Bitcoin's ponzi schemes never disappeared, they modified ...

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

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 Funds deposited or withdrawn from a VA address or wallet with direct and indirect exposure links to known suspicious sources, including darknet marketplaces, mixing/tumbling services,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

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

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

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]

Transfering money OUT of Lebanon

The dumbass high school graduate returns, with double the aplomb and half the brain cells! I asked this question not 2 minutes ago, scrolled down, found a similar post, deleted mine, realized all the help there was for transferring money INTO Lebanon, and proceeded to rush to rewrite my post like the moron I am.
If you needed proof I'm an idiot, here it is, boys and girls. Gebran Bassil, eat your heart out.
On a legitimate note, after asking when to leave Lebanon and where to go (common answers being "You needed to be on a plane like, yesterday, homie" and "LITERALLY ANYWHERE") I am now faced with a secondary problem: How the fuck do I get money out? I'm going to assume the banks are worthless. We have no credit cards, nor means of buying/transferring Bitcoin (though that's an avenue I need to look into some more), though I'm not sure how much those would have helped in the first place. Banks are out, cryptocurrency is probably out too. What does that leave? If the amount of money matters, let's assume tuition money + cost of living, so not at all an insubstantial amount, more than likely in the 20k+ dollar range. We have the funds, just no way of getting them out.
Take pity on a particularly stupid student and help me out here. Again!(Part 2: The Ponzi Scheme Strikes Back) If it makes you feel better, this is probably considered charity somewhere. It's at least volunteer work. Use me on your resume to tell your employer how you're good with disabled kids.
Okay, this got dark. But on a serious note, I can imagine a lot of questions like this get asked, and I'm very thankful to anyone who takes the time out of their day to answer.
submitted by Derpitus67 to lebanon [link] [comments]

Why Ethereum Problems Make UMI the Flagship Among the New Generation Cryptocurrencies

Why Ethereum Problems Make UMI the Flagship Among the New Generation Cryptocurrencies

https://preview.redd.it/8skuypxp9lj51.jpg?width=1023&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba5a38ba592428f92dc7c1943a780ff127132875
Ethereum cryptocurrency that comes second in terms of capitalization on the crypto market is traditionally seen as fast and profitable. However, over the last few weeks it's had a rough patch. Since early August, the network has had huge queues of transactions pending processing while fees have skyrocketed and surpassed the historical high.
The main issue though is that even fees of a few dollars per transfer don't help get rid of the“traffic jams”. The cause of this is numerous DeFi projects and a huge number of financial pyramids based on the Ethereum platform. Both generate excessive load on the network.
The situation is downright unpleasant, and our users might question whether the UMI network could face a similar challenge? We'd like to assure you it could not. The UMI network is by default protected against these problems — it cannot have “traffic jams”, fees or financial pyramids. But first things first.
How has the Ethereum network ground to a halt?
In its report dated August 4, Arcane Research that provides analysis within the field of cryptocurrency stated that over the previous week the daily size of transaction fees in the Ethereum network has surged up to a record high for over two and a half years. On August 3, the median value #%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F)of the fee amounted to $0.82, with the overall amount of transaction fees totaling $2 mln. However, it only signaled the start of real problems.
Over the next week, fees continued to grow and by August 11 the median fee value almost doubled equaling $1.57. Larry Cermak, an expert at a big analytical and news-making crypto portal The Block, wrote in his August 15 tweet that over a week the total amount of transaction fees in the Ethereum network totaled $34.5 mln, having surpassed its historical high. Meanwhile, in the Bitcoin network that is seen as too expensive the fees were almost four times lower at $9 mln.
The total fee amount paid by cryptocurrency users over a week:
  • Ethereum — $34.5 mln;
  • Bitcoin — $9 mln;
  • Monero — $2,240;
  • Tezos — $1,876;
  • Cardano — $1,615;
  • XRP — $1,138;
  • BSV — $1,102;
  • Stellar — $1,059;
  • Bitcoin Cash — $1,027;
  • UMI — $0. Let's talk about it a little later.

https://preview.redd.it/z9azd9v6alj51.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=25c365d6e14665ecda4a2b8d19b2fc57dd5cde1e
Historical Growth Chart for Ethereum Fees. Source
The existing situation shows that Ethereum is actually not as fast and profitable as commonly cited. Additionally, this could happen to almost any cryptocurrency except UMI that charges no fees whatsoever. We will tell you why.
Why have these problems emerged?
There is nothing unoriginal: the Ethereum network simply can't handle an increased load. Arcane Research analysts consider that a principal cause of this situation is the constantly increasing number of the DeFi ecosystem projects built on the Ethereum blockchain. Their number is growing all the time which causes the overload of the network. As of August 12, the total amount of funds in DeFi applications reached $4.3 billion which is 19.5% higher than that in the past week. At the time of writing this article, the amount surged to $6.21 billion. You can see the current data here. What is the most unpleasant about DeFi protocols is that a lot of them are scam projects.
Which is not the worst part though. There is also another factor that significantly slows down the Ethereum network. There are a lot of pyramid-like projects that are built on the EOS platform and use smart contracts. One of them is SmartWay Forsage, which regularly overloads the network with a large number of transactions, causes traffic jams, and, consequently, leads to increased fees (keep in mind that Ethereum miners choose transactions with a higher commission). Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, revealed his disapproval of the SmartWay Forsage methodology and asked them to "leave and not pollute Ethereum ecology in the future". However, the project is slow to do this — it continues to deceive users.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of scam projects which abounds on the EOS network –– they continually emerge, work for a while, then go down as scams and are replaced with new ones. This never-ending stream of "investment projects" based on the Ponzi scheme overloads the system. This is the reason why Adam Back, a pioneer of the crypto industry and founder of the technology company Blockstream, equated Ethereum with such infamous projects as Onecoin and Bitconnect. Adam Back's solid dig at Ethereum became the subject of much debate among crypto enthusiasts.
Of course, it all doesn't mean that Ethereum is a bad cryptocurrency. On the contrary, it has a lot of advantages over other coins. But all that has happened exposes Ethereum's faults which must be eliminated. The problem is that they may not be fixable. It is far from certain that the developers will be able to get rid of all the defects as the system has huge scalability problems.
The crypto community has to admit that Ethereum, like other first-generation cryptocurrencies, has issues with capacity, fees, and scalability and is gradually becoming obsolete.
2020 is the time for young innovative cryptocurrencies such as UMI.
UMI is the flagship of new-generation cryptocurrencies.
In real fact, any cryptocurrency could face it. Each cryptocurrency charges fees which typically surge when the network is overloaded or the price is going up. Everyone will remember 2017 when in line with price growth and the network's overload Bitcoin transaction fee reached a high of around $40.
But when it comes to UMI, it works the other way round. The UMI network's advantages are high capacity, no fees, and scaling possibilities. It uses the best and fastest crypto industry solutions and excludes all inefficient methods by default. Smart optimization in combination with the Proof-of-Authority technology operating on the master node basis enables almost instant payments.
At the stage of network testing, an incredibly high capacity was achieved:
  • up to 4,369 transactions per second;
  • up to 262,140 transactions per minute;
  • up to 15,728,400 transactions per hour;
  • up to 377,481,600 transactions per day.
Ethereum processes about 20 transactions per second. It means that the UMI network can process transactions that Ethereum processes over a year in 1 to 5 days — and with no fees.
https://preview.redd.it/rwohnov3alj51.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=4329b75c0bd8b7a22276b529f5ca433d17a0874f
The UMI network can process transactions that Ethereum processes over a year in a few days and with no fees. More details
What is more important is that less than 0.001% of the network's overall potential is used now. The UMI network has a lot of reserve capacity and can handle hundreds of thousands of times heavier load. Moreover, with scaling possibilities, UMI can keep up with the times. The UMI code ensures the safe introduction of any upgrades — the network can be easily modified and scaled with cutting edge technology solutions. In other words, traffic jams will never pose a problem for us. UMI will instantly process all transactions, with no fees. Always.
https://preview.redd.it/t0068th0alj51.png?width=544&format=png&auto=webp&s=019f46ec8c093480c4638cf098312a5a146134a8
A real-time speedometer displays the number of transactions processed by the UMI network per second. Link
Additionally, unlike Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies, the UMI's staking smart contract prevents possibilities of any pyramid schemes, meaning eliminates their negative influence. Our staking is completely safe and secured against scammers. Read more about this in our article. Any UMI staking structure could work forever. In other words, you can multiply your coins at a rate of up to 40% per month for an indefinitely long period of time.
UMI doesn't inherit the disadvantages of the first-generation cryptocurrencies. This is an innovative, carefully designed network based on state-of-the-art technologies. UMI is an ambitious step toward the future. And we're making it together right now!
Sincerely yours, UMI team
submitted by UMITop to u/UMITop [link] [comments]

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

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

It’s in the code

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

OMNI-based USDT

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

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

PAX

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

History of frozen accounts

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

My collection of amazing early Bitcoin comments, right here from Reddit:

On buying (or not) a gaming rig to mine Bitcoin:
With the difficulty skyrocketing and exchange rates sitting stagnant at $5~8 for the last week or so, you pretty much missed the boat to buy dedicated mining hardware, IMHO. If you already have the hardware, or are looking for an excuse to buy a couple bitchin' new graphics cards for a gaming rig, there's definitely money to be made mining when you're not using it.
But I don't think I'd drop $1k into a rig that's only to mine with unless it was $1k I'd blow on something even more retarded. I certainly wouldn't sink next month's rent into it.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuv1b/?context=1
On easily cashing out Bitcoin using mtgox:
I think getting money is not that difficult. The daily volume on mtgox is over $100K, so I think anyone can currently sell Bitcoins for USD without problems.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuhjh/?context=1
On it being $10:
Is Bitcoin 10 usd yet?
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hpq6c/is_bitcoin_10_usd_yet/
Bonus: Snapshot of the isbitcoin10usdyet website from 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125320/http://www.isbitcoin10usdyet.com/
Mtgox might disappear:
400K bitcoins is $4M dollars. Given all risks and uncertainties around bitcoins, no wonder some of the early founders exit their investments. Tomorrow mtgox or dwolla may disappear. It is the matter of one government intervention.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hq1wj/_/c1xgesq/?context=1
Bitcoin is terrible at friendly front-end:
This is a dangerous point-of-view. The entire bitcoin ecosystem is ugly, confusing, and deeply unusable. Really think about the questions posed in the article. The client works, as in, it creates a functional front-end for some bitcoin-related tasks, but it isn't at all designed for how humans would want to interact with the currency. The point of the article isn't that the client is hard, it's that the client works pretty well for obsessive nerds (present company included), but if bitcoin is really going to succeed at the goals it sets out to accomplish, it needs to not only be usable by normal people, it needs to be exceptional. If you think it's reasonably usable, you're welcome to that opinion, but please understand that you're the exact sort of person Mr. Falkvinge was referring to. Great with complex logic, terrible at friendly front-end.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xtfuy/?context=1
On wallets going out of sync:
One thing that I think is lacking is the ability to functionally use wallets on different machines as they will tend to get out of sync. This might be able to be overcome if new addresses were deterministically created from a seed contained in the wallet, but there are probably better ways.
Also, the UI for the official client is kind of a bone.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1y730k/?context=1
On Bitcoin’s ease of use:
In fact, BTC is in such an infant state right now only enthusiasts investors, and geeks who can actually grasp how the system truly works, are using it for real.
The usability issues raised by the article are real. No grandma, or any well respected enterprise for that matter, would accept working with this type of GUI. If anything, a REAL enterprise backend still needs to be developed to handle the BTC's ungly guts, with all transactions details, hashes, mining, wallets, proxy connections, peer discovery via IRC channels... I mean... this is all too RAW for the end user. I can see a near future where startups will begin to offer user friendly GUIs, online access, maybe even online banking for your bitcoin accounts, automated backups and safety mechanisms to protect your coins in case of theft.
All of us geeks will end up supporting the bootstrap of this network so that, later on, your grandma will be able to use this just as she would use a credit card today.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xungz/?context=1
rBitcoin is not a sub for memes:
This isnt a subreddit for memes. Take it back to pics
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/i7z0v/_/c21m3ld/?context=1
I think I’ll keep my money elsewhere:
This further reinforces BC's image as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When the distribution is skewed that heavily towards early adopters, they will have almost total control over the market. Those 32 could manipulate to their hearts content. I think I'll keep my money elsewhere....
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ifl26/_/c23e3ei/?context=1
Tulip mania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://www.reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/i_just_invested_half_of_my_next_months_rent_in/c1wuhkt/
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

How does the BitQT App work?

How does the BitQT App work?

https://preview.redd.it/81cx1yfe1pm51.jpg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ceddeda7d5dc0be5c7d4b4dfa7a715baac65b3a
In the later part of websites are the testimonials screaming out loud regarding their success.BitQT review can be quiet judgemental at this point as a result of neither these testimonials prove the legitimacy of the web site nor the live profit reviews account such
You extremely want to understand that if you opt to speculate you’ll surely not visiting recover. TheBitQT just prove this by themselves stating it not being on affiliate terms with others. Something that’s claiming that you simply’ll earn 110zero greenbacks every day is doing a true-time scam job
Perhaps, theBitQT states advertising itself on Times, CNN and Forbes however neither of them found supportive during this regard. You'll check it all by yourself. This is often the sound proof of its scamming regime throughout the globe
It doesn’t have that laser-accurate performance as in trading bitcoin you can never guarantee the minimum amount of profit you be earning the other day. Its what happens when trading with Forex

Many of the websites agree onto the proficiency ofBitQT negating the crucial and impactful proves I shared with you higher than. They are saying it’s flawless. Will something be this flawless letting you earn regarding one thousand bucks each day without charging a penny? The automated transactions are known to be deposited directly into the user’s account that is nowhere to find affiliation with. Undoubtedly, most of the revealing sites have the only supportive argument beginning with, ‘As the review suggests’. Do raise yourselves, is that this the legitimate way to prove legitimacy ofBitQT
They too argue regarding the legitimate verification method. That’s the explanation why there’s a number of complaints with reference to the current. If these products would have really worked, why not each single person select to remain off from their offices integrating with it somehow:

Merely head to the SIGN-UP section on theBitQT site, fill in your personal info, and present your registration. When acknowledged, you'll be able to be able to access our restrictive Bitcoin exchanging

To induce your exchange account in progress, you’ll have to include some assets. WithBitQT, you can create a initial investment of as low as $250, although you'll be able to contribute as a lot of as you wantoy
Since your enlistment has been acknowledged and you’ve invested some funds, you’re fully done. Simply click on ‘trade’ to receive the rewards ofBitQT’s highly rated algorithm. In case you need a hands-on approach, you can shift to manual operation by changing the settings

There’s no harm in trading in terms of cryptocurrency. We have a tendency to’re not against it. But we tend to really aim to reveal the very fact thatBitQT isn't a legitimate website to believe during this case. To actually invest in bitcoin you initially want to shop for a bitcoin wallet so as to store all bitcoins. a series of blockchain integrations which permits you to top-up and earn.

But, as stated earlier you’ve no actual guarantee concerning the number you wish to earn. Secondly, you wish to integrate your bitcoin wallet to your account and then you’ll be ready to head towards the foremost step. Here, you’ll jin a bitcoin exchange system for trading bitcoin for any different traditional currencies of the market.

It works well solely if you for legitimate sites for functioning and planning. Perhaps, it too needs a nice amount of ability and we never promise you to begin earning when you join Bitcoin Exchanger somehow. This was all aboutBitQT Review as a full fulling the aim of alerting the scam going around.


Money Forex Cluster scamThe Cash Forex Group is run by a company named CFxG which allegedly was founded by a team of experts in all kinds of areas, mainly education in the monetary trading field and network promoting.

https://preview.redd.it/0gc7ga9f1pm51.jpg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c031ac047e635c47d3ee592ab9235878613c890
These experts and their automated trading system will supposedly facilitate your to form heaps of cash. In trading solely you'll allegedly make fifteenp.c weekly on your investments. Then there are referral programs and multi-level structures that can boost your income even more. Is that t
Money FX Group scamLet’s begin this Money Forex Group review by stating the obvious, this scheme may be a total scam, you just have to look at the numbers.BitQT

When they promise you fifteen%+ weekly, it means that 60percent+ monthly, which is totally ridiculous in the important world. It means a lot of than 560zeropercent per year, therefore you'd need solely $18,00zero greenbacks to become a millionaire within year. And this is often plain impossible.

No legitimate business can create you a gradual fifteenpercent weekly, no financial markets are that predictable and that easy to trade. It may appear straightforward to you, but it really is this straightforward, a program promising fifteenp.c weekly should be a scam, there is no alternative method, the Money FX Group is a scam.

However there is additional to go through in this review.
Massive lies

Money FX Cluster testimonialThe Money Forex Cluster claims to be regulated by the subsequent institutions: FAC – Financial Conduct Authority of London, DFSA – Monetary Services Authority in Dubai, FSCA – Monetary Sector Conduct Authority of South Africa and FSA – the Monetary Services Authority of Seychelles.

But guess what, the FAC will not even exist, while the others (DFSA, FSCA and FSA) haven't issued any license whatsoever to Cash Forex Cluster. Therefore not only Money FX Group is not regulated at all, it conjointly is lying huge time regarding its regulatory status.

The fact is that it's no license whatsoever, so it cannot supply investment services legally in most countries.

This is often conjointly why they want you to deposit cryptocurrencies, they wish to remain as anonymous as potential, so that they will run away along with your cash.
Regulatory warning

Not long when we have a tendency to printed our analysis, the Financial Conduct Authority (financial regulator in Nice Britain) came up with its own warning.

The regulator said that CashFX is providing investment services without the mandatory authorization and advised the public to remain off from it. This is often a very serious argumentBiTQT.

It'd be terribly unwise to deposit money with an unregulated and basically anonymous entity, as a result of it would not be protected in any means. No matter where the cash finally ends up, this program is promising you impossible returns on investments, which in itself confirms that something is wrong.
How it works

Let’s end this Cash Forex Group review by explaining the essential principle of this investment program. It's a Ponzi theme that does no real economic activity. It just collects money from individuals and may pay out some profits, but the most recent clients’ deposits can be used for that.

This will have an inevitable outcome, the system can sooner or later crumble. It's simply a matter of your time when there can be not enough deposits to hide withdrawals and also the inevitable end can

Nobody has not been paid, that is NOBODY ….. after all you can't compound or upgrade your CFX account unless you withdraw (get paid) …. CFX are not regulated…. as a result of they use a Regulated broker (everfx) to trade…so that information is also incorrect…and judging by the actual members comments….I’d say, members are happy….. long might that continue. BUT, you must never place in more than you are prepared to lose (In SOMETHING). However do correct analysis, ask

members, don’t rely on people that play safe and stay poor. Do your own due diligence. (ps MOST sites that decision each business out as a scam…have their own links…..promoting guess what ? ….tip. SCAMS ! Beware.

https://www.cryptoerapro.com/bitqt/


http://www.cryptoerapro.com/

https://twitter.com/cryptoerapro

https://www.instagram.com/cryptoerapro/

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/cryptoerapro/

https://www.facebook.com/cryptoerapro
submitted by bitqtadvantage to u/bitqtadvantage [link] [comments]

Can Cypherium be My Next Moon Bag After ChainLink !!!

When I first brought my Chainlink in Dec 2018, it was valued at 0.35. I brought 4000 units of Chainlink at 0.35 per coin ( Total Cost $1400). In the coming week, the price crashed to 0.20. Irrespective of taking huge losses, I still didn’t sell my Link as I had trust in the project.
I came across various twitter accounts giving negative predictions about Link and how this can again go down further but I kept HOLDing.
Now you may ask why?
To invest in a project and to understand its future value, we need to put some efforts to do a little bit of research about the project as well as the impact it can make in the future.
What Is Chainlink
ChainLink is a decentralized oracle network that provides real-world data to smart contracts on the blockchain. LINK is the digital asset token used to pay for services on the network.
In the Ethereum Scheme of Things, Chainlink is very important. With ChainLink, smart contract users can use the network’s oracles to retrieve data from off-chain application program interfaces (APIs), data pools, and other resources and integrate them into the blockchain. Basically, ChainLink takes information that is external to blockchain applications and puts it on-chain.
For many of the blockchain protocols out there, oracles like ChainLink will be necessary to access the data that these protocols need to operate. As such, ChainLink is, as it names suggest, the link that connects blockchain to existing infrastructure.
For me, I have understood that Etherum smart contracts have a huge potential, and these smart contracts needed real-time price feed data collected from sources both on and off blockchains. Chainlink was the first mover in this direction and that paid off really well.
I have recently sold the bulk of my LINK portfolio in the recent pump. This is not because I don’t see any future with LINK, But I feel i can generate more profits with new projects
I Belive in HOLDing. If I break down my portfolio, 80% of them are long HOLDs. 20% of them are for gamble the uniswap shit/farmcoin frenzy. I belive these Quick Rich projects that come out daily will continue for couple of months. After that what can survive are the projects that have solid base with future outlook.
Central Bank Digital Currency — The next big thing !!
Recently Philadelphia’s Federal Reserve bank president Patrick Harker came out with a remarkable statement that it is “inevitable” for the central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, to start issuing digital currency. This is a great leap for blockchain from being labeled as a Ponzi in the past and now attaining a status of legitimacy.
As per a research report published by Bank for International Settlements (BIS), 70% of banks are engaged in or about to start CBDC work, and of these more than half are exploring both general purpose and wholesale CBDCs.
Lets first have a look into the concept of digital currency. As defined by IBM
A central bank digital currency is a digital extension of a central bank’s medium of exchangeable to permanently settle transactions between parties. The central bank is able to remove credit risk and ensure stability by guaranteeing the value of the CBDC with blockchain, exactly like paper money.
The present concept of CBDCs was directly inspired by Bitcoin, but CBDC is different from virtual currency and cryptocurrency, which are not issued by the state and lack the legal tender status declared by the government. Proposed implementations may not even use any sort of distributed ledger
In the beginning, CBDC was a slow-moving project. With the arrival of Facebook LIBRA, the development of CBDC became a high priority for Most of the nations. This is how I came across Cypherium.
Cypherium
Cypherium is an enterprise-ready blockchain project, which is designed to be highly scalable and robust which utilizes a hybrid design that features a joint Proof-of-Work (PoW) and HotStuff (Also adopted by Facebook’s Libra) consensus mechanism that can allegedly achieve thousands of transactions per second without sacrificing decentralization. Cypherium is designed in such a way to focuses on achieving scalability, decentralization, and commercialization viability.
If you want to have a detailed read about the project, you can read here
Can Cypherium pull a LINK performance?
For me, Yes. Why? .
I base my argument on the belief that I will be holding this project for at least a couple of months to come. These are not quick buy- sell that you can make an instant profit/loss
📷 If you want to make good profits (10–15x in NOOBS term), the best option is to have your entry in the beginning. Either you have to get the tokens in ICO or wait for the listing and time your entry (Most the quick flippers sell their token which will lead to massive price drops).
Once the dust settles, most of the projects go through an accumulation phase, and once it gains enough goodwill in the market it booms. Chainlink was trading in the range $.20 to $ .30 for a couple of months and now it’s trading at $13– $15. It took almost 2 years for LINK to reach here , Hope you got the point
📷 LINK was the first mover when it came to Oracles. Similarly, When it comes to CBDC, Cypherium has the edge. Cypherium has formed a Thinktank called Official Forum of Monetary and Financial Institutions (OMFIF) which is now leading research and development in the field of CBDC.
Most of the leading Central Banks are part of the initiative and it is expected that all these CBDC, if launched, will be running on Cypherium blockchain (High Chances). That means huge goodwill for the project, Huge upside for the CPT coins
📷 One of the greatest strengths of LINK is its partnerships. Similar to LINK Cypherium has already made Cypherium Enterprise available as Blockchain-as-a-Service for enterprise customers through the stack platforms of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and IBM.
Cypherium is already a part of IC3 alliance in which Chainlink is also a part of. This means again more positive for the project to go up
All of these are my assumptions. This can even go wrong. But that the risk I am willing to take.I am sure this will pay off very positively for me
submitted by CypheriumCommunity to u/CypheriumCommunity [link] [comments]

Summary of Tau-Chain Monthly Video Update - July 2020

Karim
Agoras Live: Five functionalities complete: 1. Registration 2. Login 3. User Profile Page 4. Calendar 5. Categories List 6. Wallet Screen Payments: Decided that implementing lightning would be too complex. Instead, we decided to implement our own micropayment mechanism using the native BTC multisig addresses. We are going to use the Omni wallet for payments. TML: Continued debugging, getting a TML demo and test cases ready. Hiring: More hiring efforts to increase team size. Timelines: Committing ourselves to a release of Agoras Live and a basic version of discussions in TML in 2020.
Umar: Been working on making improvements to the context free grammar parsing. We now are able to add constraints to productions in the grammar, allowing us to recognize grammars that are context sensitive. Developed test cases for that, too.
Tomas: Fixed issues in TML and ran several steps in a TML program. Now adding more tests to make sure everything is stable and won’t break. Also been working on a TML tutorial, a recorded script based on the intro to TML which was contained in the TML Playground. Also new features are going to be covered such as arithmetics.
Kilian: More outreach & follow-ups to potential partner universities. Positive response by a professor based in Toronto, presented to him our project. Also, response by KULeuven, Belgium, who unfortunately don’t see a good fit in our project. We’ve had one applicant for the IDNI Grant program and currently are evaluating his proposal. Also, we’ve had an applicant from Bangalore, India for the IDNI Ambassador program and we also have been discussing his proposal. Translation Bounties: We’ve had the blog post “The New Tau” translated to Chinese and have been reviewing the translation. We are going to publish the translation on our website and on the Bitcointalk Chinese forum section. Still to be claimed: German translation of “The New Tau”. Done more effort on reach out to potential tribe channels: Research groups, LinkedIn groups, Facebook groups. Most represented keywords: Complex Adaptive Systems, NLP, Computational Linguistics. Usual feedback: Likes but no further interaction. Created an FAQ answering all possible questions surrounding IDNI, Tau & Agoras Idea: Hosting a virtual panel to spread the word about our project among the scientific community, as well as to create some visual content for our community. Two professors are interested in participating, one from Argentina with a focus in semantic parsing, the other one from the University of Washington with a focus on human-computer interaction and social computing. First step: organizing a pre-panel discussion where in 1on1 calls with the professors we get an opinion of them about what we are doing.
Andrei: Agoras Live: Implemented mail system so users now get their mails (e.g. registration email). Improved UX together with Mo’az, e.g. user profiles. Token creation for accessing calls to identify and charge users. Customized Jitsi interface to suit our needs: E.g. display of how much time passed in a call and how much it costs. Next up: Further improve UX; make sure everything works as intended.
Mo’az: Almost finished the IDNI website. Added two more pages: Events & Bounties in collaboration with Fola & Kilian. Agoras Live: Finetuned all the website’s components in collaboration with Andrei.
Juan: Continued working on the payments system for Agoras Live. Had some delays due to the complexity of debugging such applications. Still, we made significant progress and got the funding transactions implemented over the Lightning network through the Omni layer. Spent time analyzing the minimum amount of BTC to pay for the fees associated to the Omni transactions. We aren’t using segregated witness native addresses and instead are using embedded segregated witness. So transaction sizes are enlarged and transaction fees are a bit higher. So there is a bit of finetuning analysis needed in order to enable the multisig address to pay for the closing & refund transactions. So to provide payment channels over the Omni layer, the main remaining technical detail we have to solve at this point is the closing transaction & the refund transaction.
Fola: Have been continuing to look for great talent in different areas. Continued working on website with Mo’az and Kilian. Been working on the branding for Tau & Agoras. Been getting external support to make sure the branding for Tau & Agoras will be as professional as it can be. Working on marketing efforts needed for the release of Agoras Live to get the media pack for marketing ready. Working together with external people to put a plan together for listing the Agoras token on more prominent exchanges as we get closer to release of Agoras Live.
Ohad: Continued working on restricted versions of second-order logic to understand how to implement them. There is a translation in the literature about how to convert second-order logic by Horn into Datalog. Also, I have been revisiting papers that deal with descriptive complexity of higher-order logic. They mention that they have a translation from second-order logic to QBF. I wasn’t able to find where they explain this translation but I wrote one of them and he said he will send me the paper. If so, that will be very good because we already have a QBF solver. Any binary decision diagram is already a QBF solver, so we can just translate arbitrary second-order logic formulas into QBF. This will be very helpful for us to implement second-order logic. Also, those papers mention several aspects that are relevant for self-interpretation, the laws of laws. Apparently, they suggest that certain fragments of higher-order logic may also support the laws of laws. But this is part of the papers that I didn’t have access to, so I have to wait to get further clarification. I also pushed the whitepaper significantly this month and hope we will be finishing it soon. Also, I was thinking about some optimizations for the parser and also was looking into the Lightning network. It was my mistake that I haven’t done so beforehand and if I had done it beforehand, I would have understood earlier, that Lightning is too much. It is too drastic of a change to how traditional payments work and there apparently is no reason to believe that it is secure. So I’m glad I discovered better now than later that it’s not something we’d like to rely on, although we can have it as an optional feature.
Q&A:
Q: With the project development taking longer than other projects such as Tezos, when can AGRS holders expect something to be released and, how can you reassure us that we made the right decision?
A: With regards to when we see some releases, it seems that we will see some releases in 2020. For comparing to Ethereum and Tezos: Let’s first talk about funding. Both projects had a lot of money. For Ethereum, the reason for is that it has probably done one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns in history. It was completely lacking any kind of honesty. It was simply aggressive. None of Ethereum’s visions and promises became true. It simply became an insecure platform for scams. None of their vision of creating a world computer, of creating a better society, a better currency, became true. Because of this aggressive marketing, they not only raised a lot of money, they also took the price to be so high in the market. If you remember the campaign of the flipping, they did a whole campaign on how they would overtake the marketcap of Bitcoin. For Tezos, they made maybe the largest ICO in history in terms of money, mainly because they came at the right time, at the top of the bubble in 2017, and also their promises for better coordination didn’t come true. Their solution is based on voting and based on Turing completeness and the only reason why they managed to gain such a market cap as of today, is not because they offer better currency, better society, better anything. It basically is a Ponzi-scheme because they offer very high interest rate by very high inflation (5,51%). The only reason why people buy Tezos is to get into this Ponzi-scheme. Because both Tezos and Ethereum lack any true economical or technological substance, their value will not sustain and this is true for almost all projects in the cryptocurrency world. In the software, high-tech market, if you come up with good tech and you do all the right things, you succeed big time. But if you don’t have it and you are purely relying on brainwashing people, it will not sustain. Of course, our solution is so disruptive and sustainable. We offer to do advancements for humanity and for economy.
Q: What three subjects would you first like to see discussed on Tau?
A: Of course, picking three subjects now is a bit speculative, but the first thing that comes to mind is the definitions of what good and bad means and what better and worse means. The second subject is the governance model over Tau. The third one is the specification of Tau itself and how to make it grow and evolve even more to suit wider audiences. The whole point of Tau is people collaborating in order to define Tau itself and to improve it over time, so it will improve up to infinity. This is the main thing, especially initially, that the Tau developers (or rather users) advance the platform more and more.
Q: What is stopping programmers using TML right now? If nothing, what is your opinion on why they aren’t?
A: There is nothing essentially missing in TML in order to let it release. And in fact, we are now working towards packaging it and bringing it towards a release level. For things like documentation, bug fixes, minor features, minor optimizations. We indeed actively work towards releasing TML 1.0 and then we can publish it in e.g. developers channels for them to use it.
submitted by m4nki to tauchain [link] [comments]

OBSERVATIONS, QUESTIONS AND NOOBS DON'T DO THIS

When you are initiating a trade, they tell you to follow the seller's instructions exactly. But this does not mean release escrow right away when the scammer tells you to.
Right now I'm just kinda watching the different sellers for wire transfers and Western Union. Base20 is an interesting one. Why would a medical doctor all of a sudden do major wheeling and dealing on Paxful six days ago? No way is a doctor going to have enough in the gas tank. But she is verified through their system. If her identity has been stolen it's a very clever ruse, to steal the credibility of a medical doctor moonlighting as a shady crypto trader? PoisedFly18 is really moving product – does anyone have experience with him? This cat Yassinesalhi is a total scam. He collected 11 bad ratings today which brings me to my first observation about Paxful. His instructions said release the bitcoin right away and I texted him to say I was not going to do that. The order was canceled instantly. This scammer Yassinesalhi had offers for everything today. You name it gold, cash, cards. What he was doing almost certainly was fishing for noobs who were dumb enough to release bitcoin. And it looks like he found 11 today. I'm sure there are people in boiler rooms fishing all day asking noobs to release bitcoin. Then they drain the Paxful account and start with another fake account the next day.
It seems like the vast majority of accounts are new – less than three months it seems. It looks to me like it might be a Ponzi scheme with accounts where the scammer plays it straight the first 10 people then pulls an exit scam. This is my first day really watching it – has anyone else observed this is the case? Or let's say you have 11 fake accounts who trade with each other for reviews and then exit scam. It seems more likely.
Other than releasing bitcoin early like a dumb ass and getting chargebacks, what other ways are there to get burned? Let's say they are supposed to do a bank transfer, which will take a couple of days. I won't under any circumstances release bitcoin until the transfer is received. How does that work? Do they give you some half assed receipt?
submitted by legiaourbanag to paxful [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth about Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin: Bubble or Revolution?

I am still very much beginner and have been researching more and more about Bitcoin -- thanks to a lot of people here who have helped to answer a lot of my questions earlier! I came across a very insightful book called "Blockchain: Bubble or Revolution" and found it to one of a few resources that offer a very balanced view of the technology. As a bitcoin investor, I heard a lot about the hypes and also heard a lot from the haters but most seem to simply dismiss it as speculative, claim that it's Ponzi scheme or like the tech but not sure whether what form of Crypto will win yet. However, the book was able to inform me about the real problems that Bitcoin is facing.
What are your thoughts on these issues? How seriously these problems are being addressed in the Bitcoin community and are you concerned about them?
submitted by DaenyxBerlarys to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin a Ponzi? Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme.  MaiView  20190719 Is Bitcoin a Pyramid or Ponzi Scheme? Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson Bitconnect Ponzi Scheme Exit Scams with CryptoNick! NEWS!

This is a pyramid scheme. Bitcoin is not. Bitcoin is not a company. It has no employees and its supply is finitely scarce. No matter how many people adopt it, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoin. The distinctions should be glaringly obvious, but because bitcoin is complex and the very idea of money is not well understood, it can easily be confused. Bitcoin will only become a global ... The OneCoin project has responded to the suggestion it is a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, arguing it does not fit a narrow definition of either. News Learn Videos Podcasts Research. Trending. Bitcoin ... Ponzi schemes have a life span of 1-count, meaning they can go on for one year, a few months, or even a few weeks. But they cannot have two runs at the same market, that’s not how a Ponzi scheme works. Yet, between January and December 2017, Bitcoin’s price rose from $800 to $19,800, a 2,375 percent increase, before dropping to $3,100 a year later. Critics who labeled Bitcoin a ‘Ponzi ... A Ponzi scheme is a simple but alarmingly effective scam that lures in new investors with the promise of unusually high returns. Here’s how it works: a promoter convinces people to invest in their scheme. These initial investors receive what they believe to be returns, but are actually payouts from the money deposited by newer investors. Now satisfied that the scheme is legit, those ... Bitcoin grew greatly in last few months, especially since the hard fork involving Bitcoin Cash in August 2017. Since that moment, there has been a sharp increase in numbers of traders and people that became quite interested in BTC and in cryptocurrency industry as a whole. The number of beginners in the market is growing and many are confused over what bitcoin really is and what can you do ...

[index] [43664] [43535] [26938] [18878] [9222] [48861] [7347] [13360] [39987] [43309]

Is Bitcoin a Ponzi?

In this video, I discuss whether or not Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme. I conclude that it is neither, simply because: 1) Bitcoin is decentralized, not run by a corporation or ... With that clarification, BitCoin is clearly not a scam. Like any other currency, BitCoin is designed to be used as money, not as an investment. A Ponzi scheme is a type of confidence scam where... Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson - Duration: 52:52. Make More Marbles Recommended for you. 52:52. Bitcoin to $30k in 2018 After Crash - Duration: 9:25. ... MaiCoin Group - Taiwan's largest and longest running digital asset trading platform. MaiCoin _ https://www.maicoin.com MAX _ https://max.maicoin.com Register... The only industry Bitcoin has disrupted is the ponzi scheme industry. [ 40:50 ] Questions why people want a currency so detached from the real world. [ 41:12 ] People who use Bitcoin want the ...

#