Bitcoin Price Rises in Tandem With Central Banks’ Balance ...

Minimum Viable Issuance - Why Ethereum’s lack of a hard cap on ETH issuance is a good thing.

This post will explain how the argument used by the average Bitcoin maximalist, thinking that they have found Ethereum’s achilles heel when talking about issuance is actually highlighting one of Ethereum’s strong points and one of the main threats to the longevity of the Bitcoin network.
So first let’s answer the question which I know many people have about Ethereum:

What is Ethereum’s ETH issuance schedule?

Ethereum has an issuance policy of Minimum Viable Issuance. So what does this mean exactly? It means that the issuance of ETH will be as low as possible while also maintaining a sufficient budget to pay miners (and soon to be stakers) to keep the network secure. For example, if ETH issuance was halved, miners would drop off the network and stop mining as it is no longer profitable for them to mine. As a result, the network would be less secure as it would cost less money for an attacker to control 51% of the hash power and attack the network. This means that the Ethereum community plans to change ETH issuance as time goes on to maintain a reasonable security budget which will keep the network secure but will also keep inflation in check. We have done this twice in the past with EIP-649 and EIP-1234 which reduced block rewards from 5 ETH per block to 3 ETH and from 3 ETH to 2 ETH respectively. I previously made a graph of ETH issuance over time here: https://redd.it/it8ce7
So while Ethereum doesn’t have a strictly defined issuance schedule, the community will reject any proposals which either put the security of the network at risk such as the recent EIP-2878, or we will reject proposals which will lead to excessive network security and therefore an unnecessarily high inflation rate (or we will accept proposals which reduce issuance after price rises and therefore the security budget rises). This means that when Bitcoiners accuse the Ethereum Foundation of being no better than a central bank because they can “print more Ether”, this is completely untrue. Any proposals made by the EF which would increase issuance unnecessarily would be rejected by the community in the same way that a proposal to increase the supply of Bitcoin from 21 million to 22 million would be rejected. There is a social contract around both Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s issuance schedules. Any networks or proposals which break the social contracts of 21 million Bitcoins and minimal viable issuance of Ether would be a breach of these contracts and the new proposed network would be labeled by the community as illegitimate and the original network would live on.

So why is minimum viable issuance better than a hard cap?

Minimum viable issuance is better than a hard cap because it puts the most important part of the network first - the security. MVI ensures that the Ethereum network will always have a security budget which keeps the cost of a 51% attack impractically high. Bitcoin on the other hand, halves its security budget every 4 years until eventually only the transaction fees pay for network security. This means that every 4 years, the amount of money paying for network security halves until eventually, the value of attacking the network becomes greater than the security budget and someone performs a 51% attack (technically the security budget only halves if terms of BTC not in dollars. However, even if the price of Bitcoin more than doubles in the time that the security budget halves, the ratio of security budget to value secured on the network still halves, doubling the financial viability of performing a network attack). The strategy to pay for the security budget once Bitcoin issuance stops is for transaction fees to secure the network since transaction fees are paid to miners. Not only does this have its own security problems which I won’t detail here, but unless Bitcoin scales on layer 1 (layer 2 scaling solutions have their own security mechanisms separate from L1), then fees would have to cost well in the thousands of dollars to secure a trillion dollar market cap Bitcoin that is secured by nothing but fees. If Bitcoin maximalists want a 10 trillion or 100 trillion dollar market cap then expect fees to go up another 10 or 100 times from there.
Ethereum on the other hand, will be able to keep its network secure with approximately 1-2% annual issuance being paid to stakers under ETH 2.0. This is because not all of the network will be staking, so if 33 million of the approximately 110 million Ether in existence stakes under ETH 2.0, then paying this 33 million Ether 6% a year (a very decent yield!) would cost just under 2 million ETH per year which would equate to less than 2% annual ETH inflation. This is also before considering EIP-1559 which will burn a portion of transaction fees which will counter the effect of this inflation and potentially even make ETH deflationary if the sum of all burned transaction fees are greater than the annual inflation. Also, under ETH 2.0, an attacker performing a 51% attack would get his funds slashed (they would lose their funds) if they attack the network, meaning that they can only perform a 51% attack once. However, in Bitcoin, anyone who controls 51% of the mining hash power could perform multiple 51% attacks without losing everything like they could in ETH 2.0.
So in conclusion, while Ethereum doesn’t have the guaranteed anti-inflation security of a hard cap, it does have the guarantee of always paying it’s miners (or stakers under ETH 2.0) enough to keep the network secure. In contrast, while Bitcoin’s social contract may guarantee a hard cap of 21 million, it cannot simultaneously guarantee network security in the long run. Eventually, its users will have to decide if they want a secure network with more than 21 million coins or a tax to pay for security or an insecure network with super high fees and a hard cap of 21 million Bitcoin.
Disclaimer: The details I covered around 51% attacks and network security are simplified. I am not an expert in this field and things are a lot more nuanced than I laid out in my simplifications above.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to ethfinance [link] [comments]

Minimum Viable Issuance - Why Ethereum’s lack of a hard cap on ETH issuance is a good thing.

This post will explain how the argument used by the average Bitcoin maximalist, thinking that they have found Ethereum’s achilles heel when talking about issuance is actually highlighting one of Ethereum’s strong points and one of the main threats to the longevity of the Bitcoin network.
So first let’s answer the question which I know many people have about Ethereum:

What is Ethereum’s ETH issuance schedule?

Ethereum has an issuance policy of Minimum Viable Issuance. So what does this mean exactly? It means that the issuance of ETH will be as low as possible while also maintaining a sufficient budget to pay miners (and soon to be stakers) to keep the network secure. For example, if ETH issuance was halved, miners would drop off the network and stop mining as it is no longer profitable for them to mine. As a result, the network would be less secure as it would cost less money for an attacker to control 51% of the hash power and attack the network. This means that the Ethereum community plans to change ETH issuance as time goes on to maintain a reasonable security budget which will keep the network secure but will also keep inflation in check. We have done this twice in the past with EIP-649 and EIP-1234 which reduced block rewards from 5 ETH per block to 3 ETH and from 3 ETH to 2 ETH respectively. I previously made a graph of ETH issuance over time here: https://redd.it/it8ce7
So while Ethereum doesn’t have a strictly defined issuance schedule, the community will reject any proposals which either put the security of the network at risk such as the recent EIP-2878, or we will reject proposals which will lead to excessive network security and therefore an unnecessarily high inflation rate (or we will accept proposals which reduce issuance after price rises and therefore the security budget rises). This means that when Bitcoiners accuse the Ethereum Foundation of being no better than a central bank because they can “print more Ether”, this is completely untrue. Any proposals made by the EF which would increase issuance unnecessarily would be rejected by the community in the same way that a proposal to increase the supply of Bitcoin from 21 million to 22 million would be rejected. There is a social contract around both Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s issuance schedules. Any networks or proposals which break the social contracts of 21 million Bitcoins and minimal viable issuance of Ether would be a breach of these contracts and the new proposed network would be labeled by the community as illegitimate and the original network would live on.

So why is minimum viable issuance better than a hard cap?

Minimum viable issuance is better than a hard cap because it puts the most important part of the network first - the security. MVI ensures that the Ethereum network will always have a security budget which keeps the cost of a 51% attack impractically high. Bitcoin on the other hand, halves its security budget every 4 years until eventually only the transaction fees pay for network security. This means that every 4 years, the amount of money paying for network security halves until eventually, the value of attacking the network becomes greater than the security budget and someone performs a 51% attack (technically the security budget only halves if terms of BTC not in dollars. However, even if the price of Bitcoin more than doubles in the time that the security budget halves, the ratio of security budget to value secured on the network still halves, doubling the financial viability of performing a network attack). The strategy to pay for the security budget once Bitcoin issuance stops is for transaction fees to secure the network since transaction fees are paid to miners. Not only does this have its own security problems which I won’t detail here, but unless Bitcoin scales on layer 1 (layer 2 scaling solutions have their own security mechanisms separate from L1), then fees would have to cost well in the thousands of dollars to secure a trillion dollar market cap Bitcoin that is secured by nothing but fees. If Bitcoin maximalists want a 10 trillion or 100 trillion dollar market cap then expect fees to go up another 10 or 100 times from there.
Ethereum on the other hand, will be able to keep its network secure with approximately 1-2% annual issuance being paid to stakers under ETH 2.0. This is because not all of the network will be staking, so if 33 million of the approximately 110 million Ether in existence stakes under ETH 2.0, then paying this 33 million Ether 6% a year (a very decent yield!) would cost just under 2 million ETH per year which would equate to less than 2% annual ETH inflation. This is also before considering EIP-1559 which will burn a portion of transaction fees which will counter the effect of this inflation and potentially even make ETH deflationary if the sum of all burned transaction fees are greater than the annual inflation. Also, under ETH 2.0, an attacker performing a 51% attack would get his funds slashed (they would lose their funds) if they attack the network, meaning that they can only perform a 51% attack once. However, in Bitcoin, anyone who controls 51% of the mining hash power could perform multiple 51% attacks without losing everything like they could in ETH 2.0.
So in conclusion, while Ethereum doesn’t have the guaranteed anti-inflation security of a hard cap, it does have the guarantee of always paying it’s miners (or stakers under ETH 2.0) enough to keep the network secure. In contrast, while Bitcoin’s social contract may guarantee a hard cap of 21 million, it cannot simultaneously guarantee network security in the long run. Eventually, its users will have to decide if they want a secure network with more than 21 million coins or a tax to pay for security or an insecure network with super high fees and a hard cap of 21 million Bitcoin.
Disclaimer: The details I covered around 51% attacks and network security are simplified. I am not an expert in this field and things are a lot more nuanced than I laid out in my simplifications above.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Eth 2.0 vs Polkadot and other musings by a fundamental investor

Spent about two hours on this post and I decided it would help the community if I made it more visible. Comment was made as a response to this
I’m trying to avoid falling into a maximalist mindset over time. This isn’t a 100% ETH question, but I’m trying to stay educated about emerging tech.
Can someone help me see the downsides of diversifying into DOTs?
I know Polkadot is more centralized, VC backed, and generally against our ethos here. On chain governance might introduce some unknown risks. What else am I missing?
I see a bunch of posts about how Ethereum and Polkadot can thrive together, but are they not both L1 competitors?
Response:
What else am I missing?
The upsides.
Most of the guys responding to you here are full Eth maxis who drank the Parity is bad koolaid. They are married to their investment and basically emotional / tribal in an area where you should have a cool head. Sure, you might get more upvotes on Reddit if you do and say what the crowd wants, but do you want upvotes and fleeting validation or do you want returns on your investment? Do you want to be these guys or do you want to be the shareholder making bank off of those guys?
Disclaimer: I'm both an Eth whale and a Dot whale, and have been in crypto for close to a decade now. I originally bought ether sub $10 after researching it for at least a thousand hours. Rode to $1500 and down to $60. Iron hands - my intent has always been to reconsider my Eth position after proof of stake is out. I invested in the 2017 Dot public sale with the plan of flipping profits back to Eth but keeping Dots looks like the right short and long term play now. I am not a trader, I just take a deep tech dive every couple of years and invest in fundamentals.
Now as for your concerns:
I know Polkadot is more centralized
The sad truth is that the market doesn't really care about this. At all. There is no real statistic to show at what point a coin is "decentralized" or "too centralized". For example, bitcoin has been completely taken over by Chinese mining farms for about five years now. Last I checked, they control above 85% of the hashing power, they just spread it among different mining pools to make it look decentralized. They have had the ability to fake or block transactions for all this time but it has never been in their best interest to do so: messing with bitcoin in that way would crash its price, therefore their bitcoin holdings, their mining equipment, and their company stock (some of them worth billions) would evaporate. So they won't do it due to economics, but not because they can't.
That is the major point I want to get across; originally Bitcoin couldn't be messed with because it was decentralized, but now Bitcoin is centralized but it's still not messed with due to economics. It is basically ChinaCoin at this point, but the market doesn't care, and it still enjoys over 50% of the total crypto market cap.
So how does this relate to Polkadot? Well fortunately most chains - Ethereum included - are working towards proof of stake. This is obviously better for the environment, but it also has a massive benefit for token holders. If a hostile party wanted to take over a proof of stake chain they'd have to buy up a massive share of the network. The moment they force through a malicious transaction a proof of stake blockchain has the option to fork them off. It would be messy for a few days, but by the end of the week the hostile party would have a large amount of now worthless tokens, and the proof of stake community would have moved on to a version of the blockchain where the hostile party's tokens have been slashed to zero. So not only does the market not care about centralization (Bitcoin example), but proof of stake makes token holders even safer.
That being said, Polkadot's "centralization" is not that far off to Ethereum. The Web3 foundation kept 30% of the Dots while the Ethereum Foundation kept 17%. There are whales in Polkadot but Ethereum has them too - 40% of all genesis Ether went to 100 wallets, and many suspect that the original Ethereum ICO was sybiled to make it look more popular and decentralized than it really was. But you don't really care about that do you? Neither do I. Whales are a fact of life.
VC backed
VCs are part of the crypto game now. There is no way to get rid of them, and there is no real reason why you should want to get rid of them. They put their capital at risk (same as you and me) and seek returns on their investment (same as you and me). They are both in Polkadot and Ethereum, and have been for years now. I have no issue with them as long as they don't play around with insider information, but that is another topic. To be honest, I would be worried if VCs did not endorse chains I'm researching, but maybe that's because my investing style isn't chasing hype and buying SUSHI style tokens from anonymous (at the time) developers. That's just playing hot potato. But hey, some people are good at that.
As to the amount of wallets that participated in the Polkadot ICO: a little known fact is that more individual wallets participated in Polkadot's ICO than Ethereum's, even though Polkadot never marketed their ICO rounds due to regulatory reasons.
generally against our ethos here
Kool aid.
Some guy that works(ed?) at Parity (who employs what, 200+ people?) correctly said that Ethereum is losing its tech lead and that offended the Ethereum hivemind. Oh no. So controversial. I'm so personally hurt by that.
Some guy that has been working for free on Ethereum basically forever correctly said that Polkadot is taking the blockchain tech crown. Do we A) Reflect on why he said that? or B) Rally the mob to chase him off?
"I did not quit social media, I quit Ethereum. I did not go dark, I just left the community. I am no longer coordinating hard forks, building testnets, or contributing otherwise. I did not work on Polkadot, I never did, I worked on Ethereum. I did not hate Ethereum, I loved it."
Also Parity locked their funds (and about 500+ other wallets not owned by them) and proposed a solution to recover them. When the community voted no they backed off and did not fork the chain, even if they had the influence to do so. For some reason this subreddit hates them for that, even if Parity did the 100% moral thing to do. Remember, 500+ other teams or people had their funds locked, so Parity was morally bound to try its best to recover them.
Its just lame drama to be honest. Nothing to do with ethos, everything to do with emotional tribalism.
Now for the missing upsides (I'll also respond to random fragments scattered in the thread):
This isn’t a 100% ETH question, but I’m trying to stay educated about emerging tech.
A good quick intro to Eth's tech vs Polkadot's tech can be found on this thread, especially this reply. That thread is basically mandatory reading if you care about your investment.
Eth 2.0's features will not really kick in for end users until about 2023. That means every dapp (except DeFI, where the fees make sense due to returns and is leading the fee market) who built on Eth's layer 1 are dead for three years. Remember the trading card games... Gods Unchained? How many players do you think are going to buy and sell cards when the transaction fee is worth more than the cards? All that development is now practically worthless until it can migrate to its own shard. This story repeats for hundreds of other dapp teams who's projects are now priced out for three years. So now they either have to migrate to a one of the many unpopulated L2 options (which have their own list of problems and risks, but that's another topic) or they look for another platform, preferably one interoperable with Ethereum. Hence Polkadot's massive growth in developer activity. If you check out https://polkaproject.com/ you'll see 205 projects listed at the time of this post. About a week ago they had 202 listed. That means about one team migrated from another tech stack to build on Polkadot every two days, and trust me, many more will come in when parachains are finally activated, and it will be a complete no brainer when Polkadot 2.0 is released.
Another huge upside for Polkadot is the Initial Parachain Offerings. Polkadot's version of ICOs. The biggest difference is that you can vote for parachains using your Dots to bind them to the relay chain, and you get some of the parachain's tokens in exchange. After a certain amount of time you get your Dots back. The tokenomics here are impressive: Dots are locked (reduced supply) instead of sold (sell pressure) and you still earn your staking rewards. There's no risk of scammers running away with your Ether and the governance mechanism allows for the community to defund incompetent devs who did not deliver what was promised.
Wouldn’t an ETH shard on Polkadot gain a bunch of scaling benefits that we won’t see natively for a couple years?
Yes. That is correct. Both Edgeware and Moonbeam are EVM compatible. And if the original dapp teams don't migrate their projects someone else will fork them, exactly like SUSHI did to Uniswap, and how Acala is doing to MakerDao.
Although realistically Ethereum has a 5 yr headstart and devs haven't slowed down at all
Ethereum had a five year head start but it turns out that Polkadot has a three year tech lead.
Just because it's "EVM Compatible" doesn't mean you can just plug Ethereum into Polkadot or vica versa, it just means they both understand Ethereum bytecode and you can potentially copy/paste contracts from Ethereum to Polkadot, but you'd still need to add a "bridge" between the 2 chains, so it adds additional complexity and extra steps compared to using any of the existing L2 scaling solutions
That only applies of you are thinking from an Eth maximalist perspective. But if you think from Polkadot's side, why would you need to use the bridge back to Ethereum at all? Everything will be seamless, cheaper, and quicker once the ecosystem starts to flourish.
I see a bunch of posts about how Ethereum and Polkadot can thrive together, but are they not both L1 competitors?
They are competitors. Both have their strategies, and both have their strengths (tech vs time on the market) but they are clearly competing in my eyes. Which is a good thing, Apple and Samsung competing in the cell phone market just leads to more innovation for consumers. You can still invest in both if you like.
Edit - link to post and the rest of the conversation: https://www.reddit.com/ethfinance/comments/iooew6/daily_general_discussion_september_8_2020/g4h5yyq/
Edit 2 - one day later PolkaProject count is 210. Devs are getting the hint :)
submitted by redditsucks_goruqqus to polkadot_market [link] [comments]

A criticism of the article "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation"

(be gentle, it's my first RI attempt, :P; I hope I can make justice to the subject, this is my layman understanding of many macro subjects which may be flawed...I hope you can illuminate me if I have fallen short of a good RI)
Introduction
So, today a heterodox leaning Argentinian newspaper, Ambito Financiero, published an article criticizing monetarism called "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation". I find it doesn't properly address monetarism, confuses it with other "economic schools" for whatever the term is worth today and it may be misleading, so I was inspired to write a refutation and share it with all of you.
In some ways criticizing monetarism is more of a historical discussion given the mainstream has changed since then. Stuff like New Keynesian models are the bleeding edge, not Milton Friedman style monetarism. It's more of a symptom that Argentinian political culture is kind of stuck in the 70s on economics that this things keep being discussed.
Before getting to the meat of the argument, it's good to have in mind some common definitions about money supply measures (specifically, MB, M1 and M2). These definitions apply to US but one can find analogous stuff for other countries.
Argentina, for the lack of access to credit given its economic mismanagement and a government income decrease because of the recession, is monetizing deficits way more than before (like half of the budget, apparently, it's money financed) yet we have seen some disinflation (worth mentioning there are widespread price freezes since a few months ago). The author reasons that monetary phenomena cannot explain inflation properly and that other explanations are needed and condemns monetarism. Here are the six points he makes:
1.Is it a mechanical rule?
This way, we can ask by symmetry: if a certainty exists that when emission increases, inflation increases, the reverse should happen when emission becomes negative, obtaining negative inflation. Nonetheless, we know this happens: prices have an easier time increasing and a lot of rigidity decreasing. So the identity between emission and inflation is not like that, deflation almost never exists and the price movement rhythm cannot be controlled remotely only with money quantity. There is no mechanical relationship between one thing and the other.
First, the low hanging fruit: deflation is not that uncommon, for those of you that live in US and Europe it should be obvious given the difficulties central banks had to achieve their targets, but even Argentina has seen deflation during its depression 20 years ago.
Second, we have to be careful with what we mean by emission. A statement of quantity theory of money (extracted from "Money Growth and Inflation: How Long is the Long-Run?") would say:
Inflation occurs when the average level of prices increases. Individual price increases in and of themselves do not equal inflation, but an overall pattern of price increases does. The price level observed in the economy is that which leads the quantity of money supplied to equal the quantity of money demanded. The quantity of money supplied is largely controlled by the [central bank]. When the supply of money increases or decreases, the price level must adjust to equate the quantity of money demanded throughout the economy with the quantity of money supplied. The quantity of money demanded depends not only on the price level but also on the level of real income, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP), and a variety of other factors including the level of interest rates and technological advances such as the invention of automated teller machines. Money demand is widely thought to increase roughly proportionally with the price level and with real income. That is, if prices go up by 10 percent, or if real income increases by 10 percent, empirical evidence suggests people want to hold 10 percent more money. When the money supply grows faster than the money demand associated with rising real incomes and other factors, the price level must rise to equate supply and demand. That is, inflation occurs. This situation is often referred to as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Note that this theory does not predict that any money-supply growth will lead to inflation—only that part of money supply growth that exceeds the increase in money demand associated with rising real GDP (holding the other factors constant).
So it's not mere emission, but money supply growing faster than money demand which we should consider. So negative emission is not necessary condition for deflation in this theory.
It's worth mentioning that the relationship with prices is observed for a broad measure of money (M2) and after a lag. From the same source of this excerpt one can observe in Fig. 3a the correlation between inflation and money growth for US becomes stronger the longer data is averaged. Price rigidities don't have to change this long term relationship per se.
But what about causality and Argentina? This neat paper shows regressions in two historical periods: 1976-1989 and 1991-2001. The same relationship between M2 and inflation is observed, stronger in the first, highly inflationary period and weaker in the second, more stable, period. The regressions a 1-1 relationship in the high inflation period but deviates a bit in the low inflation period (yet the relationship is still there). Granger causality, as interpreted in the paper, shows prices caused money growth in the high inflation period (arguably because spending was monetized) while the reverse was true for the more stable period.
So one can argue that there is a mechanical relationship, albeit one that is more complicated than simple QTOM theory. The relationship is complicated too for low inflation economies, it gets more relevant the higher inflation is.
Another point the author makes is that liquidity trap is often ignored. I'll ignore the fact that you need specific conditions for the liquidity trap to be relevant to Argentina and address the point. Worth noting that while market monetarists (not exactly old fashioned monetarists) prefer alternative explanations for monetary policy with very low interest rates, this phenomena has a good monetary basis, as explained by Krugman in his famous japanese liquidity trap paper and his NYT blog (See this and this for some relevant articles). The simplified version is that while inflation may follow M2 growth with all the qualifiers needed, central banks may find difficulties targeting inflation when interest rates are low and agents are used to credible inflation targets. Central banks can change MB, not M2 and in normal times is good enough, but at those times M2 is out of control and "credibly irresponsible" policies are needed to return to normal (a more detailed explanation can be found in that paper I just linked, go for it if you are still curious).
It's not like monetary policy is not good, it's that central banks have to do very unconventional stuff to achieve in a low interest rate environment. It's still an open problem but given symmetric inflation targeting policies are becoming more popular I'm optimistic.
2 - Has inflation one or many causes?
In Argentina we know that the main determinant of inflation is dollar price increases. On that, economic concentration of key markets, utility price adjustments, fuel prices, distributive struggles, external commodity values, expectatives, productive disequilibrium, world interest rates, the economic cycle, stationality and external sector restrictions act on it too.
Let's see a simple example: during Macri's government since mid 2017 to 2019 emission was practically null, but when in 2018 the dollar value doubled, inflation doubled too (it went from 24% to 48% in 2018) and it went up again a year later. We see here that the empirical validity of monetarist theory was absent.
For the first paragraph, one could try to run econometric tests for all those variables, at least from my layman perspective. But given that it doesn't pass the smell test (has any country used that in its favor ignoring monetary policy? Also, I have shown there is at least some evidence for the money-price relationship before), I'll try to address what happened in Macri's government and if monetarism (or at least some reasonable extension of it) cannot account for it.
For a complete description of macroeconomic policy on that period, Sturzenegger account is a good one (even if a bit unreliable given he was the central banker for that government and he is considered to have been a failure). The short version is that central banks uses bonds to manage monetary policy and absorb money; given the history of defaults for the country, the Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA) uses its own peso denominated bonds instead of using treasury bonds. At that time period, the BCRA still financed the treasury but the amount got reduced. Also, it emitted pesos to buy dollar reserves, then sterilized them, maybe risking credibility further.
Near the end of 2017 it was evident the government had limited appetite for budget cuts, it had kind of abandoned its inflation target regime and the classic problem of fiscal dominance emerged, as it's shown in the classic "Unpleasant monetarist arithmetic" paper by Wallace and Sargent. Monetary policy gets less effective when the real value of bonds falls, and raising interest rates may be counterproductive in that environment. Rational expectations are needed to complement QTOM.
So, given that Argentina promised to go nowhere with reform, it was expected that money financing would increase at some point in the future and BCRA bonds were dumped in 2018 and 2019 as their value was perceived to have decreased, and so peso demand decreased. It's not that the dollar value increased and inflation followed, but instead that peso demand fell suddenly!
The IMF deal asked for MB growth to be null or almost null but that doesn't say a lot about M2 (which it's the relevant variable here). Without credible policies, the peso demand keeps falling because bonds are dumped even more (see 2019 for a hilariously brutal example of that).
It's not emission per se, but rather that it doesn't adjust properly to peso demand (which is falling). That doesn't mean increasing interest rates is enough to achieve it, following Wallace and Sargent model.
This is less a strict proof that a monetary phenomenon is involved and more stating that the author hasn't shown any problem with that, there are reasonable models for this situation. It doesn't look like an clear empirical failure to me yet.
3 - Of what we are talking about when we talk about emission?
The author mentions many money measures (M0, M1, M2) but it doesn't address it meaningfully as I tried to do above. It feels more like a rhetorical device because there is no point here except "this stuff exists".
Also, it's worth pointing that there are actual criticisms to make to Friedman on those grounds. He failed to forecast US inflation at some points when he switched to M1 instead of using M2, although he later reverted that. Monetarism kind of "failed" there (it also "failed" in the sense that modern central banks don't use money, but instead interest rates as their main tool; "failed" because despite being outdated, it was influential to modern central banking). This is often brought to this kind of discussions like if economics hasn't moved beyond that. For an account of Friedman thoughts on monetary policies and his failures, see this.
4 - Why do many countries print and inflation doesn't increase there?
There is a mention about the japanese situation in the 90s (the liquidity trap) which I have addressed.
The author mentions that many countries "printed" like crazy during the pandemic, and he says:
Monetarism apologists answer, when confronted with those grave empirical problems that happen in "serious countries", that the population "trusts" their monetary authorities, even increasing the money demand in those place despite the emission. Curious, though, it's an appeal to "trust" implying that the relationship between emission and inflation is not objective, but subjective and cultural: an appreciation that abandons mechanicism and the basic certainty of monetarism, because evaluations and diagnostics, many times ideologic, contextual or historical intervene..
That's just a restatement of applying rational expectations to central bank operations. I don't see a problem with that. Rational expectations is not magic, it's an assessment of future earnings by economic actors. Humans may not 100% rational but central banking somehow works on many countries. You cannot just say that people are ideologues and let it at that. What's your model?
Worth noting the author shills for bitcoin a bit in this section, for more cringe.
5 - Are we talking of a physical science or a social science?
Again, a vague mention of rational expectations ("populists and pro market politicians could do the same policies with different results because of how agents respond ideologically and expectatives") without handling the subject meaningfully. It criticizes universal macroeconomic rules that apply everywhere (this is often used to dismiss evidence from other countries uncritically more than as a meaningful point).
6 - How limits work?
The last question to monetarism allows to recognize it something: effectively we can think on a type of vinculation between emission and inflation in extreme conditions. That means, with no monetary rule, no government has the need of taxes but instead can emit and spend all it needs without consequence. We know it's not like that: no government can print infinitely without undesirable effects.
Ok, good disclaimer, but given what he wrote before, what's the mechanism which causes money printing to be inflationary at some point? It was rejected before but now it seems that it exists. What was even the point of the article?
Now, the problem is thinking monetarism on its extremes: without emission we have inflation sometimes, on others we have no inflation with emission, we know that if we have negative emission that doesn't guarantees us negative inflation, but that if emission is radically uncontrolled there will economic effects.
As I wrote above, that's not what monetarism (even on it's simpler form) says, nor a consequence of it. You can see some deviations in low inflation environment but it's not really Argentina's current situation.
Let's add other problems: the elastic question between money and prices is not evident. Neither is time lags in which can work or be neutral. So the question is the limit cases for monetarism which has some reason but some difficulty in explaining them: by which and it what moments rules work and in which it doesn't.
I find the time lag thing to be a red herring. You can observe empirically and not having a proper short/middle run model doesn't invalidate QTOM in the long run. While it may be that increasing interest rates or freezing MB is not effective, that's less a problem of the theory and more a problem of policy implementation.
Conclusion:
I find that the article doesn't truly get monetarism to begin with (see the points it makes about emission and money demand), neither how it's implemented in practice, nor seems to be aware of more modern theories that, while put money on the background, don't necessarily invalidate it (rational expectation ideas, and eventually New Keynesian stuff which addresses stuff like liquidity traps properly).
There are proper criticisms to be made to Friedman old ideas but he still was a relevant man in his time and the economic community has moved on to new, better theories that have some debt to it. I feel most economic discussion about monetarism in Argentina is a strawman of mainstream economics or an attack on Austrians more than genuine points ("monetarism" is used as a shorthand for those who think inflation is a monetary phenomenon more than referring to Friedman and his disciples per se).
submitted by Neronoah to badeconomics [link] [comments]

Is Cryptocurrency Really The Future?

Is Cryptocurrency Really The Future?
Over the past decade, cryptocurrency has become a breaker of old approaches in monetary policy, finance, economics, and e-commerce. The speed at which the crypto industry is growing today is very impressive. The global cryptocurrency market volume is predicted to reach $1,758 million by 2027 with a compound annual growth rate of 11.2%.
by StealthEX
More and more people are getting faced with the digital currency so the questions on the future of cryptocurrencies are becoming especially relevant today. So what is the future of cryptocurrency? In this article, we’ll try to figure this out.
Predicting the crypto world’s future is impossible without knowing the current situation on the cryptocurrencies market.

What trends can we observe today?

• Nowadays the crypto market is in its formation stage. We can see an increase in the number of areas where blockchain technology is getting involved. The COVID19 and panic that it caused in the markets are also accelerating cryptocurrency adoption.
• Any cryptocurrencies rate is rigidly tied to the situation in the crypto market.
• Bitcoin and Ethereum are the biggest influencers in the cryptocurrency market.
• Investors are paying attention to the crypto projects that are aimed to create platforms for launching decentralized applications (dApps).
• Significant growth of decentralized finance (DeFi).
• Decentralized Internet (Web 3.0) is actively increasing and creating the basis for the Internet of Things development.
The growth of digital currencies around the world allows making some predictions about the future of crypto market. Let’s look ahead to the future and try to forecast the prospective trends in the crypto world development.

Bitcoin’s reign will not end

The first thing that worries many crypto holders is “What will happen to Bitcoin”?
The ups and downs of Bitcoin’s rate, rumors about the next hard fork, legalization in some countries, and prohibition in others — all these kinds of news makes people guess what will come up with the most popular coin. Experts have different opinions from a complete drop in price to the status of the only currency in the world.
Most experts are leaning towards that Bitcoin will maintain its current positions and even strengthen them. For example, John McAfee, businessman and computer programmer, says:
“You can’t stop things like Bitcoin. It’s like trying to stop gunpowder.”
He also made a bet that if Bitcoin will not cost $500,000 by the end of December 2020 he will eat his own…well, you know.
James Altucher, American hedge-fund manager, author, podcaster and entrepreneur, is not sure that BTC price will reach 1 000 000 USD:
“Will it be a million dollars in 2020? Maybe. Will it be 2021? 2022? Who knows.”
He also predicted that:
“At least one country’s currency is likely to fail soon — likely Argentina or Venezuela. This will lead to mass adoption of Bitcoin among that populace. That will in turn lead to Bitcoin rising by more than $50,000 when it happens.”
And just a few days after this forecast, the Venezuelan President announced that they are planning to release national crypto called El Petro. Right now a lot of countries like China, Tunisia, Senegal, Sweden, Singapore, Uruguay, Thailand, Turkey, and Iran are also working on the creation of national cryptocurrency.
So what will happen to Bitcoin? No one knows. The only thing in which many experts agree is that Bitcoin will stay as a “gold standard” in the crypto world for a long time.

Cryptocurrencies will be mainstream

“Cryptocurrencies is a fashionable investment and a sign of belonging to the special community” — this idea is actively promoted by various sports organizations, popular performers, public figures that release their own altcoins.
According to CoinMarketCap, there are already more than six thousand cryptocurrencies, and their total capitalization is $353 billion. A couple of years ago, the digital currency was almost unknown to anyone except geek developers and crypto enthusiasts. However, things are changing: prospects for businesses, rising prices, and strong community support will step by step make cryptocurrencies mainstream around the world.

Market volatility will not disappear

Cryptocurrencies are unstable by their nature, and their volatility is one of the reasons why someone becomes a millionaire and the others lose fortunes.
The strong volatility of crypto is caused by the fact that they are still at an early stage of development. Cryptocurrencies have huge growth potential if they can enter the mass market.
But every news about cryptocurrencies either hints at the possibility of markets going down or rising up. The volatility in the cryptocurrency markets will continue to be felt as the news affects the market, and it is only at the stage of rapid development.

The future of trading — decentralized exchanges

In the near future, we will see a prime of decentralized exchanges. Many believe that DEXes is not yet ready for mass adoption. But there are factors for a favorable development of events.
First of all, centralized exchanges don’t fit the purpose of cryptocurrencies cause the key advantage of digital coins is decentralization. In decentralized exchanges, transactions can be made directly between users (peer-to-peer) without the need for a trusted intermediary, which means there are no transaction fees for users.
On top of this, decentralized exchanges are much more secure against hackers as there no single point of failure like in centralized exchanges. Everyone knows the cases with Mt.Gox, Bitfinex, Coincheck when people lost millions and millions. The need for more security will lead users to decentralized exchanges.

The rise of crypto loans

“Cryptocurrency is convenient to take on credit” — not long ago this idea seemed like a wild ride since the digital currency has high volatility. But today the popularity of lending in digital currencies is increasing and here are the main reasons:
• Low-interest rates.
• Increase in the number of traders and investors for whom receiving funds immediately in cryptocurrencies is convenient.
• A simplified system of requirements for borrowers, those who hadn’t been approved for bank loans could easily receive digital money.
Nowadays, the entire crypto loaning industry is estimated at $4.7 billion and the number of crypto loan platforms will continue growing.

Regulators gonna regulate

In the early days of cryptocurrencies history, traditional financial institutions sharply criticized crypto enthusiasts. The crypto market, however, has proven that it is sturdy against these kinds of attacks. Nowadays traditional institutions’ opinion regarding cryptocurrency is changing. In the future, stakeholders can have an increase in the flow of funds from Wall Street to cryptocurrencies.
There is no doubt that this will require more transparency and regulation in the crypto market. Today government and regulatory agencies around the world, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (and this is only within the US borders) are giving more and more attention to cryptocurrencies. The regulation of the crypto in different states is realizing in diverse ways: in some countries, it is legally recognized as a means of payment, in others its use is prohibited.
The G20 summit participants, following the discussions on cryptocurrencies, came to the conclusion that a complete prohibition of crypto will not solve anything as nowadays the digital currency plays a significant role in the economy. And if the digital currency cannot be prohibited, it must be regulated:
“Technological innovations can deliver significant benefits to the financial system and the broader economy. While crypto-assets do not pose a threat to global financial stability at this point, we are closely monitoring developments and remain vigilant to existing and emerging risks.”
As we can see the world is changing very quickly. The speed with which cryptocurrencies are integrating into the global financial system is a clear indicator that traditional financial institutions can no longer have a monopoly on the management of financial flows.
The year 2020 is the start of a new decade for the cryptocurrency industry. The next ten years will bring us key changes in traditional finance when blockchain and cryptocurrencies will become a daily thing in most countries of the world.
What are your thoughts on the future of cryptocurrencies? Tell us your ideas in the comments below.
And remember if you need to exchange your coins StealthEX is here for you. We provide a selection of more than 250 coins and constantly updating the list so that our customers will find a suitable option. Our service does not require registration and allows you to remain anonymous. Why don’t you check it out? Just go to StealthEX and follow these easy steps:
✔ Choose the pair and the amount for your exchange. For example BTC to ETH.
✔ Press the “Start exchange” button.
✔ Provide the recipient address to which the coins will be transferred.
✔ Move your cryptocurrency for the exchange.
✔ Receive your coins.
Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get StealthEX.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us via [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Original article was posted on https://stealthex.io/blog/2020/09/15/is-cryptocurrency-really-the-future/
submitted by Stealthex_io to StealthEX [link] [comments]

10-04 05:44 - 'Why DeFi will give birth to killer applications in the banking industry?' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/SMOEY removed from /r/Bitcoin within 14-24min

'''
The financial system is on the verge of collapse, and there are no superheroes who can turn the tide in the real world. Therefore, we must learn how to rely on our own hands to protect the money we have earned. Currently, the best way is to store funds outside the traditional financial system. Decentralized finance, or DeFi for short, may become a killer application in the banking industry.
What exactly is DeFi?
This is an ecosystem of financial applications built on the blockchain (especially Ethereum), which can operate independently without the intervention of third parties or intermediaries. In 2020, the DeFi economy has grown by US$4 billion and is currently one of the fastest growing sectors in the financial sector.
The main problem with DeFi
Currently the only truly decentralized financial application is Bitcoin. Anyone with access to the Internet can store and transfer funds in a decentralized manner. But DeFi has made a further commitment: to introduce decentralization into the mainstream public view. This will provide a global and open alternative to all financial services including savings, loans, investment and insurance. Next, we will introduce three DeFi use cases that are sufficient to disrupt the traditional banking industry:
1. Stablecoins
Stablecoin is the first DeFi use case to achieve a blowout development. The idea of ​​”a cryptocurrency free from the long-term instability of Bitcoin” is very attractive to many people. On the one hand, it has price stability similar to the US dollar or the euro; on the other hand, it also has the speed and convenience of cryptocurrency. The stablecoin perfectly combines the advantages of the two. Currently, about 80% of encrypted transactions are conducted through Tether stablecoin. At the same time, other companies, such as USDC, TruUSD, Dai or PAX, have also experienced explosive growth in the past year. Therefore, the stable currency market definitely deserves our continued attention and expectation. After all, most bank customers are tired of inefficient and expensive services and increasing government supervision.
2. Decentralized Exchanges
Decentralized exchange (DEX) is one of the most breakthrough innovations derived from DeFi. In recent years, the number of DEX has also shown explosive growth. According to data from Dune Analytics, monthly transaction volume in 2020 has grown to nearly $12 billion. So, what is DEX? The essence of DEX is a cryptocurrency platform, users’ assets can be traded without going through an exchange. Therefore, the risk of being stolen and attacked by hackers can be greatly reduced. Currently, the most popular DEX platforms are Curve, Balancer, 0x, Dydx, Kyber, Bancor, IDEX, Oasis and Gnosis Protocol. But in fact, the ultimate reason for attracting people to join DEX is the growing and more complex “know your-client process (KYC)” demand. It stripped the anonymity of customers and caused financial exclusion of more than 2.4 billion people. They are like cancer, engulfing the entire banking system alive.
3. Borrowing and Lending Applications
To say the most compelling development in the DeFi field, one has to mention decentralized lending platforms. The DeFi lending platform can provide loans to users or companies without any intermediaries. Anyone can deposit their available assets into the shared loan pool, and those who want to borrow can withdraw assets from the pool. Currently, the most popular DeFi loan platforms are Compound, Maker, Aave and dYdX. At the same time, companies such as Blockfi, Celsius, CRED, Nexo and Crypto.com also provide annual interest rates of up to 10%. The lending platform enhances the flexibility of banking business and removes strict threshold restrictions on the location, identity, and assets of customers. This use case is expected to lead DeFi into the mainstream market.
4. Insurance
The form of DeFi insurance is still relatively conservative. It mainly acts as a safety net in the DeFi ecosystem. Users no longer need traditional banks or institutions to ensure the safety of their deposits. Although decentralized insurance is not popular in the entire DeFi community at present, it is likely to disrupt the entire insurance industry in the future. If you want to learn about insurance products other than traditional insurance companies, you can check out Nexus Mutual, Opyn, Etherisc and CDx.
Next, where are we going?
DeFi is an interesting idea with trillions of dollars in potential. If we compare DeFi with the traditional financial system, it is not difficult to find the fatal attraction in DeFi. As you can see, some DeFi projects have replaced part of the business in the centralized encryption economy, and it will not be long before it will begin to replace the traditional banking and insurance industries. Now, the financial system needs to be repaired-to make it more transparent, open and efficient. Otherwise, if we don’t properly wrap up this broken financial system, 20 years later, we will eventually pay for our stupidity at this moment.
Source:[[link]2
'''
Why DeFi will give birth to killer applications in the banking industry?
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: SMOEY
1: tr**ple.net*ork/2020***441*.*tml 2: t*u**le.net*ork/2020*00**11*html]^*1
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Pentagon Documents Reveal The U.S. Has Planned For A Bitcoin Rebellion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/06/10/pentagon-documents-reveal-the-us-has-planned-for-a-bitcoin-rebellion/
Pentagon Documents Reveal The U.S. Has Planned For A Bitcoin Rebellion
I write about how bitcoin, crypto and blockchain can change the world.
Bitcoin has struggled to find support in the U.S. government, with president Donald Trump, along with Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, leading the criticism.
Now, it’s been revealed the U.S. Department of Defense has wargamed scenarios involving a Generation Z rebellion that uses bitcoin to undermine and evade “the establishment.”
In the Pentagon war game, young people born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s use cyber attacks to steal money and convert it to bitcoin, documents published by investigative news site The Intercept revealed.
Called the 2018 Joint Land, Air and Sea Strategic Special Program (JLASS), the war game is set in 2025 and is “intended to reflect a plausible depiction of major trends and influences in the world regions.”
The scenario, which echoes recent protests in the U.S. and around the world against racial injustice, involves some members of Gen Z, who see themselves “as agents for social change” and believe the “system is rigged” against them, begin a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”
The group, called Zbellion, encourages cyber attacks against organizations that support “the establishment,” funnelling stolen cash into bitcoin to make “small, below the threshold donations” to “worthy recipients” and Zbellion members.
The program, which also reportedly wargamed scenarios involving Islamist militants and anti-capitalist extremists, was conducted by students and faculty from the U.S. military’s war colleges, the training ground for prospective generals and admirals.
THE INTERCEPT / THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Bitcoin has increasingly been adopted by Wall Street and the world’s biggest financial institutions since its 2017 price explosion but remains a tool to fight government control.
The Pentagon war game documents have been revealed after Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz called for the government to “freeze” the money of demonstrators after country-wide protests over the killing of George Floyd turned violent this month.
“One of the most important tools in the authoritarian toolkit is the ability to freeze the funding of legitimate political dissent,” Nathaniel Whittemore, a bitcoin and cryptocurrency consultant and strategist, said previously.
“By separating the infrastructure of money from the infrastructure of state power, bitcoin makes it that much harder for this type of politically motivated confiscation.”
Bitcoin has seen a surge of interest in recent months due to the coronavirus pandemic and never-before-seen levels of government borrowing.
“In the wake of unprecedented central bank action around the Covid-19 crisis, it seemed like the most relevant narrative of bitcoin in 2020 was as a hedge against inflation,” Whittemore said.
“It appears, however, that its capacity for censorship resistance might be just as relevant.”
submitted by osteo-path to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast

7 pm, 29th September 2020 Beijing time the UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast!
Here is a full record of the AMA:
Host: Hello everyone, it’s a great honor to host the first AMA of UYT network in China. Today, we have invited the person in charge of UYT Dao.
Let’s ask Mr. Woo to introduce himself Woo: Hello, I’m Ben. I’ve met you in the previous global live broadcast. I’m the director of UYT Dao and the founder of IGNISVC. At present, I’m the CEO of the TKNT foundation and have been engaged in the blockchain industry.
Q1. At present, different types of blockchains have emerged, but cross-chain interaction is still suffering a lot. In your opinion, what is the necessity and significance of cross-chain?
Answer: The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
Q2. The founder of Ethereum, V Shen, once wrote a cross-chain operation report for bank alliance chain R3, which mentioned three cross-chain methods. Which one does UYT belong to? Can you briefly introduce the cross-chain solution of UYT?
Answer: In Vitalik’s cross-chain report, there are three main cross-chain methods. The first is that both parties do not know that they are crossing the chain, or that they cannot “read” each other, such as the centralized exchange. The second way is that one of the links can read other chains, such as side-chain / relay chain. That is, a can read B, and B cannot read a; The third is that both a and B can read each other’s, which can achieve the value and information exchange between a, B, and the platform. UYT belongs to the third kind.
Our new official website will be online soon. Here are a few simple points: first of all, the architecture of UYT includes relay chain, parachain, parathreads, and bridges. In terms of ductility, it has exceeded almost all the public chains currently online.
In the UYT network, there are four kinds of consensus participants, namely collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator. The characteristics of this model are: first, all people can participate without loss. Secondly, as long as anyone makes more contribution to the ecology, he will get more rewards, otherwise, he will receive corresponding punishment.
The underlying layer of UYT is the substrate, which uses the rust programming language. Rust is committed to becoming a programming language that can solve the problems of high concurrency and high-security systems elegantly. This is also a great advantage that we are different from other blockchain projects in technology.
Q3. What are the roles in the UYT network? What are their respective functions?
Answer: After the main network of UYT is online, there will be four roles: collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator, which is totally different from the current system of the test network.
The collector, in short, is responsible for collecting all kinds of information in the parallel chain and packaging the information to the verifier.
Fishermen, to put it bluntly, is fishing law enforcement, which specifically checks out malicious acts and gets rewards after being checked out.
The nominator, in fact, is a group of rights and interests. The verifier is its representative, and they entrust the deposit to the verifier.
Verifier, package new blocks in the network. It must mortgage enough deposits and run a relay chain client on a highly available and high bandwidth machine. It can be understood as a mining pool. It can also be understood as the node in the current UYT DAPP.
Q4. What is the mining mechanism of the UYT network?
The only way to obtain UYT after its issuance is to participate in mining activities. In the initial stage, the daily constant output times of UYT are set to 1440000, and the cycle of bitcoin is halved. Mining rewards can be obtained in the following five ways:
1) Asset pledge mapping mining 2) Become the intermediate chain node of uyt network 3) Recommendation and reward mechanism 4) Voting reward 5) UYT network Dao will take out 10% of gas revenue from block packaging for community construction and reward of excellent community personnel
Q5. The rise and fall of the blockchain are very fast. In order to give investors confidence, is there a detailed development plan, implementation steps, and application direction of UYT network in the next few months?
Answer: UYT Network test network has been running stably for a year. After the main network is launched, all mechanisms will undergo major changes.
The relationship between the UYT test network and the main network can be understood as the relationship between KSM (dot test network) and dot the main network, and the feasibility of the technology can be reflected more quickly by the UYT test network because of its faster timeliness and all future technology updates Some will move to the main network after the stable operation of the test network.
In order to give users a better experience and give more rewards to excellent nodes, all Dao organizers are working hard for it.
The development team has completed the cross-chain of bitcoin and some high-quality Ethereum based tokens in the early stage, and now the code has all been open source. For other mainstream currencies, community members can apply for funds to develop. In order to develop the ecology and make a better technical reserve, we will set up a special ecological development fund when the main network goes online. The transfer bridge is our key funding direction. The maximum application amount of a team is as high as 100000 US dollars. In addition, if other public chains want to connect to UYT, they will get technical support. In order to encourage developers to participate in ecological construction, Dao also launched a series of grants to support development. Developers can directly pull the better applications on Eth and EOS directly, or develop new products according to their own advantages. These directions are now the focus of funding.
Due to the early online testing time of uyt network, it is based on the earlier version of substrate1.0. The on-chain governance mode can only be realized after the upgrade of 2.0 is completed.
At present, the upgrading work is going on steadily, and the on-chain governance will be implemented in the main network with the launch of the uyt main network.
As a heterogeneous cross-chain solution with high scalability and scalability, UYT network can perfectly bridge the parallel encryption system and its encryption assets in theory, and its wide applicability in the future can be expected. Therefore, we do not limit the areas where UYT network will play its advantages and roles. But in the general direction, there will be mainly DEFI and DEX ecological plates. From the industry, it can cover a wide range of fields, not only finance but also games, entertainment, shopping malls, real estate, and so on.
Q6、How can UYT help DEFI?
Answer: UYT network can not only link different public chains but also make parallel chains independent and interlinked. Just like the ACALA project some time ago, it has successfully obtained Pantera capital’s $7 million saft agreement. Although the concept of DEFI is very popular now, all DEFI products are still in the ecology of each public chain, and the cross-chain DEFI ecology has not been developed. UYT is to achieve cross-chain communication, value exchange, and develop truly decentralized financial services and products. For example, cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products. At present, our technical team is also speeding up the construction of infrastructure suitable for the landing of more DEFI products and services and is committed to creating a real cross-chain DEFI ecology, which is only a small step of UYT’s future plan.
Q7、TKNT should be one of the hottest projects in the UYT ecosystem recently. Please give us a brief introduction to the TKNT project and the value of TKNT in the UYT ecosystem. Why can TKNT increase 400 times in 7 days? And what is the cooperative relationship between UTC and TKNT?
Answer: I will answer each project from the technical and resource aspects. Let’s first introduce UTC. UTC is the token of Copernican network and the first project of UYT game entertainment ecology. In the future, it will be responsible for linking. Due to the high-quality public chain in the entertainment industry, because of the limited slots of UYT, each field will seek a high-quality partner and help the partner become the secondary relay chain of UYT. After the main network of UYT goes online, many chains will want to access UYT Greater value circulation, due to the limited external slots of UYT, the cost is also very high. At this time, you can choose to connect to UTC first, and then connect UTC to UYT. With more and more links with UYT, it will gradually evolve into a secondary relay chain of UYT network. UTC’s resources, online and offline, offline payment and offline entity applications, also have a very large community base.
The ecological partners have very good operation experience in the game industry. They will use blockchain technology to change the whole game entertainment industry to make it more transparent and fair. At the same time, there are enough entity consumption scenarios. This is also UYT Because of the reason why the network chose to cooperate with it, the UTC project has been supported by the UYT ecological fund. The support fund includes that after the main network is launched, it will also be the first ecological cooperation project supported by UYT. Because of the online time of the main network of UYT, UTC can’t directly form a chain at present and will give priority to issuing on Ethereum. TKNT is a new concept project TKN.com TKN is the largest online centralized guessing game platform in the world at present. TKNT mixes bet mining and DEFI, so it can carry out fixed mining through platform games, build a system that can realize game participation and in application payment in all Dapps based on ERC20, and combine with various financial services.
The reason why TKNT has created a myth of 400 times in 7 days is that the TkN platform has a buyback plan. As we all know, the online quiz game entertainment platform has an amazing profit. Every quarter, the profit will be used to buyback. The strong profit support has led to the huge increase of token. In the future, all users can use UTC to participate in TkN games. Therefore, the main network of UYT is that Line is also of great significance to TKNT. With the maturity of UYT ecology and technology, TKNT can have a more powerful performance. If TKNT wants to link more public chains, it needs to access UYT network, and realize a bigger vision with cross-chain interaction of UYT. After TKNT was launched on the exchange, the highest price has risen to $14, and now it has dropped to about $2.50. You will see that it will once again set a record high and create greater miracles. You will also see that $3 will be the best buying point for TKNT, because there will be several major moves in TKNT, and the global MLM plan will be launched on October 7 in Korea, China, and other countries There will be many marketing teams in Europe to promote TKNT, including DAPP.com As a shareholder of TkN, TKNT will also make every effort to promote TKNT. Secondly, TKNT will be launched next month on the largest digital currency exchange in South Korea, and Chinese users will see the shadow of TKNT on Binance in November. Of course, the decentralized trading platform of UYT will also be launched in the future.
Q8. What is the significance of the launch of UYT’s main network for the industry and ecology?
Answer: UYT is one of the few cross-chain platform projects in the industry at present.
There are many public chains and coin issuing projects. Why? Because of less work, more money. However, there are very high technical and capital requirements for cross-chain and platform. This barrier is very high, so almost no project side is willing to do this. But once this is done, it will be of great significance to the whole industry of digital currency and blockchain.
Because it will subvert the current situation of the whole currency circle and chain circle acting on their own, and the painting land is king. Let each independent ecosystem achieve a truly decentralized and trust-free cooperative relationship. This huge change will promote the whole industry to develop into a healthy and virtuous circle macro ecosystem.
Q9. The slogan of many project supporters is that UYT should surpass Ethereum. What is the difference in technology between UYT network and Ethereum?
Answer: Thank you so much for supporting UYT. In fact, the correct understanding is that UYT is the next era of Ethereum. First of all, UYT has a different vision from Ethereum.
Before the emergence of UYT, Ethereum, and EOS, no matter how well they developed, belonged to the era of a single chain. The popular metaphor is a LAN. However, UYT can realize the interoperability of each chain and bring the blockchain into the Internet era. Secondly, UYT is far superior to Ethereum in technology. It mainly includes three aspects: shared security, heterogeneous cross-chain, and no fork upgrade.
In the case that Ethereum 2.0 has not been implemented, UYT is the most friendly bottom layer for the DFI projects and other Dapps on Ethereum. Now, the hair chain architecture substrate of UYT is compatible with Ethereum smart contract language solidity, so eth developers can easily migrate their smart contracts to UYT.
Up to now, there is no good solution to the congestion problem of Ethereum, while UYT network not only solves the network congestion problem. What’s more, UYT can easily realize one-click online upgrade, instead of having to redeploy a set of contracts on Ethereum for each version upgraded and then require users to follow them to migrate the original assets from the old contract to the new contract. Developers can quickly and flexibly iterate their own protocols to change their application solutions according to the situation, so as to serve more users and solve more problems. At the same time, they can also repair the loopholes in the contract very quickly. In the case of hacker attacks, they can also solve the hacker stealing money and a series of other problems through parallel chain management. We can find that for Ethereum, UYT not only solves the congestion problem we see in front of us but also provides the most important infrastructure for the future applications such as DFI on Ethereum to truly mature into an open financial application that can serve all people. It also opens the Web 3.0 era of the blockchain industry. In terms of market value, Ethereum currently has a strong ecological construction, with a market value of US $40 billion. UYT will also focus on the development of this aspect after the main network goes online. No matter in terms of market value or ecological construction, I have enough confidence in UYT, after all, we are fully prepared.
Q10. What is the progress of the ecological construction of UYT? What opportunities do current ecological partners see in UYT or what changes may be brought about by UYT ecology?
Answer: After the main network of UYT goes online, there will be a series of ecological construction actions, and more attention will be paid to establishing contact with traditional partners. Cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products will also be the key cooperation direction of UYT.
UYT will give priority to the game and entertainment industry because this industry is most easily subverted by blockchain. As the ecological construction of UYT gets bigger and bigger, the future slots will become more and more expensive. The earlier you join UYT ecology, you will get more support from the ecological fund because the ecological fund is also limited. From the perspective of token value-added, all the project parties will cooperate with the project side in the future, and the project side needs to pledge a certain number of UYT to bid for slots, except for ecological rewards, others need to be purchased from market transactions.
The difference between the pledge here and the pledge we understand is that the UYT of the ecological partner participating in the auction pledge cannot enjoy the computing power for mining.
UYT main network has several opportunities for Eco partners to look forward to, the first point is bitcoin, bitcoin will be later than other assets late, but eventually, all the bubble and value will return to BTC, after the wave of DeFi bubble elimination, the focus will be very much in the bitcoin. UYT ecology can provide a more mature bottom layer for defi. In addition, now Ethereum’s DEFI is that of Ethereum and ERC 20 tokens, and the outbreak point of bitcoin has not yet arrived. Therefore, the DEFI of UYT ecology may be the next opportunity, which is a good opportunity for everyone.
The second opportunity is that after the main network goes online, the future UYT ecological projects will compete to bid for slots. In fact, the original intention of UYT is to realize the interconnection of all chains. The chain outside the UYT ecology also needs to communicate. The third is cross-fi. The BIFI is hatched on Ethereum, and the def on UYT can realize multi-chain operation. For example, TkN games or future UTC game platform users can call bitcoin on the UYT chain. This form only belongs to the decentralized finance in the cross-chain era of UYT, which can be called cross-fi.
Q11. Which exchanges will UYT go online next? What is the online strategy like?
Answer: As the founder of ignisvc and as UYT As the head of the Dao organization, we have always had good cooperative relations with major exchanges all over the world. TKNT will appear in several exchanges one after another. Hitbtc exchange in the United Kingdom, Upbit and Bithumb Exchange in South Korea, Bitfinex exchange in the United States, Binance exchange in China, BKEX exchange, and Kucoin exchange in China are all our partners, and they have been paying close attention to UYT Development, UYT is the public chain with the largest user base and the highest community participation in the cross-chain field, so the future value is immeasurable. If we have to go to the exchange, then we will choose one of the above exchanges to launch. But the vision of UYT is to create a fairer, safer, and transparent circulation in the field of digital currency, and users can master all the assets by themselves, Therefore, in the beginning, there is a simple DEX on the UYT wallet, which is a simple matchmaking transaction and is also an on-chain transaction. After the completion of the UYT DEX, more transactions may occur in the UYT DEX.
However, after the main network of UYT is online, centralized exchanges can directly access the block data synchronization of UYT, and it is not ruled out that some exchanges will directly go online for UYT trading. Such exchanges will not enjoy the support of the ecological support fund of UYT. The network project is a community-led project. Each cooperation plan of the exchange will be carried out in the way shared by the community in the future. Dao organization can only implement it according to the voting results.
Q12. What are the plans for the promotion of ecological development and market by the launch of UYT main network?
Answer: The launch of the main network will be completed around October 15.
On the offline side, due to the epidemic situation, we will jointly organize corresponding market activities with nodes in different countries. At present, there are three large-scale offline meetups that have been identified. We will also start a global roadshow when the epidemic is over.
On the online side, we have opened online Wechat, Kakao, Twitter, Reddit, and telegram communities. We will carry out AMA activities in various countries and promote them all over the world in various ways. Of course, we will launch MLM plans and cooperate with more marketing teams.
submitted by tkntfoundation to u/tkntfoundation [link] [comments]

Bitcoin hashrate is up 31% JUST THIS MONTH. Hashrate is already 3x from December lows, and 2x from Mid-May

Bitcoin hashrate is up 31% JUST THIS MONTH. Hashrate is already 3x from December lows, and 2x from Mid-May submitted by undertheradar48 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Crypto Weekly News — September, 11

What important crypto events happened last week?
Cryptocurrencies
VeChain: New Consensus Algorithm Offers Strong Performance And Security
The VeChainThor blockchain will receive a new consensus algorithm called SURFACE or Proof of Authority 2.0 (PoA 2.0). The double consensus model gives users the ability to choose different levels of security for their transactions.
Chainlink Surges 25% Higher As Altcoin Market Recovers
Some altcoins have suffered in the past few days, dropping significantly from their recent highs. During this time, LINK underwent a strong leap that lifted the cryptocurrency by 25%. Analysts are divided on what comes next with Chainlink.
Monero Is Traceable Using New CipherTrace Tool
Analyst firm CipherTrace has unveiled a first-of-its-kind tool for tracking transaction flows in Monero (XMR) at the request of the US Department of Homeland Security. The new tool will allow tracking of stolen coins and those used for illegal transactions.
Updates
MetaMask Has Launched Its Ethereum Wallet For iOS And Android
Starting September 4, Android and iOS users are required to download a full mobile version with the ability to interact with dApps. To synchronize history and import existing wallets, the user just needs to scan the QR code.
Crypto Exchange Bitstamp Exploring 25 New Tokens For Listing
The list, published on September 3, includes Augur (REP), Maker (MKR), Polkadot (DOT), Chainlink (LINK), Tezos (XTZ), Cardano (ADA), Kyber Network (KNC) and others. Bitstamp is known for its extremely conservative approach to the listing of new coins. The marketplace currently supports only seven crypto assets.
OKEx Officially Ranked The World’s Largest Crypto Derivatives Exchange
CoinDesk Research analyzed and evaluated data from CoinGecko, according to which the value of outstanding contracts on OKEx at the end of last month was $1.6 billion, making it the largest crypto derivatives exchange in the world.
Binance Launches DeFi-Styled Automated Market Maker Pool
Binance Liquid Swap is based on a variety of liquidity pools, allowing crypto assets to be swapped using the Automatic Market Maker (AMM) pricing algorithm instead of the order book. This guarantees price stability and lower transaction fees. The new trading feature allows users to pool tokens for instant liquidity and earnings.
Law, Cybercrimes, Mass Adoption
Mastercard Releases Platform Enabling Central Banks To Test Digital Currencies
The project is a controlled environment in which banks can simulate the issuance of national digital currencies. The result will be an assessment of their compatibility with the existing payment ecosystem and the practicality of using CBDC.
Eterbase: A New Attack On A Crypto Exchange
On September 8, unknown persons hacked Eterbase cryptocurrency exchange located in Slovakia. The site announced the loss of user funds in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, XRP, Tezos, and Algorand totaling over $5.3 million. Representatives of Eterbase said that they contacted all centralized exchanges to which the stolen funds were sent.
US Crypto Adoption Rate Lags Behind Russia and China
Recent data showed an astonishing first place for Ukraine in the 2020 Global Adoption Index, followed by Russia and Venezuela. The index considers the total cost of online transactions, the cost of online retail transfers, and the number of cryptocurrency deposits online. The index also takes into account the volume of transactions made on P2P cryptocurrency exchanges.
Just Eat In France Accepts Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash And Ethereum
The integration of cryptocurrencies into more than 15,000 restaurants in France was carried out through the Bitpay payment service. This initiative can promote the use of cryptocurrencies among the general public in a more democratic manner. Bitcoin conversion will be carried out in accordance with Bitpay's own quotes.
That’s all for now! For more details follow us on Twitter, subscribe to our YouTube channel, join our Telegram.
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to u/CoinjoyAssistant [link] [comments]

Crypto Weekly News — September, 11

What important crypto events happened last week?

Cryptocurrencies

VeChain: New Consensus Algorithm Offers Strong Performance And Security
The VeChainThor blockchain will receive a new consensus algorithm called SURFACE or Proof of Authority 2.0 (PoA 2.0). The double consensus model gives users the ability to choose different levels of security for their transactions.
Chainlink Surges 25% Higher As Altcoin Market Recovers
Some altcoins have suffered in the past few days, dropping significantly from their recent highs. During this time, LINK underwent a strong leap that lifted the cryptocurrency by 25%. Analysts are divided on what comes next with Chainlink.
Monero Is Traceable Using New CipherTrace Tool
Analyst firm CipherTrace has unveiled a first-of-its-kind tool for tracking transaction flows in Monero (XMR) at the request of the US Department of Homeland Security. The new tool will allow tracking of stolen coins and those used for illegal transactions.

Updates

MetaMask Has Launched Its Ethereum Wallet For iOS And Android
Starting September 4, Android and iOS users are required to download a full mobile version with the ability to interact with dApps. To synchronize history and import existing wallets, the user just needs to scan the QR code.
Crypto Exchange Bitstamp Exploring 25 New Tokens For Listing
The list, published on September 3, includes Augur (REP), Maker (MKR), Polkadot (DOT), Chainlink (LINK), Tezos (XTZ), Cardano (ADA), Kyber Network (KNC) and others. Bitstamp is known for its extremely conservative approach to the listing of new coins. The marketplace currently supports only seven crypto assets.
OKEx Officially Ranked The World’s Largest Crypto Derivatives Exchange
CoinDesk Research analyzed and evaluated data from CoinGecko, according to which the value of outstanding contracts on OKEx at the end of last month was $1.6 billion, making it the largest crypto derivatives exchange in the world.
Binance Launches DeFi-Styled Automated Market Maker Pool
Binance Liquid Swap is based on a variety of liquidity pools, allowing crypto assets to be swapped using the Automatic Market Maker (AMM) pricing algorithm instead of the order book. This guarantees price stability and lower transaction fees. The new trading feature allows users to pool tokens for instant liquidity and earnings.

Law, Cybercrimes, Mass Adoption

Mastercard Releases Platform Enabling Central Banks To Test Digital Currencies
The project is a controlled environment in which banks can simulate the issuance of national digital currencies. The result will be an assessment of their compatibility with the existing payment ecosystem and the practicality of using CBDC.
Eterbase: A New Attack On A Crypto Exchange
On September 8, unknown persons hacked Eterbase cryptocurrency exchange located in Slovakia. The site announced the loss of user funds in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, XRP, Tezos, and Algorand totaling over $5.3 million. Representatives of Eterbase said that they contacted all centralized exchanges to which the stolen funds were sent.
US Crypto Adoption Rate Lags Behind Russia and China
Recent data showed an astonishing first place for Ukraine in the 2020 Global Adoption Index, followed by Russia and Venezuela. The index considers the total cost of online transactions, the cost of online retail transfers, and the number of cryptocurrency deposits online. The index also takes into account the volume of transactions made on P2P cryptocurrency exchanges.
Just Eat In France Accepts Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash And Ethereum
The integration of cryptocurrencies into more than 15,000 restaurants in France was carried out through the Bitpay payment service. This initiative can promote the use of cryptocurrencies among the general public in a more democratic manner. Bitcoin conversion will be carried out in accordance with Bitpay's own quotes.
That’s all for now! For more details follow us on Twitter, subscribe to our YouTube channel, join our Telegram.
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to u/CoinjoyAssistant [link] [comments]

Crypto Weekly News — September, 11

What important crypto events happened last week?

Cryptocurrencies

VeChain: New Consensus Algorithm Offers Strong Performance And Security
The VeChainThor blockchain will receive a new consensus algorithm called SURFACE or Proof of Authority 2.0 (PoA 2.0). The double consensus model gives users the ability to choose different levels of security for their transactions.
Chainlink Surges 25% Higher As Altcoin Market Recovers
Some altcoins have suffered in the past few days, dropping significantly from their recent highs. During this time, LINK underwent a strong leap that lifted the cryptocurrency by 25%. Analysts are divided on what comes next with Chainlink.
Monero Is Traceable Using New CipherTrace Tool
Analyst firm CipherTrace has unveiled a first-of-its-kind tool for tracking transaction flows in Monero (XMR) at the request of the US Department of Homeland Security. The new tool will allow tracking of stolen coins and those used for illegal transactions.

Updates

MetaMask Has Launched Its Ethereum Wallet For iOS And Android
Starting September 4, Android and iOS users are required to download a full mobile version with the ability to interact with dApps. To synchronize history and import existing wallets, the user just needs to scan the QR code.
Crypto Exchange Bitstamp Exploring 25 New Tokens For Listing
The list, published on September 3, includes Augur (REP), Maker (MKR), Polkadot (DOT), Chainlink (LINK), Tezos (XTZ), Cardano (ADA), Kyber Network (KNC) and others. Bitstamp is known for its extremely conservative approach to the listing of new coins. The marketplace currently supports only seven crypto assets.
OKEx Officially Ranked The World’s Largest Crypto Derivatives Exchange
CoinDesk Research analyzed and evaluated data from CoinGecko, according to which the value of outstanding contracts on OKEx at the end of last month was $1.6 billion, making it the largest crypto derivatives exchange in the world.
Binance Launches DeFi-Styled Automated Market Maker Pool
Binance Liquid Swap is based on a variety of liquidity pools, allowing crypto assets to be swapped using the Automatic Market Maker (AMM) pricing algorithm instead of the order book. This guarantees price stability and lower transaction fees. The new trading feature allows users to pool tokens for instant liquidity and earnings.

Law, Cybercrimes, Mass Adoption

Mastercard Releases Platform Enabling Central Banks To Test Digital Currencies
The project is a controlled environment in which banks can simulate the issuance of national digital currencies. The result will be an assessment of their compatibility with the existing payment ecosystem and the practicality of using CBDC.
Eterbase: A New Attack On A Crypto Exchange
On September 8, unknown persons hacked Eterbase cryptocurrency exchange located in Slovakia. The site announced the loss of user funds in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, XRP, Tezos, and Algorand totaling over $5.3 million. Representatives of Eterbase said that they contacted all centralized exchanges to which the stolen funds were sent.
US Crypto Adoption Rate Lags Behind Russia and China
Recent data showed an astonishing first place for Ukraine in the 2020 Global Adoption Index, followed by Russia and Venezuela. The index considers the total cost of online transactions, the cost of online retail transfers, and the number of cryptocurrency deposits online. The index also takes into account the volume of transactions made on P2P cryptocurrency exchanges.
Just Eat In France Accepts Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash And Ethereum
The integration of cryptocurrencies into more than 15,000 restaurants in France was carried out through the Bitpay payment service. This initiative can promote the use of cryptocurrencies among the general public in a more democratic manner. Bitcoin conversion will be carried out in accordance with Bitpay's own quotes.
That’s all for now! For more details follow us on Twitter, subscribe to our YouTube channel, join our Telegram.
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to btc [link] [comments]

UPVOTE FOR VISIBILITY: Mexico's Central Bank forbids the operation of crypto-currency exchanges in order to "protect the general public" from volatility

Local news coverage: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/economia/Banxico-mete-freno-al-uso-de-activos-virtuales-20190310-0052.html
Link to local regulation published on 8-Mar-2019: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5552303&fecha=08/03/2019
For people saying this is a FUD article, let me share an excerpt from the law (excuse the rough Google translation):
EDIT: updated regulation link, and some excerpts.
submitted by Moriloqui to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

The Bitcoin Conspiracy (an enthusiast's perspective)

I keep coming across comments, especially in this sub, from people claiming that Bitcoin was created by the CIA or some government agency as part of the plan for the NWO and cashless society. I want to share my experience and try to clear up the confusion surrounding this topic.
I first got involved with Bitcoin in late 2016 when I heard about it and got some while at a libertarian festival. Back then it was still very popular among the agorist community and was being promoted as THE silver bullet that was going to disrupt the global fiat banking system.
Putting preconceptions aside, a new user might ask, "what's so special about Bitcoin? We already have digital currencies."
Well, you only need to read the first page of the whitepaper to discover what the original intent of Bitcoin was. It most definitely was not intended to be a tool for central banks to subjugate the world to a centralized global currency. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the full whitepaper here.
When I first learned about Bitcoin, it forced me to learn about economics, then the Federal Reserve, then one by one the dominoes fell and down the conspiracy rabbit hole I went. In 2017 (actually it started a few years earlier, but I wasn't paying attention back then) there was a very heated debate in the Bitcoin community regarding scaling.
I'll try to break it down simply:
In the very early days, when Bitcoin was just a project being worked on by a few very technical people, no one knew about it. All it took was a handful of people running the software on their laptops to mine new coins. Since there was not much computing power on the network, it meant there could easily be a spam attack where a malicious user could join the network and generate many gigabytes of spam transactions that would overload and crash the network. To prevent this, Satoshi implemented a limit of 1MB per block, to protect the network until there was enough computing power to be able to handle larger blocks.
This measure worked, and Bitcoin grew exponentially.
Satoshi vanished in 2010, after WikiLeaks attracted unwanted attention to the project by accepting Bitcoin donations. He left clear instructions for his successors that the 1MB block size limit was meant to be increased once the network could support high levels of user traffic. At the time, there still was not much use, so it wasn't until around 2014 that blocks started hitting the 1MB cap and all of a sudden users had to compete (by paying higher transaction fees) in order to get their transaction mined into the next block.
Up until then, sending a Bitcoin transaction would cost $0.0001 (hundredth of a penny) or less, no matter if you were sending $0.10 or $1,000,000. Now, since block space was limited, fees started to rise, as miners would only include the transactions with the highest fees. Over the next couple years, transaction fees went up dramatically, at times reaching as high as $100 to send a single transaction.
The solution was obvious - raise the block size limit.
But this led to a heated debate, and this is where the conspiracy became obvious to those who were paying attention. Since Bitcoin was decentralized and open source, anyone could contribute, but certain people controlled the commit access to the github repo, and it became apparent that those individuals had been compromised, as any and all mention of increasing the block size was met with fierce resistance.
There was a misinformation campaign to discredit anyone arguing for larger blocks. The argument was that larger blocks would mean users could not run the software on their low-power personal devices and laptops; that by increasing the block size it would lead to mining centralization. Well, if you read the whitepaper linked above, you'll see that Satoshi predicted this. He knew mining would eventually be left to "specialized server farms" while normal users could use what he termed Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) wallets.
But this point was consistently shot down in the community, and especially on /bitcoin. There was a MASSIVE censorship campaign in the bitcoin subreddit that continues to this day where anyone who questions the official narrative or even asks a basic technical question is immediately banned. /bitcoin today is nothing but a cesspit of price memes and misinformation. Go to /btc for the uncensored discussions (but beware of trolls).
In 2017 the debate was finally settled, sort of. Now known as "Bitcoin Core" (the name of the official Bitcoin software), the developers implemented a change known as SegWit (Segregated Witness) which fundamentally altered the way the software validates transactions. It was implemented as a "soft fork" rather than a "hard fork".
I'll explain the difference.
In a fork, the network comes to a consensus on new rules that all participants must follow. In a hard fork, the changes are non-backwards compatible, so all users must update their software or else be left behind on a dead network. Hard forks happen all the time in software development, but in the case of SegWit, the developers refused to make any non-backwards compatible changes for fear it might alienate users. Again, another unfounded fear. "We can't ever upgrade the technical capabilities of the network (such as the block size) because some people might not go along with it."
All kinds of mental gymnastics were performed to justify their refusal to increase the block size, and there was nothing anyone could do about it except fork as an independent project. The 1MB block limit is now essentially set in stone for BTC. So in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard forked by increasing the block size limit to 8MB, along with some other changes.
Fast forward to December 2017 and Bitcoin was at its all time high of nearly $20,000. But fees were also astronomical and because of the 1MB block size limit, a huge backlog formed, and some people had to wait days or even weeks for their transaction to confirm. If anyone was trying to cash out into fiat and didn't want to pay a $100 transaction fee, by the time their transaction got confirmed the price had already crashed.
This event was largely responsible for the bear market of 2018. Everything that happened was predicted by those who knew what was going on.
A company called Blockstream had essentially wrestled control of Bitcoin from the original developers and shut them out or gained control over them, and started working on turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for their product called Lightning Network.
LN is a complicated topic that I don't want to get into, but essentially it's a framework that recreates all the same problems inherent in the banking system that Bitcoin was meant to solve. Blockstream's goal is to profit from creating, and then "solving" those problems by charging users fees for all kinds of custodial services.
In my personal opinion, it's obvious that the original Bitcoin project has been hijacked and repurposed into a tool for the central banks. The propaganda is being pushed in some conspiracy circles that Bitcoin was created BY the central banks in order to discourage people from researching the true history. What is now commonly called "Bitcoin" is not the original project, but a Trojan horse.
The project that most closely follows the original design is Bitcoin Cash, and that is where almost all organic development is happening, and personally I feel that it's picking up steam lately as more people wake up to what's happening in the economy right now. Unfortunately most people are still unaware of how fundamentally broken BTC is now and so as new users run toward cryptocurrency to escape the dollar collapse, most will fall straight into the trap and be stuck with BTC that they won't be able to use without paying exorbitant fees and/or submitting to the very same tracking system they are trying to get away from.
This is a very deep rabbit hole but I think I've written enough for now. I hope this info helps people make sense of what's going on with Bitcoin. I know it's confusing enough even without so much deception taking place so hopefully this helps.
Read the Bitcoin FAQ over on /btc.
submitted by PM_ME_YOUR_ALTCOINS to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Round up of Cryptocurrency News #7 Week 17/08 - 23/08

Heya everyone! Its been a little while, I'm still trying to get back into the groove of writing. Sorry about post#6, there will be a catch-up posted soon.
 
So... onto News recap #7! What have seen happen? First of all we have seen a pump from a bunch of altcoins: OMG, Cosmos, IOTA, NEO, THETA, ARAGON, SiaCoin, Golem, Swipe. As Ethereum fees remain high Omisego pumped over 130% in one day. It has now pulled back, watch the volume for further movement. Something interesting to me is a lot of these are projects from 2017.
 
Link appears to have broken its bullish market structure, dumping 23% in 48 hours. Be careful. IOTA is pushing its boundaries as its chrysalis mainnet goes live inching closer to complete decentralisation! https://cryptopotato.com/iotas-chrysalis-goes-live-on-mainnet/
 
Ethereum 2.0 upgrade is harder than first appeared, Vitalik says it will take much longer as they have a governance issue for the new blockchain.
 
Bitcoin and Ethereum have had slight adjustments in price potentially tightening up for another move (Hold above $11700 please!) Fingers crossed it is in the upward direction. They are currently in the red over the past few days however don't let that fool you as they are both up over 20% over the last 30 days. Also there was much excitement as Bitcoin rallied over 12K but was quickly beaten down back under. We can now be clear this is a resistance level and possibly a soon to be support level as the price has been steadily pushing back upwards toward 12k. In spite of this most crypto influencers are bearish and expecting a pull back.
 
News for the week: More awareness of cryptocurrency and purchasing by institutional traders, but do they have the iron hands to play the crypto market? We will have to wait and see, as for Dave Portnoy (who cares), he entered and left within a week. Blames Chainlink and Orchid as Chainlink dumps 20% on him in a day. "Ive bought the top many times" Portnoy doesn't understand the principles of the market as he also appears to think pump and dumps are encouraged within the cryptosphere. I'd keep an eye on him if he tries to push a cryptocurrency onto anyone.
 
Outside of the meme news, "Bitcoins perception is changing over time, its image as a money-laundering vehicle has subsided, with investors now taking a much keener interest in it. News story counts of potential money laundering were much more prevalent in 2013-14 but have since subsided, while counts of Bitcoin as an investment have become more of a focus."
 
Bitcoin's hashrate reaches record high of 130 exahash per second (EH/s). This is especially important after bitcoins halving, as miners have had to switch off and upgrade from old inefficient mining rigs, because when miners commit more computing power to process BTC transactions it helps to strengthen the network and secure it against 51% attacks!
 
Warren Buffet changes his mind on Gold, will Bitcoin be next on his mind? Buffetts company reveals it has dumped bank stocks (such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) and taken a position in a gold miner. This could also be a cheeky indicator something is a bit fishy within the current US financial system and Buffett is looking to retain his wealth for rockier times to come.
 
Thanks for reading, this week it is very Bitcoin heavy as I am thinking a move is on the way for the top performing cryptocurrencies. Below I would recommend reading the important links and CBDC links. It shouldnt be more than 30 mins, and most of them you can skim through :)
 
DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/zxXXyuJ 🍕 Bring some virtual pizza to share 🍕 Come have a chat, stimulate a discussion, ask a question or share some knowledge. We are all friendly crypto enthusiasts up for a chat, supportive and want to help each other with knowledge and investments! Big thanks to our Telegram and My Crypto HQ for the constant news updates! The Gravychain Collective: https://t.me/gravychain My Crypto HQ: https://t.me/My_Crypto_HQ
Important Links:
More links:
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC):
Bitcoin Adoption + cryptocurrency engagment:
submitted by IOTAbesomewhere to Gravychain [link] [comments]

Nigerians Are Using Bitcoin to Bypass International Trade Hurdles

Chukwuemeka Ezike sends thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin a month in order to trade with Chinese exporting companies.
In return, he receives spare auto parts, construction equipment, and juices for a family business his father started more than 30 years ago. Ezike works full-time at Singapore-based crypto exchange Huobi as its community manager but helps with his family’s business on the side.
He says bitcoin is faster than exchanging currencies the old-fashioned way. And he can use it to leapfrog bank limits of $10,000 a day, which he often needs to do.
Ezike doesn’t pay the manufacturer directly. Over WeChat, he works with a middleman named “Allen” who exchanges Ezike’s bitcoin for renminbi, China’s national currency, and then passes it on to the manufacturer. Ezike couldn’t divulge which companies he deals with, saying, “The Chinese are sensitive with the data that’s shared.”
He’s one of several Nigerians using bitcoin for this purpose. Ezike even helps other Nigerian companies make similar cross-border transactions with bitcoin.

Using bitcoin for global trade

In several ways, bitcoin makes sense for global trade. The currency jumps borders with ease, where other currencies encounter friction. If the counterparty is willing to receive bitcoin on the other end, it’s often faster and cheaper than legacy payments. But this can be a big “if,” since bitcoin is a newer way of transferring money and people aren’t exactly used to it quite yet.
While bitcoin has these nimble properties, it hasn’t disrupted international trade and value transfer just yet, especially given the currency’s current limitations. If more people use bitcoin at once, the network becomes congested and payments slow down.
Behind the scenes, developers around the world are working on the Lightning Network to fix these problems, so that more people, maybe one day even millions, can all use bitcoin regularly without seeing a spike in fees and sluggish transactions.
All that said, some Nigerians are becoming reliant on using bitcoin as a way to trade internationally, and are finding bitcoin has significant benefits over legacy financial systems.

Foreign exchange woes

Nigerian bitcoin entrepreneur Chimezie Chuta has another theory for why some are using bitcoin for trade with China and beyond.
Like most other countries in an increasingly globalized world, Nigeria imports a significant percentage of the goods that it uses. As Chimezie Chuta put it: “Nigeria is a very import-heavy country. Food industry, drugs, you name it, construction equipment, cars.” Much of these goods are bought from Chinese manufacturers. “Nigeria’s economy is heavily import dependent and China is a major import partner to Nigeria,” Chuta adds.
Nigerians have to struggle with this process, though. “Access to [foreign exchange (FX)] for importation by Nigerian business owners is highly limited because the [Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)] has limited liquidity to cater for everyone,” Chuta told CoinDesk.
If Nigerians want to reap the benefits of trade, they need to hunt down a way to exchange their naira (Nigeria’s national currency) for other currencies. In Nigeria, finding U.S. dollars or Chinese remnibi is not an easy task. “Importers typically rely on the black market for the additional FX needed and that comes at a very high price,” Chuta said. This phenomenon has been covered in Bloomberg, for instance.
This is one of the other reasons Ezike has turned to bitcoin as an alternative. “The hustle for [the] dollar and all that is quite a thing I love to avoid,” Ezike told CoinDesk.
With bitcoin, he can “take out all international banking routing processes,” he said.
Others are reaching the same conclusion.
“Chinese exporters have expressed willingness to accept bitcoin payments for their goods; hence, many business people in Nigeria find it more convenient to make such payments with bitcoin for obvious reasons,” Chuta said, adding that bitcoin is speedier, open and trustless.

More naira problems

Entrepreneur Monyei Chinazaekpele was able to buy clothes, COVID-19 masks and tests from House of Trippy in China, to resell to customers in Nigeria.
He decided to use bitcoin after experiencing mounting frustration with current banking limitations, especially their impact on global trade. “I was enlightened about the monetary policies on the ground. I was shocked to my nerve,” he told CoinDesk.
Chinazaekpele reiterated Chuta and Ezike’s point that foreign exchange is tough in Nigeria. “You can’t easily switch to other currencies,” he said, adding that he’s hopeful it’s just “a matter of time” before this situation improves.
“Basically, bitcoin is stress free to use and honestly, the naira is not a good store of value,” Chinazaekpele said, pointing to the naira’s 12% inflation rate, which means the value of the currency depreciates by that much value every year.
Bitcoin’s price fluctuates, and sometimes the price goes down. But Chinazaekpele argues that bitcoin generally doesn’t have this inflation problem, since over the long term the price has been going up.
Chinazaekpele’s also looking to buy a cashew processor with bitcoin, but he’s still working out the details with the factory, which is also located in China.

Keeping it on the down-low

All this trade with bitcoin is happening behind the scenes. Businessmen and women on the ground aren’t exactly eager to publicize that they’re using bitcoin for international trade. For one, the legality of cryptocurrency is fuzzy in the region.
The CBN has issued several warnings to banks. The latest in 2018 advised banks “not to use, hold or transact in any way with the technology.”
“In the bitcoin space we don’t know what reaction to expect, so we try to be a little bit discrete,” Ezike told CoinDesk. That’s why he doesn’t want to reveal the name of his father’s importing business. By only revealing his individual name, he’s less fearful that the Nigerian government will “attack” the business.
“We have had accounts frozen at some point due to bitcoin transactions,” Ezike said. “We had to appeal to re-open them.”
He added that it’s the same situation in China, which is why the people he transacts with there “ensure they [keep] a low profile.”
As for the relationship between the government in Nigeria and crypto, Ezike said that “they are really confused about what to do with it. But hopefully they will embrace it.”
https://www.coindesk.com/nigeria-using-bitcoin-trade-with-china
submitted by vegasbm to Nigeria_FreeSpeech [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

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

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

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

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

The so-called proposed “infrastructure fund” is a hostile takeover of Bitcoin Cash development. This change is a trojan horse. It is NOT free.

As many of you know, I’m an original Bitcoin’er from 2012 and a Bitcoin Cash’er since the upgrade. I converted all of my BTC to BCH and continue to use, buy and hold Bitcoin Cash. I’ve been to conferences around the world and have donated time, money and development skills to the project. Most importantly, I’m a true believer that decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash can free us from the centralized banking plague that keeps humanity in shackles.
 
First things first: Amaury Sechet’s actions have continually pushed for complete control over the Bitcoin Cash protocol. His attacks have shown that he doesn't care about keeping Bitcoin Cash development decentralized - a measure of health for any cryptocurrency project. I've distrusted him ever since he started attacking other wallet implementations, mainly Bitcoin Unlimited. He comes across as greedy when you compare his actions with that of Gavin Andresen, who gave countless hours to the project freely and made Bitcoin Cash what it is today.
 
Second: the miners who want this change are planning a 51% attack to force it through. This attack will guarantee them control over ALL protocol development FOREVER. Whoever controls these funds controls the protocol. These so called “concerned” miners can donate to ABC or any other implementation any time they want right now and on a continual basis if they really think Bitcoin Cash development is in trouble. It’s not. This isn’t about funding, this is about them having control.
 
The proposed 12.5% coinbase theft amount is based on the current (low) price. What about when Bitcoin Cash hits $20,000/BCH or $1,000,000/BCH in a few years? This theft fund will remain in place. BCH developers don’t need that much money - and they probably won’t even get it. This Hong Kong based entity will get it.
 
This plan isn’t about supporting developers, this plan is about stealing from from other future miners, wrapped in a fake cloak of concern. Whoever controls these development funds will be all powerful. This entity will be able to force changes they want and exclude those they don’t want from protocol development. Remind you of anyone? Blockstream.
 
This will also ensure their future control when they might not have 51%+ of the hashrate. They are future-proofing mining profits.
 
Back to Amaury and Bitcoin ABC. Bitcoin Unlimited, and other wallet implementations provide decentralization of development so that when Bitcoin ABC crashes (it has in the past) the protocol continues without issue.
 
My friends, this change is poison. Amaury Sechet is a good developer, and sure, he should be paid for his time if he gets donations by listening to what the community actually wants. But donations are opt-in and should never be forced by some centralized entity. It’s also odd that Amaury's writing that "everything's fine, nothing to see here" while he makes these changes himself, to enrich himself.
 
If this hostile attack/takeover goes through, Bitcoin Cash will no longer have decentralized development. It will be forever tainted with the disease of centralized corruption and control. BCH will be a dead coin.
 
A message directly to Amaury: Your greed and quest for power doesn’t outweigh the need to keep Bitcoin Cash's development decentralized. This community would be better off without power-seeking individuals like you. Any intelligence you've provided is vastly offset by the harm you will cause by introducing this centralization.
 
Addition: It's really simple, Bitcoin Cash, peer-to-peer electronic cash is supposed to be trust-less.
 
This "fund" would force us to:
submitted by Annapurna317 to btc [link] [comments]

White Swan came, Black Swan's a comin'

Like many here, I'm trying to come up with an investment thesis and a strategy for these uncertain times. I'm currently Bearish - have gone largely to cash, but want to invest in defensive plays because I see much more uncertainty ahead. So this long and rambling post is going to try to play with some ideas I've been having about the future. For the record, I've been investing for 8 years, was primarily an ETF buy and hold investor, and am Canadian, with a background in Political Science. ( I mean, I've got an undergraduate degree and a long-time interest, I'm no expert or nothing.)
I've read Nassim Taleb's Incerto series and have been mainly convinced, I think, and am surprised at the number of people who are calling this a Black Swan (BS) event; there's a post from today where a guy points out that it's not, and that Taleb himself says it's not and he got downvoted to hell. So first off: the Covid-19 pandemic was not a Black Swan. The Covid-19 pandemic, or one like it, has been predicted by damn near everybody for decades. The Obama administration even used a similar pandemic as a war game to get the Trump administration up to speed during the transition, Bill Gates called this years ago, we had a similar outbreak in SARS and H1N1, etc. Even if that wasn't the case, C19 would only be a BS for China - as a bunch of media sources have pointed out, there were US intelligence reports as far back as December saying this would be a huge deal, which were ignored by the administration. So all the suggestions that this is a BS event are really just pointing out how bad many governments, markets, and corporations are at predicting the future - they're unable to predict or prepare, or respond appropriately for a predictable event and only capable of reacting (with the exception of some countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany...)
Now with the market rallying the bulls are all saying "it's priced in, you can't fight the Fed, etc," and I'm thinking:
1) The emperor has no clothes; the US government is clearly incompetent. It couldn't even listen to it's own experts about the likely extent of the pandemic, had no plan or even seemingly the ability to be at all proactive. For example, an aircraft carrier had a port call in Vietnam, during the middle of a pandemic that started in Asia. Then, completely predictably, it had an outbreak of C19 and it's capabilities were badly damaged and the administration couldn't even properly help it's own ship, nor manage the public relations fallout that resulted. I mean, do you have any idea how insane it is that that ship was allowed to dock during a pandemic? One of the most powerful military devices that ever existed got taken off line cause the administration couldn't understand it's own intelligence.
This incompetence isn't limited to the US of course - the UK handled their initial response badly and had to switch horses mid-race, Canada lagged badly responding as well, Italy and Spain mismanaged their response - but I'd argue that the US, given their advantages in intelligence collection, should have been best positioned to deal with this crisis so I focus on them.
2) Because of this, I think the odds of a real Black Swan event have gone up considerably, and if one does occur, it will occur when the US is historically divided and weakened and where it's economic system is out of ammunition to deal with a second crisis. I'll explain:
We have been living at at time when major geopolitical disruptions have been absent - while proxy wars and minor terrorist attacks still occur, there's been no wars between great powers for some time, and I think many have come to see this as natural; that the unipolar world will continue. But Russia is resurgent, China has a 50 year plan to grow its economy and eventually take a place as a hegemon, which may be entering end-game, and much of the Western international community has grown uncomfortable with US leadership, given the American tendency to elect incompetent Republicans. So we're likely entering an era of uncertainty and increased instability as the contenders vie for status in the new international order.
This doesn't mean war or open combat - it's become a cliche that the new wars of the 21st century are economic ones, and, given nuclear proliferation that's likely to continue. And I think we're more likely to see significant economic combat in the next 6 months than at almost any time during the last decade, because: 1) Trump is incompetent (and here I should stop just shitting on Republicans... the Dems have picked a 77 year old half senile fool to go up against him. I mean, looking at the two guys contending for the leadership of the most powerful country that has ever existed, it's hard to come away thinking that this is the sign of a healthy political system.)
2)America is weak (relatively speaking obviously, they're still the undisputed big swinging dick) and divided.
3)Because of C19 hits to economy, Trump may not be re-elected. I suspect that if it looked likely that he's re-elected, China at least would be content to sit quiet and wait for 4 more years of dumbasserry to take its toll on US hegemony - similarly with Russia. But if it looks like he'll lose come November, they'll take advantage.
What would that economic war look like? Lots of options that I see, and I'm curious if you guys see other ones. I mean, what would it look like if China dumped treasuries over the next 7 months? Or what would happen if China and Russia, or even OPEC+ decided to trade oil in non-US dollars? Or what if China leverages foreign aid to African and Asian countries hard-hit by C19 for long term trade deals designed to damage US interests? Iran and North Korea are additionally wild cards, and if either one is hard hit by C19 could go down flailing with unpredictable results. Any others I'm missing? Curious to hear other's ideas.
Now, note I'm not saying that odds of economic war with China or any other US adversary are likely; I'm saying if the odds of a geopolitical Black Swan were usually 5% in any given year of the last twenty, I suspect the odds of a major BS have gone up 4 or 5 fold - so like 20-30%. And I'm wondering, given unlimited QE, zero interest rates almost everywhere, central banks everywhere supporting stock and currency markets, etc -- what a defensive portfolio, preferably one that's still exposed to positive black swans like a sudden cure, would look like. Is it gold or silver? Cash? Bitcoin? I've already got enough guns and bullets and a bunker... just kidding about the bunker.
But seriously, I'm thinking something like 10-20% PMs and miners, 20% cash, 20% bonds and the rest equity ETFs of some countries likely to benefit from a stronger and more dominant China, like South Korea and Australia. Given Chinese dishonesty and the opacity of the financial system, investing directly in Chinese companies makes me nervous, though I've been considering a stake in BABA. Canada, it seems to me, is too joined at the hip with the USA to do anything other than follow where it goes.
Anyways, if you stuck with me through all that, thanks and I'd love to hear other's thoughts. I'm absolutely not a prepper nor prone to panic -- I just think we're living in real interesting times and the times are likely to get interestinger in the near future.
submitted by Davidallencoen to investing [link] [comments]

WARNING! Bitcoin Savage Price Fall If Central Banks Get Their Way [MUST SEE] Central Bank to Hoard Bitcoin and Wall Street in BIG Trouble! Bitcoin's Perfect Storm Will Drive Big Price Rally as Central Banks Kill Fiat All Eyes On $8,000: Why Bitcoin Price Needs to Clear This Crucial Level  China’s Digital Currency MODELING BITCOIN WITH CENTRAL BANK BALANCE SHEETS IMPLIES ...

In 2018, meanwhile, bitcoin dropped by $300 after Bitmex temporarily closed in the wake of a DDoS attack. Bitfinex outage caused by supposedly a DDoS attack took about an hour. Almost no trades ... According to Crypto51, it only costs $788 per hour to attack the Bitcoin Gold network and cause disruption. Right now Nicehash miners control between 56-74% of the BTG hashrate on January 26, 2020. Central Banks go big on Crypto The cryptocurrency market showed small gains over the weekend, but then displayed a slight correction over the past 24 hours. However, the correction was not as significant as some of the short-term drops seen in recent weeks, as the majority of top 10 cryptos showed price movements lower than 1%. In 2014, when Bitcoin was going through an earlier post-bubble hangover, a huge sell order for 30,000 Bitcoin with a price limit of $300 per coin — at a time when the market price was $350 ... Libra spurred central banks into action on digital currency projects this year. ... Bitcoin Price Slides by $1.4K in Minutes. ... The Central Bank Business Model Is Under Attack.

[index] [19548] [26050] [13006] [25700] [16056] [19316] [23922] [17749] [15729] [10237]

WARNING! Bitcoin Savage Price Fall If Central Banks Get Their Way [MUST SEE]

Bitcoin Price Jumps, TRON Is A ....., Ethereum Price Explosion, XRP Evolution & Stellar Bank ... Ripple/XRP Adoption By AT LEAST 5 Central Banks -Christine Lagarde & XRP Is Financial Intervention ... Central bank announces Bitcoin intentions and Wall Street is in big trouble as the repo crisis unfolds, long term bitcoin price trend still looks awesome! FREE $50 - BLOCKFI - https://blockfi.com ... Warning! Bitcoin could face a savage price fall if central banks get their way and can ban crypto stablecoins! ‍ CRYPTOCURRENCY EXPLAINED BEGINNER COURSE https://cryptocurrency-explained.myka Bitcoin Price 250K By 2020 Tim Draper Gold Vs. Faith Central Banks Earn EOS in Coinbase ... Gold's Surge Is A Message: Central Banks Are Out Of Control, Not Inflation ️ Leverage OPM (Other People's Money): http://opm.cryptonewsalerts.net Institutional investor and creator of the Bitcoin Stock-to-Flow valuation model known...

http://zec-mining.guiprodad.tk