Lobstr Stellar Wallet for XLM Coin Launches New Custody
Lobstr Stellar Wallet for XLM Coin Launches New Custody
7 Explosive Cryptocurrencies to Buy After the Bitcoin
Estimating the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining
Riot Blockchain Moves Part of Bitcoin Mining Operation to
Cryptocurrency Mining: Top 5 Coins To Mine In 2018
Reasons to believe Julian Assange is in CIA custody and WikiLeaks under duress.
UPDATE (11/01/2017 - UK Date Format): Julian Assange is alive and still in the Embassy. He confirms WikiLeaks has not been compromised. Julian took questions from the Reddit AmA but answered them via live, current and interactive video. He did this very intentionally, and by so doing, was true to his word. Watch a recording of the live event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC2EjKYMCeg On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry (self admitted Skull and Bones member) visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial. For over four years, the Ecuadorian embassy has been under surveillance and Julian's human rights violated as he has been unlawfully detained termed "illegal arbitrary detention" by a recent UN ruling. During that time, it has been possible for intelligence agencies to gather critical information and build a detailed profile and plan to circumvent Julian's dead man's switch. Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies know perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that are damaging to Hillary's campaign. It has been very clear for a long time that many US officials wanted Julian Assange dead, Hillary Clinton even has remarked, "can't we just drone the guy". The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they know that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also know WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate. Removing Assange would not be enough, they would need to circumvent his dead man's switch and then tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Removing Assange's internet could have the effect of causing Assange to take steps that can be followed to prevent the automatic triggering of his DMS. From the day Julian's internet was cut off, a series of peculiar and uncharacteristic events started to take place. The same day that Julian's internet was cut off, CBS reported that Pamela Anderson visited Assange and had "Tortured" him with a vegan sandwich. A few days before on the 14th, John Podesta tweeted "I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy". Then on October the 16th the SHA-256 prerelease keys were issued on WikiLeaks twitter feed, although these events are odd and seemingly inconsequential, combined with John Kerry being in the UK from the 16th to the 17th sparked concern among the community for Julian's safety. Assange supporters started to gather at the embassy to keep Assange safe and witness any foul play, some of these witnesses have claimed that a very swift police armed raid took place that lasted only 5 minutes while the crowd was kept under control and prevented from approaching, there have also been reports that they were prevented from taking photographs and that their phones were confiscated. A live periscope feed was also cut off. There have also been some reports of the presence of a mobile jamming van. If Assange has been seized, any recognition by mainstream media would be detrimental to Hillary's campaign. A covert operation with media blackout would be the only effective way of seizing him at this time. On October the 18th Fox News said that Julian Assange would be "arrested soon, maybe in a matter of hours.". The was video was then promptly removed and articles relating to it have disappeared. However, one reddit user was able to find an alternative source and now the video can be found again on YouTube. Although Julian's primary DMS (the release of insurance file encryption keys) did not activate, on October the 18th one of Julian's contingencies did activate, a script was activated that made https://file.wikileaks.org/file publicly visible and set all the file date and time stamps to 01/01/1984 (Orwell reference). This file repository contains many documents that had not been released prior. Staffers Kristinn Hrafnsson and Sarah Harrison, have gone silent while the Ecuadorian embassy is refusing to provide any updates on Assange’s fate. There is a recorded call made to the embassy by a journalist where the receptionist refused to confirm that Julian was at the embassy, she also refused to confirm that Julian was even alive. Julian has not made an appearance at the window of the embassy since being cut off. WikiLeaks suggested in a tweet that its supporters were responsible for the DDOS attacks on the 21st. Neither Assange or WikiLeaks would ever insinuate such a thing. WikiLeaks deceptively tweeted a video of Michael Moore that was actually recorded in June. The video was posted on the 24th of October giving the impression that Michael Moore had been speaking with Assange in the embassy. Why would WikiLeaks do this when they know they are already under suspicion? WikiLeaks have been using their Twitter account to give the appearance of his safety while providing no concrete evidence of his safety. They issued a poll asking what proof would satisfy the public that Julian was safe. WikiLeaks have yet to follow up on the conclusive result of a video or window appearance. Julian Assange is known for his attention to detail and his consistently good spelling and grammar. Currently the twitter feed has very poor spelling, there are numerous uncharacteristic spelling errors, for example, an accomplished cryptographer knows how to correctly spell algorithm and so do WikiLeaks staff. On the 21st of October, there was a massive widespread DDOS attack that disrupted US and EU internet. Also on the 21st of October London City Airport was evacuated. The next day (the 22nd), Gavin MacFayden is reported dead. WikiLeaks made a further blunder by stating his death as the 23rd. There has been a number of high level WikiLeaks deaths recently too. John Jones QC - WikiLeaks U.N. lawyer died on April 16th 2016. Michael Ratner - WikiLeaks chief counsel died on May 11th 2016. Seth Rich - Employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was fatally shot on July 10th 2016 and Gavin MacFadyen - WikiLeaks director died October 22nd 2016. If WikiLeaks has been compromised, it is already preparing the scene for future discrepancy to seriously tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Nothing WikiLeaks has shared since the 15th of October 2016 should be trusted until Julian has been fully verified as alive. My speculative fears are that Julian has been seized and removed from the Embassy. His internet being cut not being related to the release of the emails, but rather as a component of a plan of 4 years in the making to as secretly as possible remove Assange from the embassy, circumvent his DMS and hijack WikiLeaks with the key team members silenced or under duress. My fears would be confirmed by no future public (mass witnessing and recorded/televised) appearance of Julian Assange discussing recent topics. His death by whatever means after the US presidential election would be extremely suspect. Until proof of life, assume the following compromised: SHA-256 verification Keys posted after the 15th. WikiLeaks submission process and/or platform. WikiLeaks twitter feed. Any WikiLeaks leaks after the 15th October 2016. EDIT: (01/11/2016 - 17:18GMT) URL and spelling corrections. EDIT: Update 16/12/2016 Why demanding proof that WikiLeaks is not compromised is necessary: https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/ (PoL Event @ Ecuadorian Embassy London 17th December 2016) – If you live in the UK please come and let’s get REAL PoL. Please circulate. 1) Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks. 2) RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account) 3) Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised 4) The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files 5) Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning. No one actually saw Julian through the whole process. Additional points: -UK disregard for international law -Capabilities of combined intelligence agencies -WikiLeaks down on October 17th -Mass censorship -WikiLeaks reposting old stuff -See timelines below Various timelines, some with minor errors: https://www.reddit.com/WikileaksTimeline/wiki/indexhttps://www.reddit.com/WhereIsAssange/comments/5dmr57/timeline_of_events_regarding_julian_assange_and/https://regated.com/2016/11/julian-assange-missing/ [Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks] Watch this https://youtu.be/GSIDS_lvRv4 video for a simple and good explanation of public/private key cryptography. Here https://riseup.net/en/canary is an example of how a legitimate cryptographically capable organisation uses PGP to sign a message and prove authenticity. WikiLeaks has this setup too. Why do they not use it and prove they are not compromised? WikiLeaks could easily do this. They have their private key. The public has WikiLeaks public key. Even if Julian isn’t in possession of the key, WL most certainly is, no excuse for WL not to prove themselves. This has been heavily requested of WikiLeaks. I’d like to hear from the individuals who claim that their requests were removed (please leave comments). Of all the red flags, not posting a PGP signed message is by far the most damming. If we are to believe that the person in the audio recording at the FCM 2016 is Julian Assange, then what he says about the keys is missing the point. If he himself is not in possession of the key, then WikiLeaks will be. If WikiLeaks use the key to prove themselves, then we know they are not compromised. By extension, we will also be assured that Julian is safe as an uncompromised WikiLeaks would be in a position to confirm his safety and be believed. This audio file includes everything that he says regarding PGP keys: http://picosong.com/UyVw/ (I am not convinced this is Julian). [RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account)] RiseUp is an activist ISP providing secure services to activists. Its mission is to support liberatory social change via fighting social control and mass surveillance through distribution of secure tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riseup). RiseUp use a warrant canary as a means to protect their users in case RiseUp are ever issued with a NSL or gag order etc (https://riseup.net/en/canary). This is renewed quarterly, assuming no warrant has been issued. However, this is now considerably overdue so the assumption is that the canary is dead, and just like the canaries used in coal mines, everyone should get the hell out of there when it dies. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/something-happened-to-activist-email-provider-riseup-but-it-hasnt-been-compromised/. I would be grateful if someone could provide a source for the WikiLeaks twitter email account being hosted by RiseUp. [Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865 On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial. Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies knew perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that were damaging to Hillary's campaign. The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they knew that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also knew WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate. Now it is long after the election and Ecuador have still not restored Julian’s internet. Ecuador have no grounds to continue to restrict Julian’s internet. It does nothing apart from increase tensions and raise suspicion. Ecuador have always been supportive of Julian. However, after John Kerry applied pressure on Ecuador, that whole dynamic changed. Ecuador cut Julian's Internet. He then essentially threatened Ecuador, the UK and John Kerry by submitting those pre-commitment file hashes on Twitter. Since then we have only seen hostility towards Julian from all three parties. Ecuador didn't restore his internet and didn't let his lawyer interview him and no one actually saw him. The U.K. Denied him access to Gavin's funeral and denied him access to medical treatment. The UK also continually disregard the UN. The dynamic now is totally different. He has no political friends. It seems that both the UK and Ecuador are now working against Julian and Wikileaks. An environment where a collaborated siege would be feasible. Finally, many have speculated about mobile signals being blocked at the Embassy. I can confirm that there is 4G signal right outside the Embassy door. I was there, with my phone, and tested it. There is no reason to think Julian cannot use a MiFi device (or similar) connected to a cellular network. [The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files] Here are the October tweets with the file hashes: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781519951720449 These 3 pre-commitment Twitter posts are SHA-256 file hashes. SHA-256 file hashes are 64 characters long. They are not encryption keys for insurance files. They simply are a mathematical formula for verifying that later released files are genuine and have not been altered. These hashes were released because Julian felt threatened and in increased danger. They specifically targeted the UK FCO, Ecuador and John Kerry. All of whom are key players in his current predicament. On November 7th, WikiLeaks released 3 new insurance files. These files names match the names given in the pre-commitment hash tweets: 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_EC.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_UK.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_US.aes256 EC = Ecuador, UK = UK FCO, US = John Kerry. Soon after these files were released, the 3 files hashes were compared to the 3 hashes posted on the 16th of October. They did not match. When this was brought to WikiLeaks attention, WikiLeaks released the following statement in a tweet: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521 “NOTE: When we release pre-commitment hashes they are for decrypted files (obviously). Mr. Assange appreciates the concern.” This firstly proved that the hashes and the insurance files were related (a fact that was already clear). Secondly, it was a lie, as it implied historical use of pre-commitment hashes in this manner. Thirdly, the (obviously) comment was also a deception and an insult to supporters. It was not obvious to anyone, not even to our crypto guys in /cryptography/, on the contrary, they thought it highly suspicious. Additionally, what they suggest would be absolutely pointless. Pointless as a threat, as the UK, Ecuador and John Kerry would have no practical way of identifying the documents to confirm the threat. There's absolutely no scenario where an uncompromised WikiLeaks would either post bad file hashes or altered insurance files. [Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning] This is highly unusual and very suspicious. Also, Jennifer Robinson was not in the room with Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYR0Pw9LfUQ&feature=youtu.be&t=9m55s and neither was the chief prosecutor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37972528 “Swedish chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren will not speak to Mr Assange directly”. [UK disregard for international law] The UK threat is very real. Back in August 2012 the UK was poised to break international law citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 as a basis for entering the Embassy and arresting Assange (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623). It all became very public, very quickly and fortunately never happened (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/ecuado9488996/Ecuadors-president-raiding-embassy-to-snatch-Julian-Assange-suicidal.html). I expressed my concern at the time that the UK shouldn’t have even been contemplating such action, let alone threatening it in writing to Ecuador. More recently, the UK disregarded the UN ruling that Julian Assange was being arbitrarily detained (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation). The UK appealed, and then finally lost their appeal in November (https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/). Julian has also been refused to leave the Embassy with a police escort for medical treatment as well as denied to attend Gavin MacFadyen’s funeral. The UK’s behaviour is appalling and clearly has no respect for international law. The reported raid on the Embassy during the latter part of October seems more plausible when taken in the context of past behavior. This is the Britain I now live in: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html. I never used to be ashamed to be British. [Combined capabilities of intelligence agencies] We know much about the combined powers of the intelligence agencies. We know what they are capable of, thanks to the leaks of Edward Snowden. The combined powers of the NSA, CIA and the UK’s GCHQ are capable of pulling off such a massive takeover of Wikileaks. We know the NSA works with other US intelligence agencies, we know that the NSA works with GCHQ. We know about Tempora, we know about JTRIG, we know about PRISM, we know about HAVOK. We know that websites can be altered on the fly, we know that real-time voice profiling is trivial for these agencies. We know that censorship is happening. https://usnewsghost.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/new-july-14-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-gchq-attacks-and-censors-internet-nsa-leaks-recent/http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gchqs-favourite-memes-and-sexual-slang-reveals-a-shared-culture-with-trolls-and-hackers-9608065.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) The NSA has a remit to be 10 years ahead of the curve. We have commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf today that can easily manipulate audio and video. Just imagine what the NSA and the military are capable of. Real time facial manipulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Signs of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9t_TEE1aw. Both Julian Assange and John Pilger are not filmed together at any time during the interview. There is also no establishing shot. It is also claimed that Assange’s audio is spliced and edited. No recent events mentioned by Assange, only Pilger. Unfortunately, this interview is not sufficient proof of life. What the NSA can’t do, is that they cannot break PGP encryption. This has been expressed by Glenn Greenwald who was one of the journalists that Edward Snowden leaked to. He commented that he knows how secure PGP is because the NSA keep moaning about not being able to crack it in their documents he is reading. This is another reason why a signed PGP message can be the only true proof that WL isn’t compromised. Mathematics cannot lie, people can and do. A compromised WL can’t sign a message without the private key. Edward Snowden revealed that in 2013 the NSA were capable of 3 trillion password attempts per second. As it is now almost 2017, that number will likely be multiple times higher (anywhere between 9 to 15 trillion attempts per second would be my guess based on Moore’s law). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Grouphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)https://www.schneier.com/gchq-catalog/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters [WikiLeaks down on October 17th] The alleged raid on the Embassy supposedly took place on the 17th just after 1am GMT. On Monday the 17th of October 2016 WikiLeaks website was reported down (http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikileaks.org.html expand the comments) https://postimg.org/image/6t68fe4kj/. The internet was alive with reports of mass censorship around this time. This all coincides with when the alleged WikiLeaks takeover occurred. It also coincides with John Kerry being in the UK. [Christine Assange audio only radio interview] Julian's family had their identities changed quite a few years ago after receiving death threats. It is odd that his mother has now revealed herself to a news agency. If you do a YouTube search for Christine Assange (her original name), you'll find all the videos are older than 3 years. She's in hiding, not openly talking on radio shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange scroll down to the personal life section). [WikiLeaks bitcoin account was emptied on the 18th of November] Interestingly it was after the bitcoin account was emptied that the encoded message in the blockchain was left. Why would WikiLeaks go to all that trouble when they could just sign a message with their PGP key? Is it because bitcoin accounts can be cracked and the PGP keys can’t? [Mass censorship] Facebook is censoring this event (https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/). It has been advertised for weeks now any only a handful of people are attending. Recently Wikileaks was live on FB. 50% of the viewers (roughly 2.5k) were commenting #PoL, #Whereisassange, RIP etc. The live event was only a prerecorded video being played in loop. Once it concluded, the whole Live event along with all the comments including the comments asking for PoL and PGP signed message were deleted. It was as if it never took place. When Julian’s DMS had supposedly been activated, I saw posts in threads being deleted within minutes. Supposedly with encryption keys, but it all happened too fast for anyone to collate. I took PDF printouts of the pages and then later noticed that posts and entire links were taken down. I have PDF's of pages that now no longer exist. I've been following this since mid-October and seen the censorship first hand. I know many people here on reddit witnessed the same (please comment with your experiences). [WikiLeaks reposting old stuff] There are many examples of this already mentioned in the timelines. One for example is the Palantir Technologies report. Palantir Technologies prepared a report on how to destroy WikiLeaks that was leaked in 2011. The proposal was submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. Palantir later apologised for their involvement. But WikiLeaks has recently regurgitated it as if it was new. There are many examples of this. I have watched as WikiLeaks have increasingly destroyed their credibility.
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg. But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin. AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/ So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that: AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world. Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit. But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong. He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank. But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company". AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development". A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/ So, let's get a few things straight here. "AXA" might not be a household name to many people. And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-) But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world. AXA was started as a French insurance company. And now it's a French multinational insurance company. But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company. AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place. My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive. An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
http://fortune.com/2010/09/02/why-the-fed-saved-aig-and-not-lehman/ Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives). Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens). In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then. In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-) So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming". AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off. Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel. In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them. And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets. AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet. The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.) The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario: If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time. All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you. Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system). Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards. Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA. After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt. Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/ I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency. Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap. Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat. And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling. So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums. In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are. But one thing we do know is this: Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize. The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules"). The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this: Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules. And if you think about it, this makes sense. It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized. It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is: We all make the rules. Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules". But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore. Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in. The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit. The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy. Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs. This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is." So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC). BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk. The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it. What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before? Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding? Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does. It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/ So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion. He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
I know, it’s not fair. But since we are all suffering because of what is going on and people’s kids are sitting around in cages, I’m not gonna feel that bad if the South suffers with us. They can bear the burden of their shit decisions.
That's why the Republicans will make sure the US famers don't even notice. They're bring back a depression-era program to subsidize the farmers hurt during the trade war. This should hold over the rural republican voters until the midterm or even the presidential election. They'll just use tax dollars to pay for farmers being hurt by the trade war as long as they keep voting republican.
You are arguing semantics. If I demand your money (for prection, of course), and that is backed by the threat of violence, that's stealing. You don't want to call taxes stealing, because the entity doing the stealing also writes the law that defines what is legally theft. (Note: I think taxes for thepublic good and the threat of punishment for failure to pay are both necessary... But let's not try and pretend it's not stealing.)
That’s so silly. You get a return on your investment in the government. Some people get a shittier return than others, sure. But everyone benefits from the programs that taxes provide. Calling it stealing is silly.
You have a very optimistic view on government. 51% of the population votes in people to then take away everything some other subset of the population has. This isn't stealing? (Note: this has happened in multiple counties, and this article is talking about a WAY waterered down version of this)
Everything? That’s a bit hyperbolic wouldn’t you say? If people don’t participate in voting is that somehow the other people’s fault? I understand government is inefficient, I don’t like the way all of it is spent for sure. But that doesn’t make taxes stealing.
Ahh I see what you mean. I see you’ve turned a representative democracy into “stealing other people’s shit” “Shit” costs money. Government provides services. If you don’t want to live in a state that provides government services there are a few available to move to. Isn’t that a lot of the right-wing’s arguments? Don’t like how things are done: move. There are checks and balances for a reason. Nobody’s coming for more than your fair share. You may disagree on what your fair share is, so I suggest voting. It’s never going to be 0, and above 0 isn’t stealing.
and how that is simply not what was intended by founding fathers/constitution. Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority...
Cue routine response that the nation was supposed to be a union of coequal, sovereign states, not a republic where we collectively choose our leaders. So in that model a rural state with 1% of the population of CA would be equal in power to CA. There is no way rural states are going to willingly give up the disproportionate power they have. They're going to take any effort to have their votes count the same as other citizens as them being disenfranchised.
Hyperbole aside the Legislative system is designed to specifically give disproportionate power to states with smaller populations. Tyranny of the majority is a real concern when we think about political balance of power.
1: Promise farmers and coal miners that you are their president and will fight for them. 2: Start a trade war that directly damages the farmers and coal miners 3: Use tax dollars to subsidize your inability to make any meaningful policy to fulfill your promise to the farmers and coal miners. 4: Get millions of votes from farmers and coal miners. This is the world we live in.
Sure, but the current issue has more to do with the parts the Constitution left unaddressed rather than vice versa. Also, a tyranny of the minority can be overcome or contained, tyranny of the majority is rather absolute.
nd how that is simply not what was intended by founding fathers/constitution.
What? That was the exact intention of the founding fathers, that even little states the rest of the country considers backwater would be able to have a say: that's literally the point of the electoral college.
It's not only that though, the Senate cuts down on the power of Gerrymandering. You can't cut up a state so that it's Senate representation is wildly unlike it's demographic. However the problem with that is then you get crazy things like North Dakota having the same representation as California in the Senate. I think the real problem is the fact that Democracy is too much work for most people who live in the modern world. "Government of the People" requires The People to do the actual work of governing, and in our case they have totally abandoned their duties.
You are equating having your vote count the same as mine as living under a tyranny. There is no system where rural states don't have disproportionate power that wouldn't count as a tyranny to them. Rural states aren't worried about balance of power, rather they're worried about preserving their disproportionate power. "Balance" for them is not between the citizens of our country (that they count as 'tyranny') but between states, as if they are sovereign and independent coequal entities. A model under which a state with 1% the population of CA would still have equal sway over the laws of the nation. You didn't rebut anything I said, merely reiterate it.
> You are equating having your vote count the same as mine as living under a tyranny. There is no system where rural states don't have disproportionate power that wouldn't count as a tyranny to them. Rural states aren't worried about balance of power, rather they're worried about preserving their disproportionate power. Rural states have disproportionate power by design. Which is a good thing. For a long time this country was under the tyranny of the majority, so the concern over minority power is very real. The issue here isn't that minority groups shouldn't be have disproportionate political power, but rather that the majority cannot effectively wield theirs. This is due to technology and lack of campaign finance regulations, not because rural states have too much power. > "Balance" for them is not between the citizens of our country (that they count as 'tyranny') but between states, as if they are sovereign and independent coequal entities. A model under which a state with 1% the population of CA would still have equal sway over the laws of the nation. You didn't rebut anything I said, merely reiterate it. I did rebut what you said, you're insinuating that rural states having disproportionate power is a bad thing. It's not, they should fight to keep the current design of the government. That's necessary to prevent large and powerful states from unilaterally dictating the course of the country. That's something that's been in place by design since the inception of this country. You're attributing the current political climate to the wrong cause.
The most significant example of the tyranny of the minority is slavery, which took over two centuries to dismantle and still affects us to this day. The article you linked has less to do with what we are currently discussing and more to do with the concentration of power in the hands of a smaller powerful group of people. That issue applies to all states equally, be they rural or the Californias and Texases of the Union.
I think the key here is that the constitution was written with the 13 colonies in mind. I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that we would end up with 50 states spanning both oceans, so I think we have a far greater disparity than they ever imagined we would.
I'm much less concerned with what the Founding Fathers than with whether something is practical or not. The Founding Fathers designed an excellent system for their time and the philosophy guiding their design was very forward thinking. I don't think that rural states are in the wrong for trying to push their interests nor do I think that the manner in which they do so is insidious. The same tools after all, are available to all states. I think the far bigger issues are the things that the Founders didn't address. I don't think they realized just how much special interests could affect politics. The political class was fairly small at the time and the political system of the first four Presidents pales in complexity when compared to the late 20th and 21st century. I think that there are far too few rules concerning how we elect our leaders and far too few rules concerning money in politics.
No, that was the point of the Senate. The impact slavery had on the electoral college is undeniable -- the south would not accept one-person, one-vote (and obviously wouldn't let blacks vote), and hence the vile 3/5ths compromise and the need for a system other than popular vote for the presidency. And likewise gerrymandering of the House has become a perversion. Layering the impact on the judicial branch by virtue of the appointment process, and we have minority of population being able to control all the branches of government... that is not what was intended. Pick up the July 14 edition of the Economist if you can -- link to most the relevant article below if have subscription or otherwise able to access. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats
Honestly, it’s because Democrats have a hard time describing their position. If they pick up the argument that we can’t pay for these things, Republicans will agree and ask to slash government spending across the board. That hurts Democrats politically (weakening public sector union workforce) and electorally (constituents everywhere have services reduced). This is a downward cycle as the country begins to lose faith in government and the idea that “government is the problem” spreads leading to more cuts in the future. Democrats need to get aggressive and actually play the game by “holding possession.” This means sayin we’d be happy to provide subsidies for hurting farmers, but first you have to pay for X. That could be healthcare, education, infrastructure, or whatever.
The following post by ToppestLobster is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been openly removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ CryptoCurrency/comments/7qrqly The original post's content was as follows:
Have we reached "peak-ish" mass acceptance? I think not, not even close. I think, if we have even started to eat our way into early majority, that would be huge. I dont think we have. This has been a race of the 2% of innovators, which in turn got a bunch of, say, 5% early adopters. These created enough ruckus for bigger money to take a bit of interest. This, in turn, created a rush that a small portion of normies wanted to buy into. That, in turn, got some more big money interested. And that is where we are at, i think. 90% of majority is still untapped and this is where anything goes big, that would also attract the really big money and attention and cultural awareness. Unless this is tampered with, like serious manipulations like this, wave after wave in successions where one does not see significantly higher peaks in between, i think mass adoption will be delayed. If bad enough, crypto will not be adopted en masse (i dont think that will happen, as it is in no ones interest). Realise that were at 500b, with a high point at like 750b or something like that. Thats NOTHING. Right now we are hovering just over Kazakhstan GDP. Thats it. Financially speaking, crypto right now has about as much of an impact as Kazakhstan. On a good day, something like Colombia. If you sit in the crypto bubble for too long, and if youve had a figurative lambo or two, you may think this is the biggest thing since ketchup. Not really, were Kazakhstan. That is to say, we are still babies, really small babies. Realise that for crypto to work as a structure of internatiolan payments, for that to work there needs to be AT LEAST one crypto unit for every required international payment unit. I.e. the currency, or currencies, used for international transfers will need to be as large as total international transfers on a per year, or per half year (at least) basis. Im not counting TRX or DOGE here, but structures that are backed by serious hardware, structures that are essentially non-profit, structures that are transparent yet very reliable and secure, very fast and very cheap. I honestly believe that there is only ONE coin at this point that fits this description, but im not here to shill so i wont go there. I think one or two or three coins, the ones useful for the purpose and marketed and adopted as such, in the coming five to ten years, will need to EACH cap up towards 3-4T. This is the moon. Thats when crypto will move as little, or as much, as a normal INDEX fund. All this is the basis for mass adoption. Right now, we have barely penetrated a sphere outside that of enthusiast geeks and a few bullish and futuristic investors. We are Kazakhstan now and we will not go down as such. What we see now is just big money and institutions realizing what is happening, and they are trying to wrestle things to their benefit. About the mentioned China block for example, i think its just China securing a firmer grip on the market. Their Govt signaled this to large institutions, they got the dry powder ready, when weak hands failed to hold, they secured an additional ~10-20% of the entire crypto game this far. EVERYTHING across the board. Or alternatively, do you think China has officially been endorsing BTC mining for five years, essentially PAYING for their people to mine BTC, so that 80% of every bitcoin mined comes from China. Then only to ban everything and get out? Is that why International leaders like Trump CONSTANTLY talks about the audacity of China, their tricks, their sense of good deals? There are no new geographical areas to conquer, unless you want war. But there is a new area, previously untapped. Realize what we see in Crypto is a little new country. Right now its like Kazakhstan. Its gonna HAVE to be something like India, or the EU. Obviously no country is going to give it up. In three months, its going to reach at least 1T. Pakistan, Poland. Do you think the international society doesnt care and will leave it for someone else to take? In half a year, like South Korea. That future is decided now. Dont be stupid. You have the opportunity to get a slice of this new land as well - for the first time, individuals can properly conquer a new continent. OBVIOUSLY people will play tricks on you. Weak hands letting go now is like when the Indians in America sold their land for glass pearls. I guess its like evolution in a sense. If you are that weak, it is probably good that your influence and holdings are as limited as possible. People taking this bloodbath as something other than an invitation towards bigtime buying are not worthy of the new continent.
■ Colored Coin / Bitcoin Test Bed @ a physical weekly fair - Let me know if this proposal makes sense... If so, we can really push this forward. =)
Hi Everyone! I've been helping out the NYC Bitcoin community host meetups since 2012 and seen it grow from 5 people showing up at the first meetup to what it is today.** (https://www.google.com/search?q=xcubicle+bitcoin)** I'm currently working on the next phase to increase Bitcoin adoption by merchants targeting the less tech savvy merchants with physical locations. For those that have been to a Bitcoin event/conference/satoshi square, you'll notice that there arent many merchants selling anything besides mining hardware. You can't even buy food/drinks with your Bitcoins as most food vendors wont take it. I hope to help change this and push this idea forward as we have a test bed here in NYC which we can replicate around the world if we can figure this out. I'm currently working with the hester street fair (www.hesterstreetfair.com) here in NYC to convert every sunday for the next 5 months into a Bitcoin fair event. Below is my proposed solution to making this work by utilizing the public blockchain for data tracking. I guess it's the first color coin type of implementation in a physical space. Fair Promo Banner: -- http://i.imgur.com/CaiUUm5.png -- What is the Hester Street Fair? The Hester Street Fair is the only outdoor community market located on the Lower East Side of NYC, specializing in handmade goods, creative products and artisanal food. HSF is a launching pad for small, independent businesses and artists. Hundreds of vendors rotate over 60 spots every Sunday to create one of the most dynamic outdoor events in New York City. How is Bitcoin involved? We would be the first Bitcoin fair in NYC to have a group of merchants and food vendors accepting Bitcoin in one spot. We also have teamed up with Xcubicle who has helped incubate the Bitcoin community in NYC since 2012. They will help to organize Bitcoin related events that involve speaker sessions, community meetups, and public education in this space. What makes this unique? We plan to merge a typical local vendor fair with a feel of a Bitcoin social community gathering. We’re taking a grassroots approach on increasing Bitcoin adoption by integrating a new technology into something that currently exists. How are you going to increase adoption rates? Adoption rates increase as the general public understands how the technology works and gets a test bed to try it out at a fair like this. Our approach is targeting the vendors that has products/services that do not take Bitcoin yet. Those vendors that choose to accept Bitcoin will receive an additional % revenue from every Bitcoin transaction tracked via the blockchain public ledger. This creates an incentive for vendors to learn the technology and adopt it as it would provide an additional revenue. Now as for consumers that use Bitcoin, we would implement a similar strategy where users would receive a % rebate discount when spending their bitcoins as at a verified vendor at the fair. Due to the mass numbers of consumers at a fair, we would limit the number of sign ups each day and have those that wish to participate register their bitcoin address with us to track their spending. Where are the funds coming from? Typically at large Bitcoin conferences/events sponsorship money is used to pay for the expensive venue. In this scenario since the space already exists we would use sponsorship funds and community cowdfunding in creating this market discount/rebate structure. In a sense its funneling sponsorship money back to users and vendors of the Bitcoin ecosystem. WHAT EVENTS WOULD BE AT THE FAIR? Satoshi Square 2.0 - A section of the space will be dedicated for those that wish to barter for Bitcoin. We plan to enhance this trading setup by implementing the Mycellium App’s Local Trading feature** (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462235.0)** where users can offer buy/sell prices via their in app interface. For those that are new to the platform or those that don’t have the application installed, we will have a trading booth where buy orders can be placed through an intermediary. Sellers within the vicinity will be alerted via the app when a buyer meets their requirements. This is different from the typical setup as users would involve having to stay around the same area when a buy/sell order is made and wait for a matching sale. The in app mycellium local trader feature creates a new dynamic to this event. Xcubicle Bitcoin Meetup - In addition to the fair, we will coincide an afternoon Bitcoin meetup at Xcubicle’s space in a socratic circle discussion (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=xcubicle+bitcoin+). Prepared topics will be lead by a moderator that can vary from the basics to advanced depending on the level of the audience. Bitcoin Social Networking - For those that wish to participate in the social networking event which will happen near the satoshi square booth, we would coincide it with or after the meetup. In order to make it a friendly environment for networking, we would require guests to RSVP ahead of time or sign up on the spot to receive a networking tag indicating they are there to network. Physical Bitcoin Faucets - There will be Bitcoin faucet kiosks or a person at the fair where users can receive free bitcoins/litecoins/dogecoins. These physical faucets will be crowdfunded by the community. (More details soon) Bitcoin + Altcoin Info Booths - There will be bitcoin/altcoin info materials for new users looking to learn more about cryptocurrency. Each booth will have an attendee helping new users setting up their wallets to be used at the faucets or at the trading square. Product/Food Vendors - Vendors will be from around the city that range from selling food and products for bitcoin. Xcubicle will be educating vendors on how to accept Bitcoins in a fast paced environment. HOW ARE DISCOUNTS/REBATES DISTRIBUTED? Vendors - Vendors that choose to adopt bitcoin will submit their public address for us to track and receive an additional % revenue based on the total Bitcoins collected from the start to the end of the fair. There will be a maximum earnings cap for each vendor to prevent abuse of the system. Since all transactions are tracked on the public blockchain ledger, we can distribute the % bonuses accordingly. Users - Rebates for users that purchase services/products in bitcoin from a verified bitcoin vendor at the fair will be reimbursed a % of what they spent. Due to the fact there are more consumers than vendors at a fair, there will be a limit cap for those that wish to participate in this rebate program. The limit cap will be enforced via a registration process at one of the booths. Users will have to submit their public bitcoin address for tracking. Name and email is optional for those that wish to stay anonymous as the only thing needed is their Bitcoin address to provide the rebate. EXAMPLE TRANSACTION AT THE FAIR
7AM - Vendor "Luke's Lobsters" logs into Bitpay and generates a Bitpay receiving address so he can convert incoming BTC into USD.
8AM - Vendor "Luke's Lobsters" submits his Bitcoin Public Address used to receive Bitcoin payments at the fair to participate for the rebate.* 9AM - User "John Doe" arrives at the fair and heads to the registration booth and register's his Bitcoin Public Address that he will be using at the fair for cashback.
1PM - John purchases a lobster roll sandwich from "Luke's Lobsters" table. He opens up his app and sends payment from his registered address with the fair.
9PM - End of Day -- We look at "Luke's Lobsters" public address via the blockchain to see how much money he received through out the day and send an additional 3-10% to that address
9PM - End of Day -- We look at "John Doe" public address for the day to see how much he spent at a verified merchant address and issue a 3%-10% cashback
I believe what I have here solves the two big issues with Bitcoin adoption and usage:
Vendor adoption - As a business owner myself, we want our fiat dollars at the end of the day to pay our suppliers. Sure there is Bitpay that solves the issues of converting it, but not every physical shop owner wants to give out there TAXID information to make that happen. I'm talking about mom/pop shops that are just cash only. Now the way I believe this issue can be solved is by reversing the fees, instead of charging a 3% fee like how credit cards do it, we give the vendors a 3-10% back in what they collect in btc. This makes vendors choose now: Do I collect cash and not get extra revenue? Or do I collect these Bitcoins and get an additional 3-10% on top of what I charge? Combine this feature with Bitpay we now have a huge incentive for vendors to sign up. Once vendors are used to the Bitcoin system, we can scale back on the btc kickbacks and everyone wins!
Bitcoin Users - Let's be frank here. Majority of Bitcoiners are hoarders. To solve this issue there has to be some sort of discount to pry those bitcoins out of users hands. By implementing a cashback type of feature like how credit cards do it, we would make users decide on a choice of either paying in cash at regular price or paying in BTC with a discount. Now for those that bought on the high $1000+ price point, we can't expect them spending as it would seem like they are spending 2x-3x that amount. To solve that users would just have to buy some btc off of someone at the satoshi square before they use it. The physical Bitcoin ecosystem is now complete once we combine the satoshi square with a merchant fair together.
Hopefully I didnt miss anything and it all makes sense. If this works out, it can be replicated around the world at other merchant fairs. We actually have a meeting with Bitpay to discuss how to get this to work smoothly with their system. As for sponsorship opportunities, we're writing up a package currently. It's going to be awesome! =) We hope to get this up and running in the coming weeks once we iron out all the logistics and funding issues. Feedback would be great as this isn't fully perfected yet and looking for community feedback or possible bugs we didn't account for.
Now, researchers reporting in ACS' Environmental Science & Technology have estimated that past and future environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining could be lower than previously thought. Bitcoin in USA USA Regulations affecting bitcoin and digital currency trading The US government has not quite come to grips with crypto currencies and how to deal with them. According to a report by the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, regulatory responses to crypto currencies and to blockchain in particular display a range of mixed As a result, litecoin transactions are confirmed about four times faster than that of bitcoin. This is another coin whose mining community is big on Reddit. Litecoin currently has a market cap of Stellar Wallet Lobstr Launches New Consumer-Friendly Custody Service. The famous Stellar wallet, Lobstr, announced that it launched a new consumer-friendly platform aimed at retailer.The main intention is to offer a secure service for users. Lobster was launched back in 2015 and has became one of the most important wallets in the market. A suspect surnamed Lan told police that he bought 10 Bitcoin mining computers in 2017 and made profits in southwest China's Yunnan Province. Rare blue lobster ends up at Massachusetts
New Free Bitcoin Mining Site 2020 New Btc Mining Site without Deposit 2020 New cloud Mining sites
Hello, Guys welcome to Crypto Duniya; In this video I will show you how can you mine free Bitcoin without any this is free bitcoin mining website Link - https://bit.ly/3h21NR2 ----- I never force ... cryptocurrency,crypto,bitcoin news. #freebitcoinmining , #Bitcoin , #cryptocurrency DISCLAIMER: This Channel DOES NOT Promote or encourage Any illegal activities , all contents provided by This ... I want to introduce you to my secret of bitcoin mining that can generate huge profit within a short period of time. If you're interested in making over $10,000 every month contact for more info on ... Bitcoin mining a block is difficult because the SHA-256 hash of a block's header must be lower than or equal to the target in order for the block to be accepted by the network. New Bitcoin and USD Mining Site 2020 Earn Every Day USD & Bitcoin - Singup Bonus 100Gh/s Join Now https://bit.ly/3fI08Qu FOR BUSINESS ENQUIRIES & SPONSORSHIP [email protected] ...