# How bitcoin works - Bitcoin Wiki

• How bitcoin works - Bitcoin Wiki
• Still Don't Get Bitcoin? Here's an Explanation For Five
• Block hashing algorithm - Bitcoin Wiki
• SHA-256 Algorithm – Encryption – BitcoinWiki
• Bitcoin Explained - Illustrated Beginner's Guide
##### StableCoin

This subreddit is dedicated to inform and discuss the revolutionary cryptocurrency Stablecoin.

##### Why Bitcoin is a long shot: an algorithmic explanation

Boolean willBitcoinWork() { if !is_outlawed if is_convenient if is_safe if is_accepted_by_merchants if !is_over_regulated if !is_51_percent_takeover if !is_diluted_by_altcoins if !is_replaced_by_FED if is_scalable if !is_hacked if !is_created_by_NSA if !is_other_fatal_flaw return BITCOIN_SUCCESS else return BITCOIN_FAIL }
That's a lot of nested IFs. In probabilistic terms, the outcome of these dependencies is expressed as not the sum, but the product of individual events. As an example, if we define each of these conditions as probability .5, the chances that Bitcoin will ultimately work are ony 1 in 212 or 1 in 4096.

##### Questions Regarding BTC Mining

I have been wondering about some of the details related to bitcoin mining bit couldn't find an answer, I would bet the answer can be found was I capable of looking up the mining algorithms but I'm not that savvy (not yet at least) so here it goes.
I understand that during mining, the miners take the hash calculated from a given block then appends a nonce to it and calculate SHA256 for the whole expression, if the hash value is larger than the limit set by mining difficulty, the miner must attempt again the SHA256 calculation again by appending a different nonce and repeat until a hash smaller than the limit is found.
What I wanted to ask is the following:
1) Is my understanding above correct? If not then please disregard the below questions since they would be garbage most likely (correcting the fault lines in my understanding would more than enough).
2) How are these nonces to be appended chosen? Are they chosen randomly at every attempt or changed sequentially by adding 1 for example?
3) Does the bitcoin blockchain enforces the use of a specific algorithm for generating nonces or is it left to the miners to concoct their own algorithms as they see fit? (If enforced by the bitcoin block chain, I'd appreciate an explanation why)
4) If the choice is left to miners to generate nonces as they see fit, what is the best approach to generating these nonces available?
5) In a mining pools where many ASICs are hashing together, is there any coordination at the pool or at least at individual ASIC miner level to ensure no two ASIC chips are calculating the hash for the same nonce while trying to find the block? If not, what are the difficulties preventing such an implementation?
Thanks in advance and if there are any useful resources addressing these questions please share them especially ones describing the mining algorithm generating nonces.

##### This is just a theory. What do you guys think?

Just theory if Satoshi wrote the name of the creator which would be 256th puzzle of a puzzle game 14 years ago, and the card has written "find me" in Japanese at side forming this puzzle. Just for looking this picture is it possible to find this gentleman on the internet as the location from the picture been discovered " Kaysersberg, Alsace, France". It would be a great coincidence if the owner of the 256th card was really Satoshi in a ranking of 256 cards? This will be very important figure for 256 Bitcoin value. People might on here might ask why and explain your theory? Well just for a explanation this puzzle is complex and if his card is 256th puzzle card and is a value of 256. What if the answer is 2SHA256 which SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm that Bitcoin has been using for mining and address generation. This hash is one of those high security cryptography functions and also the length would have data fix that might contribute of harmony between these blocks.
1.) For example, word would be "squanch" with SHA256 encryption -> “5bfdd901369fbb2ae5052ab5307c74f97651e09bd83e80cf3153952bb81cc7b8”.
2.) satoshi -> DA2876B3EB31EDB4436FA4650673FC6F01F90DE2F1793C4EC332B2387B09726F
3.) Satoshi -> 002688CC350A5333A87FA622EACEC626C3D1C0EBF9F3793DE3885FA254D7E393
** you can play around with it => https://passwordsgenerator.net/sha256-hash-generato **
• However, it will be possible once we have Kava's CDP platform to extend it into products that offer undercollateralized financial products. For example, if USER 1 + USER 2 use payment channels to lock up their USDX, they can use Kava's price feeds to place bets between each other using their locked assets. They can bet that for every 1 BTC/USD moves, the other party owes 3x. In this way we can even do 100x leverage or 1000x leverage and create very fun products for people to trade with. Importantly, even in places where margin trading is regulated and forbidden, Kava's platform will remain open access and available. # Q18: ## In long-term, what's the strategy that KAVA has for covering the traditional finance users as well? Especially regarding the "stability" • Answer: Kava believes that stable coins should be backed not just by crypto or fiat, but any widely used, highly liquid asset. We think in the future the best stablecoin would be backed by a basket of very stable currencies that include crypto and fiat or whatever the market demands. # Q19: ## Compound, maker they're trying to increase their size via the competitive interests rates. THough it shows good return in terms of growth rate, still it's for short-term. Wonder other than financial advantage, KAVA has more for the users' needs? • Answer: Robert, the CEO of Compound is an investor and advisor to Kava. We think what Compound does with money markets is amazing and hope to integrate when they support more than just Ethereum assets. Kava's advantage vs others is to provide basic DeFi services like returns on crypto and stable coins today when no other platform offers that. Many platforms support ETH, but no platform can support BTC, XRP, BNB, and ATOM in a decentralized way without requiring centralized custody of these assets. # Q20: ## The vast majority of the cryptocurrency community's priorities is symbolic pricing. When prices rise, the community rejoices and grows. When they fall, many people begin to cast in a negative way. How will KAVA solve the negative problem when the price goes down? What is your plan to strengthen and develop the community to persuade more people to look at the product than the price? • Answer: We believe price is an important factor for faith in the market. One of Kava's key initiatives was selecting only long-term partners that are willing to work with kava for 2 years. That is why even after 6 months, 0 private investor or kava team tokens will be liquid on the market. • We believe not in fast pumps and then dumps that destroy faith, but rather we try and operate the best we can for long-term sustainable growth over time. It's always hard to control factors in the market, and some factors are out of our control such as BTC price correlations, etc - however, we treat this like a public company stock - we want long-term growth of Kava and try to make sure our whole community of Kava holders is aligned with that the best we can. # Q21: ## Do you have any plans to attract non-crypto investors to Kava and how? What are the measures to increase awareness of kava in non-crypto space? • Answer: We are 100% focused on crypto, not the general market. We solve the problems of crypto traders and investors - not the average grandma who needs a payment solution. Kava is geared for decentralized leverage and hedging. # Q22: ## Adoption is crucial for all projects and crypto companies, what strategy are you gonna use/follow or u are now following to get Kava adopted and used by many people all over the world? ## Revenue is an important aspect for all projects in order to survive and keep the project/company up and running for long term, what are the ways that Kava generates profits/revenue and what is its revenue model? • Answer: We have already partnered with several large exchanges, long-term VCs, and large projects like Ripple and Cosmos. These are key ways for us to grow our community. As we build support for more assets, we plan to promote Kava's services to those new communities of traders. • Kava generates revenue as more people use the platform. As the platform is used, KAVA tokens are burned when users pay stability fees. This deflates the total supply of Kava and should in most cases give rise to the value of KAVA like a stock-buyback in the public markets. # Q23: ## In order to be success in Loan project of Cryptocurrency, I think marketing is very important to make people using this service without any registration. What is main strategy for marketing? • Answer: Our main strategy is to build a great experience and offer products that are not available to communities with demand. Currently no DeFi products can serve BTC users for example. Centralized exchanges can, but nothing truly trustless. Kava's platform can finally give the vast audiences of BTC, BNB, and ATOM holders access to core DeFi services they cannot get on their own due to the smart contract limitations of those platforms. # Q24: ## Currently, some project have policies for their ambassadors to create a contribution and attract recognition for the project! So the KAVA team plans to implement policies and incentives for KAVA ambassadors? • Answer: Yes, we will be creating a KAVA ambassador program and releasing that soon. Please follow our social media channels to learn about it in the coming weeks. # Q25: ## Currently there are so many KAVA tokens sold on exchanges, why is this happening while KAVA is going to IEO on Binance? Are those KAVA codes fake or not? • Answer: For everyone's safety, please understand Kava tokens do not exist yet and they will only exist starting with the Binance IEO. Any other token listings or offerings of Kava are not supported by Kava Labs and I highly discourage you all from trying to get them there. It is most likely a big scam. Please only trust Binance for this. # Q26: ## KAVA have two tokens, the first is called Kava - a governance and staking token; the second is called USDX - an algorithmically managed crypto-backed stable coin. What are the advantages of USDX compared to other stablecoins such as: USDT, USDC, TUSD, GUSD, ...? • Answer: USDX is one of the few stablecoins to be fully backed by crypto-assets. This means that we do not deal with fiat to back the value, and thus we don't have some of the issues when it comes to storing fiat funds with banks and custodians. This also makes our product fully digital and built for the future of crypto growth. # Q27: ## As a CEO, does your background in Esports and Gaming industry help anything to your management and development of KAVA Labs? • Answer: Esports no. But having been a multi-time venture-backed foundeCEO and have gone through the start-up phase before has made creating and running a 2nd company easier. Right now Kava is still small, Fnatic had over 80 employees. It was at a larger scale. I would say developing software is much more than doing the hardware at fnaticgear.com # Q28: ## Why did Kava choose to launch IEO on Binance and not other exchanges like: Kucoin, Houbi, Gate, ....? • Answer: Kava had a lot of interest from exchanges to partner with for IEO. We decided based on a lot of factors such as userbase, diverse exposure across multiple regions and countries, and an amazing team that provides so much insight into so many communities such as this one. Binance has been a tremendous partner and we also look forward to continuing our partnership far into the future. # Q29: ## Currently if Search on coinmarketcap has 3 types of stablecoins bearing the USDX symbol (but these 3 stablecoins are no information). So, what will KAVA do to let users know that Kava's USDX is another stablecoin? • Answer: All these USDX have no volume or listings. We will be on Binance. I am not worried. # Q30: ## In addition to the Token Allocation for Binance Launchpad, what is the Token Treasury in the Initial Circulating Supply? • Answer: This is controlled by Kava Labs, but with the big cash we have saved from fundraising, we see no reason why these tokens would be sold on the market. The treasury tokens are for use in grants, ecosystem growth initiatives, development, and other incentive programs to drive adoption of the platform. # Q31: ## How you will compete with your competitors? Currently i don't see much but for future how you will maintain this consistency ? No doubt it is Great and Unique project, what is the main problem that #KAVA is currently facing? • Answer: Because our industry is just starting out, I don't like to think of them as our direct competitors. We are all working to grow the size of the pie rather than get a larger slice from a small pie. The one thing that we believe will allow us to stand apart is the community we are building. Being able to utilize our own community along with Cosmos and our other partners like Binance for the IEO, we have a strong footing to get a lot of early users onto our platform. Also, we are also focusing on growing Kava internationally particularly Asia. We hope to build our platform for an even larger userbase than just the west. # Q32: ## How do you explain your project to a random person who has never heard of your project? • Answer: non-crypto = Kava is a lending platform for users of cryptocurrencies. • crypto = Kava is a cross-chain DeFi platform for loans and stablecoins backed by BTC, BNB, XRP, ATOM and other major cryptocurrencies. # Q33: ## Will KAVA team have a plan on implementing DAO module on your platform since its efficiency on autonomy, decentralization and transparency? • Answer: All voting is already transparent on the Kava blockchain. We approved a number of proposals on our test net. # Q34: ## how to use usdx token :only for your platform or you have plan to use usdx for payment ? • Answer: Payments is a nice use case, but demand for crypto payments is still small. We may choose to focus here later if demand for crypto payments increases. Currently it is quite small with the bulk of use remaining in trading and speculative use cases. # Q35: ## Do you have plans to spread KAVA ecosystem across other continents. if yes, what are the strategies and how can I as a community member contribute to making it possible? • Answer: We are already across many continents - I don't think we are in antarctica yet. Africa might be light on nodes as well. I think as we grow on major exchanges like Binance, new node operators will get interested and help decentralize Kava further. # Q36: ## Maker's CDP lending system is on top in this market and its Dominance is currently sitting on 64.90 % , how kava will compete will maker and compound? • Answer: adding assets like bitcoin which have more value and more users than ETH. It's a bigger market that Maker cannot compete with Kava in. # Q37: ## Currently, the community is too concerned about the price. As prices rise, the community rejoice and grow, when falling, many people start throwing negatively. So what is KAVA's solution to getting people to focus on the project rather than the price of the token? ## What is your plan to strengthen and grow the community to persuade more individuals to look at the product than the price? • Answer: We also share similar concerns as price and price direction is always a huge factor in the crypto industry. A lot of people of course are very short-term focused on flipping for bigger profits. One of the solutions, and what Kava has done, is to make sure that everything structured is for the long-term. So that makes sure that our investors and employees are all focused on long-term gains and growth. Locking vesting periods are part of that alignment. Another thing is that we at Kava are very transparent in our progress and development. We will be regularly posting updates within our own communities to allow our users and followers to keep up with everything we're up to. Please follow us or look at our github if you're interested! # Q38: ## How did Kava get on Piexgo? • Answer: We did not work with Piexgo. We have not distributed tokens to any exchange other than Binance. I cannot speak to what is going on there, but I would be very wary of what is happening there. # Q39: ## Why was the 1st round price so much lower than the current price • Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava. • About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network. • By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal.
• Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that.

# Q40:

## What is the treasury used for?

• Answer: Kava's treasury is for ecosystem growth activities.
• Investors in financing rounds prior to the IEO have entered into long-term lock-up agreements in-line with their belief in Kava’s exciting long-term growth potential and to allow the projects token price to find stability. Following the IEO, the only tokens in circulation will be those sold through the IEO on Binance and the initial Treasury tokens released. No private sale investor tokens are in circulation until the initial release at the end of Q1 2020 and then gradually over the [36] months The initial Treasury tokens in circulation will be used for a mixture of ecosystem grants, the expenses associated with the IEO as well as initial market making requirements as is typical with a listing of this size. Kava remains well financed to execute our roadmap following the IEO and do not envisage any need for any material financings or token sales for the foreseeable future.

# Q41:

## Everyone have heard about the KAVA token, and read about it. But it would be great to hear your explanation about it. What is the Kava token, what is it's utility? :)

• Answer: The Kava token plays many roles. KAVA is the native staking token of the Kava blockchain and is used for securing the network. KAVA is delegated to validators, basically professional node operators that run highly-available servers to secure the Kava blockchain. The top 100 validators by weight of staked KAVA earn block rewards that range from 3-20% APR based on the total amount staked in the network. These rewards are split between the validators and the KAVA holders.
• When users of the platform repay their loans, they must a stability fee (a percentage of the loan) in KAVA tokens. These tokens are burned by the system, effectively deflating the total supply overtime as more users use the CDP system.
• KAVA is also the primary token used in governance of the platform. KAVA token holders can vote on key system parameter changes and upgrades such as what assets to support, how much USDX in total can be loaned by the system, what the debt-to-collateral ratio needs to be, the stability fees, etc. KAVA holders have a very important responsibility to govern the system well.
• Lastly, Kava functions as a "Lender of Last Resort" meaning if USDX ever gets undercollateralized because the underlying asset prices drop suddenly and the system manages it poorly, KAVA is inflated in these emergency situations and used to purchase USDX off the market until USDX reaches a state of being over collateralized again. KAVA holders have incentive to only support the good high quality assets so risk of the system is managed responsibly.

# Q42:

## In this regard, please answer the following question: Does KAVA have a clear risk management model or strategy and how decentralized is / will it be?

• Answer: Simialar to other CDP systems and MakerDAO we do have a system freeze function where in cases of extreme issues, we can stop the auction mechanisms and return all collateral.

# Q43:

## Did you know that "Kava" is translated into Ukrainian like "Coffee"? I personally do love drinking coffee. I plunge into the fantasy world. Why did you name your project "Kava" What is the story behind it? What idea / fantasy did your project originate from, which inspired you to create it?

• Answer: Kava is coffee to you.
• Kava is Hippopotamus to Japanese.
• Cava is a region in Spain
• Kava is also a root that is used in tea which makes your mouth numb.
• Kava is also crow in Hindi.
• Kava last but not least is a DeFi platform launching on Binance :)
• We liked the sound of Kava it was as simple as that. It doesn't have much meaning in the USA where I am from. But it's short sweet and when we were just starting, Kava.io was available for a reasonable price

# Q44:

## What incentives does a lender get if a person chooses to pay with KAVA? Is there a discount on interest rates on the loan amount if you pay with KAVA? Do I have to pass the KYC procedure to apply for a small loan?

• Answer: There is no KYC for Kava. Its an open blockchain software platform where anyone with a computer can connect to it and use it.

# Q45:

## Let's say, I decided to bond my cryptocurrency and got USDX stable coins. For now, its an unknown stable coin (let's be honest). Do you plan to add USDX to other famous exchanges? Also, you have spoken about the USDX staking and that the percentage would be higher than for other stable coins. Please be so kind to tell us what is the average annual interest rate and what are the conditions of staking?

• Answer: Yes we have several large exchanges willing to support USDX from the start. Binance/Binance-DEX is one you should all know ;)
• The average annual rates for USDX will depend on market conditions. The rate is actually provided by the CDP fees users pay. The system reallocates a portion of those fees to USDX users. In times when USDX use needs to grow, the rates will be higher to incentivize use. When demand is strong, we can reduce the rates.

# Q46:

## Why should i use and choose Kava's loan if i can use the similar margin trade on Binance?

• Answer: If margin is available to you and you trust the exchange then you should do whatever is cheaper. For a US citizen and others, margin is often not available and if it is, only for a few asset types as collateral. Kava aims to address this and offer this to everyone.

# Q47:

## The IEO price is $0.46 while the price of the first private sale is$ 0.075. Don't you think that such price gap can negatively affect the liquidity of the token and take away the desire to buy a token on the exchange?

• Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava.
• About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network.
• By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at $25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal. • Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that. • TLDR - I think KAVA is undervalued and the liquid supply of tokens is primarily from the IEO so its a safer bet than other IEOs. If the price drops, it will be from the overall market conditions or fellow IEO users not due private sale investors or team sell-offs. # Q48: ## Can you introduce some information abouts KAVA Deflationary Fee Structure? With the burning mechanism, does it mean KAVA will never reach its max supply? • Answer: When loans are repaid, users pay a fee in Kava. This is burned. However, Kava does not have a max supply. It has a starting supply of 100M. It inflates for block rewards 3-20% APR AND it inflates when the system is at risk of under collateralization. At this time, more Kava is minted and used to purchase USDX off the market until it reaches full collateralization again. • TLDR: If things go well, and governance is good, Kava deflates and hopefully appreciates in value. If things go wrong, Kava holders get inflated. # Q49: ## In your opinion what are advantage of decentralized finance over centralized? • Answer: One of the main advantages is not needing to pay the costs of regulation and compliance. Open financial software that is usable by anyone removes middle men fees and reduces the barrier for new entrants to enter and make new products. Also DeFI has an edge in terms of onboarding - to get a bank account or an exchange account you need to do lots of KYC and give private info. That takes time and is troublesome. With DeFi you just load up your funds and transact. Very fast user flows. # Q50: ## Plan, KAVA how to raise capital? Kava is being supported by more than 100 business entities around the world, including major cryptocurrency investment funds like Ripple and Cosmos, so what did kava do to convince investors to join the project? • Answer: We have been doing crypto research and development for years. Ripple and Cosmos were partners before we even started this blockchain with Kava Labs. When we announced Kava the DeFi platform they knew us already to do good work and they liked the idea so they support us. submitted by Kava_Mod to KavaUSDX [link] [comments] ##### Climate Change is real, but its manufactured. Weather is the new battlefield (GlobalIntelHub.com New York, NY) — 2/12/2020 — The US Military has become an entity with a mind of it’s own; despite efforts to curtail it’s expansion by activists and politicians, it continues to grow. Years ago a small problem arose that posed an existential threat to the system, the enemies were all defeated. The real hero of the Cold War is Richard Nixon, and his mentor Henry Kissinger, who created a financial system whereby the US Dollar was backed by bombs only, which allowed the USD to expand its balance sheet with no accountability. This ultimately allowed the US to outspend the Soviets and other enemies into oblivion, and the strategy finally worked. With the elimination of real enemies, the strategy planners inside the DOD knew they needed to create more enemies, and thus the ‘terrorist’ was born. Now that terrorists have been defeated to the point of irrelevancy, we need new and modern enemies to fight. Enter where we are now, an age of weaponized weather and biowarfare, cyberwar and other forms of information war. Let’s first discuss Bioweapons, and how it pertains to Coronavirus. The US Military has been spending billions on Bioweapons (both offensive and defensive) for the last 20 years. We’re not going to quote numbers as part of the budget is likely part of the ‘black budget’ but some estimates have it as high as$100 Billion over a period of 20 years. There are thousands of scientists working on various forms of biowarfare. So the question remains, if they are spending all this money, what are they doing with it?
For those who understand the US Government budget policy in general, there is a ‘use it or lose it’ ethos which means if you don’t buy new computers every year your budget will be cut. If you don’t spend allocated funds they will be cut. So they spend them to the max, often some of the funds go towards ‘justification research’ to justify, perhaps in front of Congress or in a public report, why the spending is ‘vital to national security.’
But with Coronavirus spreading around Asia, a more deadly and more disruptive force is being overlooked: Weather modification. Climate Change is real but it’s not due to factors that are commonly believed (factories, traffic, cow farts). Climate Change is the scapegoat for what’s really going on: Weather Wars, weather modification, terraforming, and manipulation of the entire planet on a biological and chemical level. As you will see, this is intertwined with Coronavirus in ways you wouldn’t at first imagine.
If you believe in fairy tales including what’s on TV, you can stop reading now as this will only damage your brain and may cause you to seek medical help. WARNING: PARENTAL DISCRETION ADVISED
The US Military spends billions on R&D development through front end organizations like Darpa, InQTel, Navy Research (ONR), just to name a few. You may be surprised to learn that they not only develop technologies, but also patent them, sell them at a profit, and even participate in Venture Capital. Inside Silicon Valley there has been a program since World War 2 that drip-leaks next generation technology to Silicon Valley after it no longer has Military use (or when it’s no longer a strategic advantage, such as the internet). One of the most well known operations is the Parc labs, currently owned by Xerox.
Technologies leaked to corporate America include the microprocessor, kevlar, lasers, fiber optics, the ‘mouse’ GUI system for personal computers, and many more.
The 90’s was a success not because of Bill Clinton, it was because of a number of global geopolitical factors such as the falling of the Soviet Union, and the deregulation of the internet and proliferation for civilian use.
Let’s look at some notable patents held by the US Military apparatus. The NSA has patented thousands of encryption technologies, but the most ironic patent held is SHA 256 encryption algorithm, the technology that is behind Bitcoin.
Or perhaps it’s not so ironic, perhaps the NSA was funding Bitcoin as a surveillance mechanism all along, as it has recently been revealed the CIA owned one of the world’s most well known encrypted communications services based in Switzerland, Crypto AG.
What other interesting patents are held by the US Military? To the point of this article, 20100072297 is a “Method for Controlling Hurricanes.” You can see a long list of weather related patents held by the USG at the end of this article. But if you want evidence of weather manipulation, just look up in the sky.
If you believe this is ‘contrails’ from a plane, here’s an explanation from an expert:
For the record, all US military jet air tankers and all commercial jet carriers are equipped with “Hi Bypass Turbofan” jet engines which are by design nearly incapable of producing condensation trails except under rare and extreme conditions. The trails we increasingly see in our skies are the result of sprayed dispersions related to climate engineering, not condensation.
https://globalintelhub.com/climate-change-real-manufactured-weather-battlefield/

##### For devs and advanced users that are still in the dark: Read this to get redpilled about why Bitcoin (SV) is the real Bitcoin

This post by cryptorebel is a great intro for newbies. Here is a continuation for a technical audience. I'll be making edits for readability and maybe even add more content.
The short explanation of why BSV is the real Bitcoin is that it implements the original L1 scripting language, and removes hacks like p2sh. It also removes the block size limit, and yes that leads to a small number of huge nodes. It might not be the system you wanted. Nodes are miners.
The key thing to understand about the UTXO architecture is that it is maximally "sharded" by default. Logically dependent transactions may require linear span to construct, but they can be validated in sublinear span (actually polylogarithmic expected span). Constructing dependent transactions happens out-of-band in any case.
The fact that transactions in a block are merkelized is an obvious sign that Bitcoin was designed for big blocks. But merkle trees are only half the story. UTXOs are essentially hash-addressed stateful continuation snapshots which can also be "merged" (validated) in a tree.
I won't even bother talking about how broken Lightning Network is. Of all the L2 scaling solutions that could have been used with small block sizes, it's almost unbelievable how many bad choices they've made. We should be kind to them and assume it was deliberate sabotage rather than insulting their intelligence.
Segwit is also outside the scope of this post.
However I will briefly hate on p2sh. Imagine seeing a stunted L1 script language, and deciding that the best way to implement multisigs was a soft-fork patch in the form of p2sh. If the intent was truly backwards-compatability with old clients, then by that logic all segwit and p2sh addresses are supposed to only be protected by transient rules outside of the protocol. Explain that to your custody clients.
As far as Bitcoin Cash goes, I was in the camp of "there's still time to save BCH" until not too long ago. Unfortunately the galaxy brains behind BCH have doubled down on their mistakes. Again, it is kinder to assume deliberate sabotage. (As an aside, the fact that they didn't embrace the name "bcash" when it was used to attack them shows how unprepared they are when the real psyops start to hit. Or, again, that the saboteurs controlled the entire back-and-forth.)
The one useful thing that came out of BCH is some progress on L1 apps based on covenants, but the issue is that they are not taking care to ensure every change maintains the asymptotic validation complexity of bitcoin's UTXO.
Besides that, The BCH devs missed something big. So did I.
It's possible to load the entire transaction onto the stack without adding any new opcodes. Read this post for a quick intro on how transaction meta-evaluation leads to stateful smart contract capabilities. Note that it was written before I understood how it was possible in Bitcoin, but the concept is the same. I've switching to developing a language that abstracts this behavior and compiles to bitcoin's L1. (Please don't "told you so" at me if you just blindly trusted nChain but still can't explain how it's done.)
It is true that this does not allow exactly the same class of L1 applications as Ethereum. It only allows those than can be made parallel, those that can delegate synchronization to "userspace". It forces you to be scalable, to process bottlenecks out-of-band at a per-application level.
Now, some of the more diehard supporters might say that Satoshi knew this was possible and meant for it to be this way, but honestly I don't believe that. nChain says they discovered the technique 'several years ago'. OP_PUSH_TX would have been a very simple opcode to include, and it does not change any aspect of validation in any way. The entire transaction is already in the L1 evaluation context for the purpose of checksig, it truly changes nothing.
But here's the thing: it doesn't matter if this was a happy accident. What matters is that it works. It is far more important to keep the continuity of the original protocol spec than to keep making optimizations at the protocol level. In a concatenative language like bitcoin script, optimized clients can recognize "checksig trick phrases" regardless of their location in the script, and treat them like a simple opcode. Script size is not a constraint when you allow the protocol to scale as designed. Think of it as precompiles in EVM.
Now let's address Ethereum. V. Buterin recently wrote a great piece about the concept of credible neutrality. The only way for a blockchain system to achieve credible neutrality and long-term decentralization of power is to lock down the protocol rules. The thing that caused Ethereum to succeed was the yellow paper. Ethereum has outperformed every other smart contract platform because the EVM has clear semantics with many implementations, so people can invest time and resources into applications built on it. The EVM is apolitical, the EVM spec (fixed at any particular version) is truly decentralized. Team Ethereum can plausibly maintain credibility and neutrality as long as they make progress towards the "Serenity" vision they outlined years ago. Unfortunately they have already placed themselves in a precarious position by picking and choosing which catastrophes they intervene on at the protocol level.
But those are social and political issues. The major technical issue facing the EVM is that it is inherently sequential. It does not have the key property that transactions that occur "later" in the block can be validated before the transactions they depend on are validated. Sharding will hit a wall faster than you can say "O(n/64) is O(n)". Ethereum will get a lot of mileage out of L2, but the fundamental overhead of synchronization in L1 will never go away. The best case scaling scenario for ETH is an L2 system with sublinear validation properties like UTXO. If the economic activity on that L2 system grows larger than that of the L1 chain, the system loses key security properties. Ethereum is sequential by default with parallelism enabled by L2, while Bitcoin is parallel by default with synchronization forced into L2.
Finally, what about CSW? I expect soon we will see a lot of people shouting, "it doesn't matter who Satoshi is!", and they're right. The blockchain doesn't care if CSW is Satoshi or not. It really seems like many people's mental model is "Bitcoin (BSV) scales and has smart contracts if CSW==Satoshi". Sorry, but UTXO scales either way. The checksig trick works either way.
Coin Woke.

##### [Discussion] CS.DEALS now has a real money marketplace with 1% selling fees

I want to start this off with something personal, which is exceptional because I never talk about my personal life on the internet or in any way mix it with my work online. For the past 16 months my life has consisted of nothing but misfortunes, playing CS and working on the marketplace and that's why this is a big day for me and why I want to share my little story behind it. I'm not looking for pity, my story is just something I want to share as I feel it's tied to my creation. Originally I had even bigger plans and created an incredible trading engine and more for cs.deals over the time period but it's to be determined if the plans are ever going to be realised. The ultimate plan will also remain a secret.
When I started KeyVendor over three years ago I've since become a fairly well known name in this scene, but people don't really know who I am, they only recognize my name and might know what I do online. I don't have social media accounts that people could follow and I don't mention to anyone what I'm up to or how I'm feeling. I'm really honored to see that people recognize me here and care about me and my goings-on, like when I got falsely VAC banned in January and people - some of whom I don't even know - supported me and defended my side without even knowing me. Valve was quick to remove the ban and that was that.
Finally in October I had CS.DEALS and my other site back up and running, but turns out they only have expenses and don't make any profit at all. Ever since then I was even more determined to create the big plan to get me back to where I was in 2017: have something sustainable and something I can constantly work on to improve. I hope this marketplace will be the thing. I'm determined to make this the best thing the scene has seen since OPskins if not even better, even if won't be as appreciated as it would've been during OPSkins and non-tradelock times. From now on we will have a bigger team working on things and I won't be a one man army.

# Anyway, that's the story. Let's get to the marketplace:

You can think of the service as a trade bot website and a real money skin marketplace combined. You can sell your skins for trade-balance, like you would do on an advanced trade bot, or you can sell them for real money and buy them like you would on a marketplace. You can also top up trade-balance by converting real money to trade-balance and vice versa. Currently all this is confusing but we are looking into ways to make it simpler to the user and your feedback would come in useful with that.
Initially we will support the sale of the same items as the tradebot has supported thus far: CSGO, TF2, H1Z1, Dota2 and Rust. More games will be supported as the site picks up pace. The plan is to keep all fees very low to make this THE place to sell skins. There will be a constant flow of new features and improvements based on you guys' feedback and whatever is needed. Right now the feature set is pretty lacking and the whole service might feel crude, but everything will improve very quickly.
More deposit and withdrawal options are coming in the next week or so, but right now only Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals are supported. The most notable deposit options will be G2A PAY and SEPA transfers. Cashouts will work via SEPA transfer, Paypal and of course Bitcoin. The cashouts will be in Euro but we will also offer occasional USD cashouts via Paypal and bank transfer.
What I feel is really unique and good about the marketplace is the PriceDecay™ pricing method. Here the explanation for it from the website and an image to go with it:
With PriceDecay™ you can cashout your skins easier than ever, for better prices than ever. It automatically lowers the price of your item over time using an advanced algorithm. That means you won't have to keep updating the price of your item and you don't need to know the exact price of your item to sell it for good value. The item will get sold when it reaches the optimal pricepoint, without much effort at all.
https://imgur.com/a/TQzeRE4
If you have any feedback or confusion about the service, I would very much appreciate if you could let us know about them so it can be improved. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about anything.
I asked the mods for a permission to make this post, as cs.money always has a post made about them whenever they add a new pixel on their site. However, I never got a response so let's see how this goes.

# Best General RenVM Questions of January 2020

‌*These questions are sourced directly from Telegram
Q: When you say RenVM is Trustless, Permissionless, and Decentralized, what does that actually mean?
A: Trustless = RenVM is a virtual machine (a network of nodes, that do computations), this means if you ask RenVM to trade an asset via smart contract logic, it will. No trusted intermediary that holds assets or that you need to rely on. Because RenVM is a decentralized network and computes verified information in a secure environment, no single party can prevent users from sending funds in, withdrawing deposited funds, or computing information needed for updating outside ledgers. RenVM is an agnostic and autonomous virtual broker that holds your digital assets as they move between blockchains.
Permissionless = RenVM is an open protocol; meaning anyone can use RenVM and any project can build with RenVM. You don't need anyone's permission, just plug RenVM into your dApp and you have interoperability.
Decentralized = The nodes that power RenVM ( Darknodes) are scattered throughout the world. RenVM has a peak capacity of up to 10,000 Darknodes (due to REN’s token economics). Realistically, there will probably be 100 - 500 Darknodes run in the initial Mainnet phases, ample decentralized nonetheless.

Q: Okay, so how can you prove this?
A: The publication of our audit results will help prove the trustlessness piece; permissionless and decentralized can be proven today.
Permissionless = https://github.com/renproject/ren-js
Decentralized = https://chaosnet.renproject.io/

Q: How does Ren sMPC work? Sharmir's secret sharing? TSS?
A: There is some confusion here that keeps arising so I will do my best to clarify.TL;DR: *SSS is just data. It’s what you do with the data that matters. RenVM uses sMPC on SSS to create TSS for ECDSA keys.*SSS and TSS aren’t fundamental different things. It’s kind of like asking: do you use numbers, or equations? Equations often (but not always) use numbers or at some point involve numbers.
SSS by itself is just a way of representing secret data (like numbers). sMPC is how to generate and work with that data (like equations). One of the things you can do with that work is produce a form of TSS (this is what RenVM does).
However, TSS is slightly different because it can also be done *without* SSS and sMPC. For example, BLS signatures don’t use SSS or sMPC but they are still a form of TSS.
So, we say that RenVM uses SSS+sMPC because this is more specific than just saying TSS (and you can also do more with SSS+sMPC than just TSS). Specifically, all viable forms of turning ECDSA (a scheme that isn’t naturally threshold based) into a TSS needs SSS+sMPC.
People often get confused about RenVM and claim “SSS can’t be used to sign transactions without making the private key whole again”. That’s a strange statement and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what SSS is.
To come back to our analogy, it’s like saying “numbers can’t be used to write a book”. That’s kind of true in a direct sense, but there are plenty of ways to encode a book as numbers and then it’s up to how you interpret (how you *use*) those numbers. This is exactly how this text I’m writing is appearing on your screen right now.
SSS is just secret data. It doesn’t make sense to say that SSS *functions*. RenVM is what does the functioning. RenVM *uses* the SSSs to represent private keys. But these are generated and used and destroyed as part of sMPC. The keys are never whole at any point.

Q: Thanks for the explanation. Based on my understanding of SSS, a trusted dealer does need to briefly put the key together. Is this not the case?
A: Remember, SSS is just the representation of a secret. How you get from the secret to its representation is something else. There are many ways to do it. The simplest way is to have a “dealer” that knows the secret and gives out the shares. But, there are other ways. For example: we all act as dealers, and all give each other shares of our individual secret. If there are N of us, we now each have N shares (one from every person). Then we all individually add up the shares that we have. We now each have a share of a “global” secret that no one actually knows. We know this global secret is the sum of everyone’s individual secrets, but unless you know every individual’s secret you cannot know the global secret (even though you have all just collectively generates shares for it). This is an example of an sMPC generation of a random number with collusion resistance against all-but-one adversaries.

Q: If you borrow Ren, you can profit from the opposite Ren gain. That means you could profit from breaking the network and from falling Ren price (because breaking the network, would cause Ren price to drop) (lower amount to be repaid, when the bond gets slashed)
A: Yes, this is why it’s important there has a large number of Darknodes before moving to full decentralisation (large borrowing becomes harder). We’re exploring a few other options too, that should help prevent these kinds of issues.

Q: What are RenVM’s Security and Liveliness parameters?
A: These are discussed in detail in our Wiki, please check it out here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#analysis

Q: What are the next blockchain under consideration for RenVM?
A: These can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Supported-Blockchains

Q: I've just read that Aztec is going to be live this month and currently tests txs with third parties. Are you going to participate in early access or you just more focused on bringing Ren to Subzero stage?
A: At this stage, our entire focus is on Mainnet SubZero. But, we will definitely be following up on integrating with AZTEC once everything is out and stable.

Q: So how does RenVM compare to tBTC, Thorchain, WBTC, etc..?
A: An easy way to think about it is..RenVM’s functionality is a combination of tBTC (+ WBTC by extension), and Thorchain’s (proposed) capabilities... All wrapped into one. Just depends on what the end-user application wants to do with it.

Q1: What are the core technical/security differences between RenVM and tBTC?A1: The algorithm used by tBTC faults if even one node goes offline at the wrong moment (and the whole “keep” of nodes can be penalised for this). RenVM can survive 1/3rd going offline at any point at any time. Advantage for tBTC is that collusion is harder, disadvantage is obviously availability and permissionlessness is lower.
tBTC an only mint/burn lots of 1 BTC and requires an on-Ethereum SPV relay for Bitcoin headers (and for any other chain it adds). No real advantage trade-off IMO.
tBTC has a liquidation mechanism that means nodes can have their bond liquidated because of ETH/BTC price ratio. Advantage means users can get 1 BTC worth of ETH. Disadvantage is it means tBTC is kind of a synthetic: needs a price feed, needs liquid markets for liquidation, users must accept exposure to ETH even if they only hold tBTC, nodes must stay collateralized or lose lots of ETH. RenVM doesn’t have this, and instead uses fees to prevent becoming under-collateralized. This requires a mature market, and assumed Darknodes will value their REN bonds fairly (based on revenue, not necessarily what they can sell it for at current —potentially manipulated—market value). That can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you feel.
tBTC focuses more on the idea of a tokenized version of BTC that feels like an ERC20 to the user (and is). RenVM focuses more on letting the user interact with DeFi and use real BTC and real Bitcoin transactions to do so (still an ERC20 under the hood, but the UX is more fluid and integrated). Advantage of tBTC is that it’s probably easier to understand and that might mean better overall experience, disadvantage really comes back to that 1 BTC limit and the need for a more clunky minting/burning experience that might mean worse overall experience. Too early to tell, different projects taking different bets.
tBTC supports BTC (I think they have ZEC these days too). RenVM supports BTC, BCH, and ZEC (docs discuss Matic, XRP, and LTC).
Q2: This are my assumed differences between tBTC and RenVM, are they correct? Some key comparisons:
-Both are vulnerable to oracle attacks
-REN federation failure results in loss or theft of all funds
-tBTC failures tend to result in frothy markets, but holders of tBTC are made whole
-REN quorum rotation is new crypto, and relies on honest deletion of old key shares
-tBTC rotates micro-quorums regularly without relying on honest deletion
-tBTC relies on an SPV relay
-REN relies on federation honesty to fill the relay's purpose
-Both are brittle to deep reorgs, so expanding to weaker chains like ZEC is not clearly a good idea
-REN may see total system failure as the result of a deep reorg, as it changes federation incentives significantly
-tBTC may accidentally punish some honest micro-federations as the result of a deep reorg
-REN generally has much more interaction between incentive models, as everything is mixed into the same pot.
-tBTC is a large collection of small incentive models, while REN is a single complex incentive model
A2: To correct some points:
The oracle situation is different with RenVM, because the fee model is what determines the value of REN with respect to the cross-chain asset. This is the asset is what is used to pay the fee, so no external pricing is needed for it (because you only care about the ratio between REN and the cross-chain asset).
RenVM does rotate quorums regularly, in fact more regularly than in tBTC (although there are micro-quorums, each deposit doesn’t get rotated as far as I know and sticks around for up to 6 months). This rotation involves rotations of the keys too, so it does not rely on honest deletion of key shares.
Federated views of blockchains are easier to expand to support deep re-orgs (just get the nodes to wait for more blocks for that chain). SPV requires longer proofs which begins to scale more poorly.
Not sure what you mean by “one big pot”, but there are multiple quorums so the failure of one is isolated from the failures of others. For example, if there are 10 shards supporting BTC and one of them fails, then this is equivalent to a sudden 10% fee being applied. Harsh, yes, but not total failure of the whole system (and doesn’t affect other assets).
Would be interesting what RenVM would look like with lots more shards that are smaller. Failure becomes much more isolated and affects the overall network less.
Further, the amount of tBTC you can mint is dependent on people who are long ETH and prefer locking it up in Keep for earning a smallish fee instead of putting it in Compound or leveraging with dydx. tBTC is competing for liquidity while RenVM isn't.

Q: I understand correctly RenVM (sMPC) can get up to a 50% security threshold, can you tell me more?
A: The best you can theoretically do with sMPC is 50-67% of the total value of REN used to bond Darknodes (RenVM will eventually work up to 50% and won’t go for 67% because we care about liveliness just as much as safety). As an example, if there’s $1M of REN currently locked up in bonded Darknodes you could have up to$500K of tokens shifted through RenVM at any one specific moment. You could do more than that in daily volume, but at any one moment this is the limit.Beyond this limit, you can still remain secure but you cannot assume that players are going to be acting to maximize their profit. Under this limit, a colluding group of adversaries has no incentive to subvert safety/liveliness properties because the cost to attack roughly outweighs the gain. Beyond this limit, you need to assume that players are behaving out of commitment to the network (not necessarily a bad assumption, but definitely weaker than the maximizing profits assumption).

Q: Why is using ETH as collateral for RenVM a bad idea?
A: Using ETH as collateral in this kind of system (like having to deposit say 20 ETH for a bond) would not make any sense because the collateral value would then fluctuate independently of what kind of value RenVM is providing. The REN token on the other hand directly correlates with the usage of RenVM which makes bonding with REN much more appropriate. DAI as a bond would not work as well because then you can't limit attackers with enough funds to launch as many darknodes as they want until they can attack the network. REN is limited in supply and therefore makes it harder to get enough of it without the price shooting up (making it much more expensive to attack as they would lose their bonds as well).
A major advantage of Ren's specific usage of sMPC is that security can be regulated economically. All value (that's being interopped at least) passing through RenVM has explicit value. The network can self-regulate to ensure an attack is never worth it.

Q: Given the fee model proposal/ceiling, might be a liquidity issue with renBTC. More demand than possible supply?A: I don’t think so. As renBTC is minted, the fees being earned by Darknodes go up, and therefore the value of REN goes up. Imagine that the demand is so great that the amount of renBTC is pushing close to 100% of the limit. This is a very loud and clear message to the Darknodes that they’re going to be earning good fees and that demand is high. Almost by definition, this means REN is worth more.
Profits of the Darknodes, and therefore security of the network, is based solely on the use of the network (this is what you want because your network does not make or break on things outside the systems control). In a system like tBTC there are liquidity issues because you need to convince ETH holders to bond ETH and this is an external problem. Maybe ETH is pumping irrespective of tBTC use and people begin leaving tBTC to sell their ETH. Or, that ETH is dumping, and so tBTC nodes are either liquidated or all their profits are eaten by the fact that they have to be long on ETH (and tBTC holders cannot get their BTC back in this case). Feels real bad man.

Q: I’m still wondering which asset people will choose: tbtc or renBTC? I’m assuming the fact that all tbtc is backed by eth + btc might make some people more comfortable with it.
A: Maybe :) personally I’d rather know that my renBTC can always be turned back into BTC, and that my transactions will always go through. I also think there are many BTC holders that would rather not have to “believe in ETH” as an externality just to maximize use of their BTC.

Q: How does the liquidation mechanism work? Can any party, including non-nodes act as liquidators? There needs to be a price feed for liquidation and to determine the minting fee - where does this price feed come from?
A: RenVM does not have a liquidation mechanism.
Q: I don’t understand how the price feeds for minting fees make sense. You are saying that the inputs for the fee curve depend on the amount of fees derived by the system. This is circular in a sense?
A: By evaluating the REN based on the income you can get from bonding it and working. The only thing that drives REN value is the fact that REN can be bonded to allow work to be done to earn revenue. So any price feed (however you define it) is eventually rooted in the fees earned.

Q: Who’s doing RenVM’s Security Audit?
A: ChainSecurity | https://chainsecurity.com/

Q: Can you explain RenVM’s proposed fee model?
A: The proposed fee model can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#fees

Q: Can you explain in more detail the difference between "execution" and "powering P2P Network". I think that these functions are somehow overlapping? Can you define in more detail what is "execution" and "powering P2P Network"? You also said that at later stages semi-core might still exist "as a secondary signature on everything (this can mathematically only increase security, because the fully decentralised signature is still needed)". What power will this secondary signature have?
A: By execution we specifically mean signing things with the secret ECDSA keys. The P2P network is how every node communicates with every other node. The semi-core doesn’t have any “special powers”. If it stays, it would literally just be a second signature required (as opposed to the one signature required right now).
This cannot affect safety, because the first signature is still required. Any attack you wanted to do would still have to succeed against the “normal” part of the network. This can affect liveliness, because the semi-core could decide not to sign. However, the semi-core follows the same rules as normal shards. The signature is tolerant to 1/3rd for both safety/liveliness. So, 1/3rd+ would have to decide to not sign.
Members of the semi-core would be there under governance from the rest of our ecosystem. The idea is that members would be chosen for their external value. We’ve discussed in-depth the idea of L<3. But, if RenVM is used in MakerDAO, Compound, dYdX, Kyber, etc. it would be desirable to capture the value of these ecosystems too, not just the value of REN bonded. The semi-core as a second signature is a way to do this.
Imagine if the members for those projects, because those projects want to help secure renBTC, because it’s used in their ecosystems. There is a very strong incentive for them to behave honestly. To attack RenVM you first have to attack the Darknodes “as per usual” (the current design), and then somehow convince 1/3rd of these projects to act dishonestly and collapse their own ecosystems and their own reputations. This is a very difficult thing to do.
Worth reminding: the draft for this proposal isn’t finished. It would be great for everyone to give us their thoughts on GitHub when it is proposed, so we can keep a persistent record.

Q: Which method or equation is used to calculate REN value based on fees? I'm interested in how REN value is calculated as well, to maintain the L < 3 ratio?
A: We haven’t finalized this yet. But, at this stage, the plan is to have a smart contract that is controlled by the Darknodes. We want to wait to see how SubZero and Zero go before committing to a specific formulation, as this will give us a chance to bootstrap the network and field inputs from the Darknodes owners after the earnings they can make have become more apparent.