.).
I could imagine a situation where a BTC bull holds these first spend coins for a long time, planning on a rapid price jump which takes a long time to materialize. And then combine that with he $3.5k Corona / Oil dip, which basically forced liquidated everyone on margin position (which Bitcoin bulls tend to do), and I could see a scenario where someone had a wonderfully huge Bitcoin position, and mining op, and then got all their free coins liquidated by margin call, and spent their '1st spend' coins to keep ops going, hoping for rapid price acceleration.
This is all conjecture but I've been expecting something like this to happen. Maybe it's just a blip, and I'm totally wrong, and hash climbs back up, but if it stays down and the BTC price goes up, then I'm thinking a miner went busto, who had be applying $10's of Millions of sell pressure monthly onto the system.
submitted by Bitcoin1776 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Raoul Pal and Michael Saylor's Bitcoin vs Ethereum analysis is deeply flawed, and here is why.

Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative
Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not in Ethereum is a bet that the planned road-map for Ethereum will not be successfully implemented and/or its economic properties will not function as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow for a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero, possibly negative, issuance. Detailed explanations of how this is possible has been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and pundits. We also must take into consideration that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from staking Ether must be accounted to compare the long-term holding value proposition against something like Bitcoin. If the staking rewards provide ~3% annual returns and issuance is ~2% then the equivalent issuance for a PoW protocol would be ~-1% (this will never happen in the Bitcoin protocol).
Addressing the claim that Ether is not money
The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to exclusively function as money is akin to saying that the Internet is not a good emailing system because it is not exclusively designed to transmit emails. This type of narrative is trying to restrict the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol should not have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. The reality is that Ethereum is much better suited for a digital economy - Ether is its native monetary asset. The ability to issue other forms of digital assets and execute computer logic in a trustless unified system with a natively defined monetary asset encompasses all the fundamental building blocks of a future digital economy. This is a future where monetary, financial and information systems can take advantage of the inclusiveness, permissionless and trustless aspects that are central to the Bitcoin value proposition.
The Ethereum protocol is designed to do a lot of wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered by something of value that can be easily liquidated or exchanged into other things of value.... otherwise known as money. The idea that Ether is more akin to oil than gold/money just because the price metric for computations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny. Ether is strictly used as a monetary incentive. It is not magically burned to propel a fictitious machine that runs the network... the computers that run the Ethereum network run under the same physical principles from the ones of Bitcoin - they consume energy and someone has to pay for it. It just so happens that the monetary rewards and cost of transactions operating the Ethereum network are done exclusively in Ether, and therefore it serves as a monetary base. In addition, Ether has been used as the monetary base for the acquisition of other digital assets during their ICO phase. Lastly, Paypal has revealed they will be including Ether as a means of payment for online merchants. Saying that Ether is not money is like saying the sky isn't blue.
Additional thoughts
  1. The combination of staking, EIP-1559 and sharding will allow ETH to reduce issuance ahead of Bitcoin's schedule. It is very likely going to allow for sustainable zero issuance which is something that is still up in the air for Bitcoin.
  2. The switch from PoW to PoS will dramatically reduce the operational cost of the network while incentivizing ownership of Ether. The reduction in operational cost is a huge factor contributing to a sustainable monetary policy.
  3. The true soundness of Ether as a store of wealth needs to account for the returns from staking. That means that even if the nominal issuance remained higher than Bitcoin, it could still a better investment when you account for the staking returns.
  4. Ethereum can operate as an entire financial system. It allows for issuance of new tokens and it can operate autonomously as a digital assets exchange... so that means that it can be an exchange for tokenized FIAT currencies, cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities and commodities. Think of a global market for stocks, commodities, future contracts and derivatives.
  5. The integration with digital assets is done natively in one network. Ethereum serves as a native monetary asset with sound properties. Tokenized bitcoins would not only significantly reduce security (value would be lost if EITHER network is compromised) it also makes little sense if Ethereum's soundness (staking - issuance) is superior to Bitcoin.
  6. There are a gazillion more use cases for Ethereum that would benefit from having a natively defined monetary asset.
  7. Ultimately Bitcoin might serve as digital gold as a hedge against Ethereum. So they can coexist, but they are still competing with each other in terms of building value. Every investor who is getting into cryptocurrencies should be asking what assets to buy and why. Money allocated to Bitcoin cannot be allocated to Ethereum and vice-versa.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to ethereum [link] [comments]

Proposal: The Sia Foundation

Vision Statement

A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong.
In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things.
What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do.
You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us.
At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming.
Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born.
Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized.
Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung.
The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance.
Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
 

Overview

Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.

Organizational Structure

The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community.
The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.

Funding

The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork.
As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks.
The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.

Responsibilities

The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.

Maintain and enhance core Sia software

Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest.
Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release.
Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer.
A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software.
With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code.
Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire.
Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above.
As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Support community services

We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours.
Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.

Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins

Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.)
Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion.
Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants.
Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Protect the ecosystem

When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary.
The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU.
In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.

Drive adoption of Sia

Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers.
In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.

Fund Management

The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months.
On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well.
The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets.
Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses.
 
Addendum: Hardfork Timeline
We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
 
Addendum: Inflation specifics
The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
 

Conclusion

We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve.
Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
submitted by lukechampine to siacoin [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin is Superior to Gold

There is a constant war being fought between goldbugs, like Peter Schiff, and Bitcoin enthusiasts so I decided to make an outline, with links, comparing and contrasting gold and Bitcoin. I made this in November of 2019 (thus the information therein is based on figures from that time) but, being scatter brained, neglected to post this for the Bitcoin community to see. The yardsticks I used to compare the two assets included the following: shipping/transactions costs, storage costs, censorship factor, settlement time, stock to flow, blockchain vs clearing house, validation, etc. I will also touch on Roosevelt's gold confiscation executive order in 1933, transporting gold during the Spanish Civil War in 1936, and the hypothetical cost for Venezuela to repatriate its gold more recently.
I will provide a brief summary first then follow that with the outline I made. This information can be used as a tool for the Bitcoin community to combat some of the silly rhetoric coming from goldbugs such as Peter Schiff and James Rickards. I would like to make it clear, however, that I am not against gold and think that it performed its role as money very well in a technologically inferior era, namely Victorian times but I think Bitcoin performs the functions of money better than gold does in the current environment.
I have been looking to make a contribution to the Bitcoin community and I hope this is a useful and educational tool for everyone who reads this.
Summary:
Shipping/transaction costs: 100 ounces of gold could be shipped for 315 dollars; the comparable dollar value in Bitcoin could be sent for 35 dollars using a non-segwit address. Using historical precendent, it would cost an estimated $32,997,989 to transport $1 billion in gold using the 3.3% fee that the Soviets charged the Spaniards in 1936; a $1 billion Bitcoin transaction moved for $690 last year by comparison. Please note that the only historic example we can provide for moving enormous sums of gold was when the government of Spain transported gold to Moscow during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. More information on this topic will be found in the notes section.
Storage costs: 100 ounces of gold would require $451 per year to custody while the equivalent value of Bitcoin in dollar terms could be stored for the cost of a Ledger Nano S, $59.99. $1 billion USD value of gold would cost $2,900,000 per year while an Armory set up that is more secure would run you the cost of a laptop, $200-300.
Censorship factor: Gold must pass through a 3rd party whenever it is shipped, whether for a transaction or for personal transportation. Gold will typically have to be declared and a customs duty may be imposed when crossing international borders. The key take-away is gatekeepers (customs) can halt movement of gold thus making transactions difficult. $46,000 of gold was seized in India despite the smugglers hiding it in their rectums.
Settlement time: Shipping gold based on 100 ounces takes anywhere from 3-10 days while Bitcoin transactions clear in roughly 10 minutes depending on network congestion and fee size.
Historic confiscation: Franklin Roosevelt confiscated and debased the paper value of gold in 1933 with Executive Order 6102. Since gold is physical in nature and value dense, it is often stored in custodial vaults like banks and so forth which act as a honeypot for rapacious governments.
Stock to flow: Plan B's stock to flow model has become a favorite on twitter. Stock to flow measures the relationship between the total stock of an asset against the amount that is produced in a given year. Currently gold still has the highest value at 62 while Bitcoin sits at 50 in 2nd place. Bitcoin will overtake gold in 2024 after the next halving.
Blockchain vs clearing house: gold payments historically passed through a 3rd party (clearinghouse) in order to be validated while Bitcoin transactions can be self validated through the use of a node.
Key Takeaway from above- Bitcoin is vastly superior to gold in terms of cost, speed, and censorship resistance. One could theoretically carry around an enormous sum of Bitcoin on a cold card while the equivalent dollar value of gold would require a wheelbarrow...and create an enormous target on the back of the transporter. With the exception of the stock to flow ratio (which will flip in Bitcoin's favor soon), Bitcoin is superior to gold by all metrics covered.
Notes:
Shipping/transaction costs
Gold
100 oz = 155,500. 45 x 7 = $315 to ship 100 oz gold.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/839735-katchum/2547831-how-much-does-it-cost-to-ship-silver-and-gold
https://www.coininvest.com/en/shipping-prices/
211 tonnes Venezuela; 3.3% of $10.5 billion = 346,478,880 or 32,997,989/billion usd
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/23/how-to-get-12-billion-of-gold-to-venezuela/ (counter party risk; maduro; quotes from article)
Bitcoin
18 bitcoin equivalent value; 35 USD with legacy address
https://blockexplorer.com/
https://bitcoinfees.info/
1 billion; $690 dollars
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/someone-moved-1-billion-in-a-single-bitcoin-transaction/
Storage costs
Gold
.29% annually; https://sdbullion.com/gold-silver-storage
100 oz – $451/year
$1 billion USD value – $2,900,000/year
Bitcoin
Ledger Nano S - $59.00 (for less bitcoin)
https://shop.ledger.com/products/ledger-nano-s/transparent?flow_country=USA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3ILV5O-Z5wIVTtbACh1zTAwqEAQYASABEgJ5SPD_BwE
Armory - $200-300 cost of laptop for setup
https://www.bitcoinarmory.com/
Censorship factor (must pass through 3rd party)
Varies by country
Gold will typically have to be declared and a customs duty may be imposed
Key take-away is gatekeepers (customs) can halt movement of gold thus making transactions difficult
$46,000 seized in India
https://www.foxnews.com/travel/indian-airport-stops-29-passengers-smuggling-gold-in-their-rectums
Settlement time
Gold
For 100 oz transaction by USPS 3-10 days (must pass through 3rd party)
Bitcoin
Roughly 10 minutes to be included in next block
Historic confiscation-roosevelt 1933
Executive Order 6102 (forced spending, fed could ban cash, go through and get quotes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
“The stated reason for the order was that hard times had caused "hoarding" of gold, stalling economic growth and making the depression worse”
Stock to flow; https://medium.com/@100trillionUSD/modeling-bitcoins-value-with-scarcity-91fa0fc03e25 (explain what it is and use charts in article)
Gold; SF of 62
Bitcoin; SF of 25 but will double to 50 after May (and to 100 in four years)
Blockchain vs clearing house
Transactions can be validated by running a full node vs. third party settlement
Validation
Gold; https://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/cost-to-assay.6732/
(Read some responses)
Bitcoin
Cost of electricity to run a full node
Breaking down Venezuela conundrum; http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/23/how-to-get-12-billion-of-gold-to-venezuela/
“The last (and only) known case of this kind of quantity of gold being transported across state lines took place almost exactly 75 years ago, in 1936, when the government of Spain removed 560 tons of gold from Madrid to Moscow as the armies of Francisco Franco approached. Most of the gold was exchanged for Russian weaponry, with the Soviet Union keeping 2.1% of the funds in the form of commissions and brokerage, and an additional 1.2% in the form of transport, deposit, melting, and refining expenses.”
“Venezuela would need to transport the gold in several trips, traders said, since the high value of gold means it would be impossible to insure a single aircraft carrying 211 tonnes. It could take about 40 shipments to move the gold back to Caracas, traders estimated. “It’s going to be quite a task. Logistically, I’m not sure if the central bank realises the magnitude of the task ahead of them,” said one senior gold banker.”
“So maybe Chávez intends to take matters into his own hands, and just sail the booty back to Venezuela on one of his own naval ships. Again, the theft risk is obvious — seamen can be greedy too — and this time there would be no insurance. Chávez is pretty crazy, but I don’t think he’d risk $12 billion that way.”
“Which leaves one final alternative. Gold is fungible, and people are actually willing to pay a premium to buy gold which is sitting in the Bank of England’s ultra-secure vaults. So why bother transporting that gold at all? Venezuela could enter into an intercontinental repo transaction, where it sells its gold in the Bank of England to some counterparty, and then promises to buy it all back at a modest discount, on condition that it’s physically delivered to the Venezuelan central bank in Caracas. It would then be up to the counterparty to work out how to get 211 tons of gold to Caracas by a certain date. That gold could be sourced anywhere in the world, and transported in any conceivable manner — being much less predictable and transparent, those shipments would also be much harder to hijack. How much of a discount would a counterparty require to enter into this kind of transaction? Much more than 3.3%, is my guess. And again, it’s not entirely clear who would even be willing to entertain the idea. Glencore, perhaps?”
“But here’s one last idea: why doesn’t Chávez crowdsource the problem? He could simply open a gold window at the Banco Central de Venezuela, where anybody at all could deliver standard gold bars. In return, the central bank would transfer to that person an equal number of gold bars in the custody of the Bank of England, plus a modest bounty of say 2% — that’s over $15,000 per 400-ounce bar, at current rates. It would take a little while, but eventually the gold would start trickling in: if you’re willing to pay a constant premium of 2% over the market price for a good, you can be sure that the good in question will ultimately find its way to your door. And the 2% cost of acquiring all that gold would surely be much lower than the cost of insuring and shipping it from England. It would be an elegant market-based solution to an artificial and ideologically-driven problem; I daresay Chávez might even chuckle at the irony of it. He’d just need to watch out for a rise in Andean banditry, as thieves tried to steal the bars on their disparate journeys into Venezuela.”
submitted by cornish_roots to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Announcement on Preparations of Coming BCH Fork & Launch of Forked Coins Futures Markets

Announcement on Preparations of Coming BCH Fork & Launch of Forked Coins Futures Markets

https://preview.redd.it/etcgo7f7l0p51.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fdc41c9077c5d3461e29829c2e76de3853e4915
Dear CoinEx users,
The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) network will undergo a semi-annual hard fork upgrade on November 15 as scheduled. The Bitcoin ABC team plans to introduce new Coinbase rules in this upgrade, and allocate 8% of block rewards to developers to support the infrastructure construction of BCH, namely Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP). This Plan has aroused hot discussions and controversies in the BCH community. Among them, the Bitcoin Cash Node development team launched BCHN full node that is incompatible with the BCH full node developed by the BitCoin ABC team, and the BCHN full node implementation removed the Coinbase rules and won support from most miners.
Since the Bitcoin ABC full node implementation is widely used and recognized, it is very likely that BCH will be split into two chains during the upgrade. One of which will inherit the name of BCH and the other will adopt a brand new name. If a fork occurs, all BCH holders can get two cryptocurrencies at a 1:1 ratio.
Unlike previous forks, this potential fork may be unable to continue due to lack of hashrate for a certain chain, or it possibly bring about two chains but not knowing which chain will use the name of BCH. More complexly, this fork lacks a transaction replay protection mechanism, which may result in considerable chaos and users’ asset loss.
CoinEx is a strong proponent of the BCH ecosystem, supporting trading markets with BCH as the pricing coin. To provide users with better services, we are going to launch futures markets of BCH forked coins on September 24, 2020. The details are as follows:
  1. Before the official fork on November 15, users can convert BCH into BCHA and BCHN at a 1:1 ratio. BCHA represents the Bitcoin ABC chain after the fork while BCHN represents the Bitcoin Cash Node chain. Also, users can re-convert these two forked coins into BCH at the same ratio before the fork. We will support BCHA/BCH and BCHN/BCH markets soon, and more markets later if needed.
  2. If BCH forks into two chains on November 15, we will appoint the chain with the highest price at the last moment before the fork as BCH. Users who hold the forked coin of that chain can obtain BCH at a 1:1 ratio, and BCH holders can get two different coins at the same ratio. In the future, we will re-adjust the naming rules based on the community consensus.
  3. If Bitcoin Cash does not fork on November 15, then whichever chain wins will inherit BCH. At the same time, we will delist the forked coin of the other chain. Therefore, please be aware of investment risks.
Opening Time
  1. Call Auction 3:00-11:50 September 24, 2020 (UTC)Orders can be placed and cancelled 11:50-12:00 September 24, 2020 (UTC) Orders can be placed but cannot be cancelled
  2. Trading 12:00 September 24, 2020 (UTC)
Risk Warning:Since BCH fork owns great uncertainty, trading or investing in forked coins is risky. Without support of miners, a chain may fail to survive and all related coins will be in vain. Please be note that CoinEx will not promise for the future values of any forked coins!
CoinEx TeamSeptember 23, 2020
Follow us Facebook | Twitter | RedditContact us Support | TelegramAbout us Website | Announcements | APP
submitted by CoinExcom to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Raoul Pal and Michael Saylor's Bitcoin vs Ethereum analysis is deeply flawed... here is why.

Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative
Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not in Ethereum is a bet that the planned road-map for Ethereum will not be successfully implemented and/or its economic properties will not function as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow for a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero, possibly negative, issuance. Detailed explanations of how this is possible has been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and pundits. We also must take into consideration that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from staking Ether must be accounted to compare the long-term holding value proposition against something like Bitcoin. If the staking rewards provide ~3% annual returns and issuance is ~2% then the equivalent issuance for a PoW protocol would be ~-1% (this will never happen in the Bitcoin protocol).
Addressing the claim that Ether is not money
The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to exclusively function as money is akin to saying that the Internet is not a good emailing system because it is not exclusively designed to transmit emails. This type of narrative is trying to restrict the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol should not have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. The reality is that Ethereum is much better suited for a digital economy - Ether is its native monetary asset. The ability to issue other forms of digital assets and execute computer logic in a trustless unified system with a natively defined monetary asset encompasses all the fundamental building blocks of a future digital economy. This is a future where monetary, financial and information systems can take advantage of the inclusiveness, permissionless and trustless aspects that are central to the Bitcoin value proposition.
The Ethereum protocol is designed to do a lot of wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered by something of value that can be easily liquidated or exchanged into other things of value.... otherwise known as money. The idea that Ether is more akin to oil than gold/money just because the price metric for computations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny. Ether is strictly used as a monetary incentive. It is not magically burned to propel a fictitious machine that runs the network... the computers that run the Ethereum network run under the same physical principles from the ones of Bitcoin - they consume energy and someone has to pay for it. It just so happens that the monetary rewards and cost of transactions operating the Ethereum network are done exclusively in Ether, and therefore it serves as a monetary base. In addition, Ether has been used as the monetary base for the acquisition of other digital assets during their ICO phase. Lastly, Paypal has revealed they will be including Ether as a means of payment for online merchants. Saying that Ether is not money is like saying the sky isn't blue.
Additional thoughts
  1. The combination of staking, EIP-1559 and sharding will allow ETH to reduce issuance ahead of Bitcoin's schedule. It is very likely going to allow for sustainable zero issuance which is something that is still up in the air for Bitcoin.
  2. The switch from PoW to PoS will dramatically reduce the operational cost of the network while incentivizing ownership of Ether. The reduction in operational cost is a huge factor contributing to a sustainable monetary policy.
  3. The true soundness of Ether as a store of wealth needs to account for the returns from staking. That means that even if the nominal issuance remained higher than Bitcoin, it could still a better investment when you account for the staking returns.
  4. Ethereum can operate as an entire financial system. It allows for issuance of new tokens and it can operate autonomously as a digital assets exchange... so that means that it can be an exchange for tokenized FIAT currencies, cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities and commodities. Think of a global market for stocks, commodities, future contracts and derivatives.
  5. The integration with digital assets is done natively in one network. Ethereum serves as a native monetary asset with sound properties. Tokenized bitcoins would not only significantly reduce security (value would be lost if EITHER network is compromised) it also makes little sense if Ethereum's soundness (staking - issuance) is superior to Bitcoin.
  6. There are a gazillion more use cases for Ethereum that would benefit from having a natively defined monetary asset.
  7. Ultimately Bitcoin might serve as digital gold as a hedge against Ethereum. So they can coexist, but they are still competing with each other in terms of building value. Every investor who is getting into cryptocurrencies should be asking what assets to buy and why. Money allocated to Bitcoin cannot be allocated to Ethereum and vice-versa.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Gridcoin 5.0.0.0-Mandatory "Fern" Release

https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/5.0.0.0
Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that.
Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap.
We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout.
Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.

Highlights

Protocol

Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now.
Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date.
The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.

GUI

Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.

Blockchain

The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use.
There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all.
I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures.
The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!

Summary Changelog

Accrual

Changed

Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.

Removed

Beacons

Added

Changed

Removed

Unaltered

As a reminder:

Superblocks

Added

Changed

Removed

Voting

Added

Changed

Removed

Detailed Changelog

[5.0.0.0] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"

Added

Changed

Removed

Fixed

submitted by jamescowens to gridcoin [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 30;

Disclaimer: This is sort of my own arbitrary editing, so there could be some misunderstandings.
I root for the spread of good spirits and transparency of IF.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:45
So why don't we just copy Avalanche? Well that's pretty simple ...
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:47
1. It doesn't scale very well with the amount of nodes in the network that have no say in the consensus process but are merely consensus consuming nodes (i.e. sensors, edge devices and so on). If you assume that the network will never have more than a few thousand nodes then thats fine but if you want to build a DLT that can cope with millions of devices then it wont work because of the message complexity.
2. If somebody starts spamming conflicts, then the whole network will stop to confirm any transactions and will grind to a halt until the conflict spamming stops. Avalanche thinks that this is not a huge problem because an attacker would have to spend fees for spamming conflicts which means that he couldn't do this forever and would at some point run out of funds.
IOTA tries to build a feeless protocol and a consensus that stops to function if somebody spams conflicts is really not an option for us.
3. If a medium sized validator goes offline due to whatever reason, then the whole network will again stop to confirm any transactions because whenever a query for a nodes opinion can not be answered they reset the counter for consecutive successful voting rounds which will prevent confirmations. Since nodes need to open some ports to be available for queries it is super easy to DDOS validators and again bring the network confirmations to 0.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:05
4. Avalanche still processes transactions in "chunks/blocks" by only applying them after they have gone through some consensus process (gathered enough successfull voting rounds), which means that the nodes will waste a significant amount of time where they "wait" for the next chunk to be finished before the transactions are applied to the ledger state. IOTA tries to streamline this process by decoupling consensus and the booking of transactions by using the "parallel reality based ledger state" which means that nodes in IOTA will never waste any time "waiting" for decisions to be made. This will give us much higher throughput numbers.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:11
5. Avalanche has some really severe game theoretic problems where nodes are incentivized to attach their transactions to the already decided parts of the DAG because then things like conflict spam won't affect these transactions as badly as the transactions issued by honest nodes. If however every node would follow this "better and selfish" tip selection mechanism then the network will stop to work at all.
Overall the "being able to stop consensus" might not be too bad since you can't really do anything really bad (i.e. double spend) which is why we might not see these kind of attacks in the immediate future but just wait until a few DeFi apps are running on their platform where smart contracts are actually relying on more or less real time execution of the contracts. Then there might be some actual financial gains to be made if the contract halts and we might see alot of these things appear (including selfish tip selection).
Avalanche is barely a top 100 project and nobody attacks these kind of low value networks unless there is something to be gained from such an attack. Saying that the fact that its live on mainnet and hasn't been attacked in 3 weeks is a proof for its security is completely wrong.
Especially considering that 95% of all stake are controlled by avalanche itself
If you control > 50% of the voting power then you essentially control the whole network and attacks can mostly be ignored
I guess there is a reason for avalanche only selling 10% of the token supply to the public because then some of the named problems are less likely to appear
📷
Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:21
I have to say that wtf's suggestion is pretty condescending to all our researchers. It seems heavy on the troll aspect to suggest that we should ditch all our work because iota is only good at industrial adoption. Does wtf actually expect a response to this? Or is this grand standing?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:22
The whole argument of "why don't you just use X instead of trying to build a better version" is also a completely idiotic argument. Why did ETH write their own protocol if Bitcoin was already around? Well because they saw problems in Bitcoins approach and tried to improve it.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:27
u/Navin Ramachandran [IF] Its like most of his arguments ... remember when he said we should implement colored coins in 2nd layer smart contracts instead of the base layer because they would be more expressive (i.e. turing complete) completely discarding that 2nd layer smart contracts only really work if you have a consensus on data and therefore state for which you need the "traceability" of funds to create these kind of mini blockchains in the tangle?
Colored coins "enable" smart contracts and it wouldnt work the other way round - unless you have a platform that works exactly like ETH where all the nodes validate a single shared execution platform of the smart contracts which is not really scalable and is exactly what we are trying to solve with our approach.
📷
Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:28
Always easier to criticise than build something yourself. But yet he keeps posting these inflammatory posts.
At this point is there any doubt if he is making these comments constructively?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:43
If he at least would try to understand IOTAs vision ... then maybe he wouldn't have to ask things like "Why don't you just copy a tech that only works with fees"
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:35
u/Shaar
I thought this would only be used to 'override' finality, eg if there were network splits. But not in normal consensus
That is not correct. Every single transaction gets booked on arrival using the parallel reality based ledger state. If there are conflicts then we create a "branch" (container in the ledger state) that represents the perception that this particular double spend would be accepted by consensus. After consensus is reached, the container is simply marked as "accepted" and all transactions that are associated with this branch are immediately confirmed as well. This allows us to make the node use all of its computing ressources 24/7 without having to wait for any kind of decision to be made and allows us to scale the throughput to its physical limits. That's the whole idea of the "parallel reality based ledger state" instead of designing a data structure that models the ledger state "after consensus" like everybody else is doing it is tailored to model the ledger state "before consensus" and then you just flip a flag to persist your decision. The "resync mechanism" also uses the branches to measure the amount of approval a certain perception of the ledger state receives. So if my own opinion is not in line with what the rest of the network has accepted (i.e. because I was eclipsed or because there was a network split), then I can use the weight of these branches to detect this "being out of sync" and can do another larger query to re-evaluate my decision.(수정됨)
Also what happens in IOTA if DRNG notes would fall out, does the network continue if no new RNGs appear for a while? Or will new nodes be added sufficiently fast to the DRNG committee that no one notices?
Its a comittee and not just a single DRNG provider. If a few nodes fail then it will still produce random numbers. And even if the whole comittee fails there are fallback RNG's that would be used instead
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:58
And multiverse doesn't use FPC but only the weight of these branches in the same way as blockchain uses the longest chain wins consensus to choose between conflicts. So nodes simply attach their transactions to the transactions that they have seen first and if there are conflicts then you simply monitor which version received more approval and adjust your opinion accordingly.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 5:07
We started integrating some of the non-controversial concepts (like the approval reset switch) into FPC and are currently refactoring goshimmer to support this
We are also planning to make the big mana holders publish their opinion in the tangle as a public statement, which allows us to measure the rate of approval in a similar way as multiverse would do it
So its starting to converge a bit but we are still using FPC as a metastability breaking mechanism
Once the changes are implemented it should be pretty easy to simulate and test both approaches in parallel
📷
Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 5:53
So the ask is that we ditch all our work and fork Avalanche because it has not been attacked in the month or so it has been up?
u/Navin Ramachandran [IF] yeah, that's hilarious. Avalanche consensus (at least their WP version) is clearly scientifically unsound.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:43
u/wtf maybe you should research avalanche before proposing such a stupid idea
and you will see that what I wrote is actually true
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:44
paying fees is what "protects" them atm
and simply the fact that nobody uses the network for anything of value yet
we cant rely on fees making attack vectors "inattractive"
📷
Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 10:17
well (1.) very obviously the metastability problems are not a problem in practice,
putting "very obviously" before questionable statements very obviously shows that you are seeking a constructive dialogue 📷 (to make metastability work, the adversary needs to more-or-less know the current opinion vectors of most of the honest participants; I don't see why a sufficiently well-connected adversary cannot query enough honest nodes frequently enough to achieve that)
(2.) .... you'd need an unpredictable number every few tens/hundreds milliseconds, but your DRNG can only produce one every O(seconds).
the above assumption (about "every few tens/hundreds milliseconds") is wrong
We've had this discussion before, where you argued that the assumptions in the FPC-BI paper (incl. "all nodes must be known") are not to be taken 100% strictly, and that the results are to be seen more of an indication of overall performance.
Aham, I see. So, unfortunately, all that time that I invested into explaining that stuff during our last conversation was for nothing. Again, very briefly. The contents of the FPC-BI paper is not "an indication of overall performance". It rather shows (to someone who actually read and understood the paper) why the approach is sound and robust, as it makes one understand what is the mechanism that causes the consensus phenomenon occur.
Yet you don't allow for that same argument to be valid for the "metastability" problem in avalanche,
Incorrect. It's not "that same argument". FPC-BI is a decent academic paper that has precisely formulated results and proofs. The Ava WP (the probabilistic part of it), on the other hand, does not contain proofs of what they call results. More importantly, they don't even show a clear path to those proofs. That's why their system is scientifically unsound.
even when there's a live network that shows that it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't show that it doesn't matter. It only shows that it works when not properly attacked. Their WP doesn't contain any insight on why those attacks would be difficult/impossible.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 10:56
That proposal was so stupid - Avalanche does several things completely different and we are putting quite a bit og effort into our solution to pretty much fix all of Avalanches shortcomings
If we just wanted to have a working product and dont care about security or performance then we could have just forked a blockchaib
I am pretty confident that once we are done - its going to be extremely close to the besttheoretical thresholds that DLTs will ever be able to achieve for an unsharded baselayer
​-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📷
Bas어제 오전 2:43
Yesterday I was asked how a reasonably big company no one has heard of could best move forward implementing Access for thousands of locations worldwide. (Sorry for the vagueness, it’s all confidential.) They read the article and want to implement it because it seems to fit a problem they’re currently trying to solve. Such moves will vastly increase the utility of protocols like IOTA, and is what the speculation is built on. I do not think you can overestimate what impact Access is going to have. It’s cutting out the middleman for simple things; no server or service needed. That’s huge.
So yes, I think this space will continue to grow u/Coinnave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📷
Angelo Capossele [IF]2020.10.02.
In short: we are planning a new v0.3.0 release that should happen very soon. This version will bring fundamental changes to the structure of the entire codebase (but without additional features) so that progressing with the development will be easier and more consistent. We have also obtained outstanding results with the dRNG committee managed by the GoShimmer X-Team, so that will also be integral part of v0.3.0. After that, we will merge the Value Tangle with the Message Tangle, so to have only one Tangle and make the TSA and the orphanage easier to manage. And we are also progressing really well with Mana, that will be the focus after the merge. More or less this is what is going to happen this month.
We will release further details with the upcoming Research Status Update 📷

submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Lition - $8 Million Dollar Market Cap With Real Use Right Now and a New Product They Are Developing Which Has Huge Potential.

Preface

I’m not usually one to shill my own coins but I’ve stolen a few good picks from this sub so I thought I’d share a new one I recently stumbled upon. Before I go into more details, I’d like to preface this by saying that I never invest in anything which I don’t think has the fundamentals to last at least 5-10 years and I don’t think this is a project which you will see a few hundred percent gains in a month or two. The hype isn’t there with this project and it’s more of a mid-long term play. If you want overnight gains, gamble on some of the smaller caps posted in this sub which are more like ponzi schemes riding on DeFi hype which you sell to a greater fool.

Introduction

Lition is a layer 2 blockchain infrastructure on top of Ethereum that enables commercial usage of dApps. The Lition protocol complements the Ethereum mainchain by adding features such as privacy, scalability and deletability for GDPR compliance. Everybody can choose to build on Lition without the need for permission.
In addition to the above, they also have a P2P energy trading platform currently operating and is supplying green power to customers in over 1000 towns and cities across Germany. Through their power platform, Lition customers are able to save about 20% on their monthly energy bill, while producers generate up to 30% higher profits since they are cutting out the middle men.
However, the real moonshot here is not their already successful smart energy platform (which utilises the same token) it is the enterprise layer 2 solution described in the quote above.
Their layer 2 enterprise infrastructure which is still in development will offer infinite scalability through sidechains and nodes staking LIT tokens on these sidechains. Block times will be fast at around 3 seconds and fees will be tiny fractions of a cent. However, the real selling point for enterprises will be that the data on these sidechains can be deleted and can be public or private, with private chains being validated via Zero-Knowledge proofs to verify that the private data is correct. This is huge and makes Lition a solution for a wide range of enterprise use cases due to these optional features. But it doesn’t stop there. Lition is also GDPR compliant - a big deal for Europe based enterprises and for the record, very very few blockchain solutions are GDPR compliant (I believe VeChain is one of the few other projects which are).

Important Bullet Points

Tokenomics

Their token has two primary uses. First, it is a utility token and they plan on making the LIT token the preferred payment method for all of the services on the Lition protocol. Secondly, it is used as collateral for staking which I can see locking up a large proportion of the supply in the future.
Unfortunately the circulating supply is currently 50% of the max supply but that said, coins like LINK have just 35% of the total tokens currently circulating, so relative to other projects, this isn’t too bad and many of the tokens are still to be earned by staking.

Conclusion

With their existing energy platform seeing real adoption and steady growth in Germany, in my opinion, this alone would be enough to justify their current market cap. However, I can see their second layer solution for enterprise being a really big deal in the future as protocol coins tend to accrue more value than utility tokens. As a versatile L2 solution for Ethereum, LIT gets the best of both worlds - adoption and network effects from Ethereum by helping it to scale as well as accruing value from the wide range of enterprise use cases which can be built on top of Lition. At just $8 million dollars in market cap, it seems to me that their work-in-progress L2 enterprise solution has not been priced in. However, due to a lack of hype and marketing right now, I don’t see LIT exploding in the short term. Rather, I can see it slowly outperforming ETH and climbing up the CMC rankings throughout this bullrun, much like Chainlink did in the bear market. Their building and partnerships over marketing strategy also reminds me when I held Chainlink back in 2018 when Sergey was busy building out the project rather than blowing their ICO money on marketing a bunch of vaporware like so many other projects.
Personally, I can see LIT becoming a top 100 project (not top 10) as it isn’t the first of an important new type of project like Chainlink was/is but it is an L2 protocol with unique advantages and selling points over other existing L2 projects which scatter the top 20-200 range. This would put the market cap at just under $120 million dollars which is a 15x from here. This is of course a valuation which assumes that the total crypto market cap remains where it is right now at just under $400 billion dollars. However, if BTC makes it to 100K and Ethereum gets to $5K then that is another 10x from here which compounds on any LIT/BTC or LIT/ETH ratio gains. In this scenario, a top 100 project would be worth around $1 BILLION DOLLARS by market cap which is over 100x from here and probably even more if ETH hits 10K and Bitcoin dominance falls back down to the 30% range or below towards the end of the bullrun. Disclaimer, the above figures are a theoretical best case scenario and are far from financial advice. They are my moonshot estimates which assumes all goes well for the project and the wider crypto space.
Website: https://www.lition.io/
CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/lition
Medium: https://medium.com/lition-blog

TL;DR

TL;DR: LIT has current real world use which is consistently growing with their P2P energy trading platform and has huge potential with their new L2 protocol for enterprise due to its unique features. They have a close partnership with SAP and are also partnered with Microsoft. Currently around #400 on CMC, my target is for LIT to be top 100 by the end of the bullrun.
Edit: Sorry 4chan, I didn't mean to shill one of your FUDed coins. Lit is a shitcoin scam, ignore this post.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Why 21 million?

I understand the advantages of sound money and digital scarcity is personal the element of btc that attracts me most.
I’ve heard some really compelling arguments from Austrian based economists for bitcoins finite number but I’ve not heard anyone explain why the cap is set at 21 million. Rather than 19 or 35.
Why is 21 million a good number to cap supply at? What relation does that supply have with the addressable market of people and the demand they will create.
I feel bitcoin maximalists make a strong argument about software eating the world and due to gresham's law and game theory why bitcoin adoption will increase over time. If this happens and bitcoin become the reserve currency of the world and all the supply is mined what kind of economy would it create?
I understand bitcoin can be divided in to sats but what happens for example 200 years after the last block is mined. Lets say the population has grown substantially without enough bitcoin to go around why would anyone ever sell a sat. Will economic growth stagnate? Will we also need a fiat currency for payments and will bitcoin always be a store of value separate to the day to day transactional ‘real’ economy.
submitted by JeffreyBeaumont89 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] A matter of time

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by georgiobtc [link]
If you stacked $100 worth of bitcoin every week since the last US presidential debate you would have over 6.15 right now...
Total spent: $20800 Current value: $69000
georgiobtc your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Going Bankless in NY

Ok so about a year ago i discovered crypto, my first purchase was 20 bucks worth of BTC at about 4 am, I had just finished verifying my coinbase account and was excited but nervous. I sat watching it flucuate and move up in value. I was instantly hooked.
Fast forward to current times and while i still do hold bitcoin I am heavily invested in ethereum and erc-20 tokens, while i still do buy ether on coinbase pro or gemani, im mostly using uniswap and about a third of my portfolio is locked up in LP tokens staked for UNI. Ive been interested in defi since i discovered it this past spring and with good luck on my side ive taken profits on LINK i bought last winter and used my UNI airdrop to actually get involved. Im hooked again.
I want to take the rest of my fiat savings and cash it in for stable coins to stake that i can borrow against in case of emergency, its looking like if i did things this way it would be in my best interest to obviously keep a checking account so that I can actually utilize any funds i would borrow as I am in ny state and most of the options like nexo, block fi and crypto.com are not available for me. I am not looking to do anything illegal or use a vpn to mask my location. We can use celsius but in NY state it is very limited in comparison and to be honest something about it just tickles me the wrong way.
Im really asking and looking for two things.
  1. Ny state friendly or not, if you have made this move what did you do ? How do you think the best way to go about it is and what are some serious things to look out for. I would prefer responses from people from NY state but would appreciate hearing from anyone at all.
  2. while I have staked on multiple platforms compound, aave and uni I have never borrowed anything yet, how seamless is this normally and also is it possible to still be liquidated if you only borrow against stable coins ? I normally use dai which as we know does flucuate in price a little.
Bonus round: I have also heard that if you stake currency on lets say aave for example that borrowing against that allows you to utilize and sell your crypto without creating a taxable situation but whenever I hear this its never really made clear. Is this true, can i legit stake dai on aave and then borrow crypto against it, sell it on an exchange and withdraw it to my bank account to use without having to pay any taxs on the sale ?
Anyways thankyou all for reading my little thing, any help is super appreciated. Also yes I am aware of the risks of doing something like this but to be honest i am an everyday dude who works a shitty job, im willing to take these risks so I can pull myself out of this position.
submitted by jonfoxsaid to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What Happens When The Last Bitcoin Is Mined? The Blockchain Technology Explained - The real value of ... Ripple XRP: Secret Message In Last Bitcoin Block & GoMama Prefers Ripple Over Stellar Last Time This Trend Transpired, Bitcoin Rallied 2,700% ... LAST WARNING FOR ALL BITCOIN BULLS!!!!! TA Crypto price prediction, analysis, news, trading, charts

Several early adopters were wise or fortunate enough to earn, buy or mine vast quantities of Bitcoin before it held significant value. The most famous of these is Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakomoto. Satoshi is thought to hold one million bitcoins or roughly 4.75% of the total supply (of 21 million). If Satoshi were to dump these coins on the market, the ensuing supply glut would collapse ... September The number of bitcoin ATMs had doubled over the last 18 months and reached ... June The Bitcoin symbol was encoded in Unicode version 10.0 at position U+20BF (₿) in the Currency Symbols block. June 12th Bitcoin exchange rate exceeds USD$3000 to the BTC. August 1st Bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The split ... The Bitcoin.com Explorer provides block, transaction, and address data for the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin (BTC) chains. The data is displayed within an awesome interface and is available in several different languages. The most popular and trusted block explorer and crypto transaction search engine. In the introduction of Bitcoin, each new block has earned 50 bitcoins to the miner, which has dropped by half in four years: there are now 12.5 new bitcoins in each block. In addition, miners keep mining charges attached to transactions they add to their blocks. Anyone can be a Bitcoin miner to win these coins. However, Bitcoin mining has become increasingly specialized over the years and ...

[index] [50759] [9863] [16057] [44208] [9831] [20573] [7195] [36621] [43232] [40595]

What Happens When The Last Bitcoin Is Mined?

Close. This video is unavailable. what happens when the last bitcoin is mined, outperforming altcoins, and checking the current market prices. https://verifiedtopics.com/a-glimpse-into-the-fu... What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... BEARS and BULLS FIGHTING , Who will end up controling the BITCOIN market.... Let me know what you think in the comments below, Thanks for all the support! Don't forget to LIKE, COMMENT, and SHARE ... Last time bitcoin hash rate took a nosedive to a new low, bitcoin price turned bullish. This is what btc price charts tell us! #Bitcoin #btc Headlines: https...

#