Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: ELI5:I know the 2 major parties don't want 3rd party candidates in presidential debates unless polling is at 15%, but why does the media let the parties control who is invited to these debates? /r/explainlikeimfive
Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: CNN poll: Post-debate, voters move to Clinton: Overall, Clinton tops Sanders among registered voters who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents 50% to 34%. /r/politics
Same lies about Dash still floating around - Time for another crackdown
This article was caught by our spamfilter because it's hosted on a reward-for-article platform (similar to steemit). Nonetheless I will respond to it, as it recycles the same old lies about Dash many of us have grown used to and it serves as in illustration that these lies and accusations are still after 6 years regurgitated 1:1 by ignorant bystanders without a single critical thought behind them. The article is a real mess as you will notice. The author didn't even bother to edit the question section into Dash from ZCash. Anyway, that's not the real issue. This is about the section "Dash Launch And Issuance" which I am about to respond to.
The Dash cryptocurrency has a rather controversial launch and issuance as it involved a 2-day ‘instamine’ or ‘premine’
There is a huge difference between a premine and a fastmine. Conflating the two shows the author is either ignorant and thus unqualified to talk about the subject matter or tries to mislead the reader. A premine means the public is excluded from mining, which provably never happened in Dash, thus the term is 100% inapplicable.
According to Dash’s founder, Evan Duffield, this premine was the result of a bug. However, there are many people who beg to differ.
Those who "beg to differ" are idiots plain and simple. Because we have already proven that the same thing happened 2.5 years earlier in Litecoin from which Dash originally forked off (and not from Bitcoin as the author initially claims at the beginning of the article).
To ‘resolve’ the situation, the majority of these instamined coins were sold for very low prices on exchanges. However, it is widely believed that most of these coins were simply scooped up by Evan Duffield and the Dash core team for incredibly low prices.
This is my favorite part, because it's probably the only original thought in the article, as I have never heard anyone make up something so incoherently dumb with regards to Dash's launch. First they say, Evan mined "all the coins by himself" now suddenly he's buying coins for "incredibly low prices"?! So, which is it? Can't have it both ways. Or did he buy coins from himself? Let's cut the crap. Is it too hard to simply admit the coins were sold on the free and open market to ANYONE willing to buy them?? Nothing was sold to "resolve" anything. Anyone, not just Evan and the team, had the chance to buy cheap coins for under a Dollar, which was fair and square, hands down. Those who missed out crying foul today are really just trying too hard. Also Dash Core did not exist in 2014. Again the author shows his ignorance further disqualifying himself.
Duffield released Dash before its intended release date (which means the instamine that occurred can be classified as a premine).
Dash’s instamine happened because Dash was launched with a block reward of 500 coins per block before it was abruptly cut 2 days later after 2million coins were instamined.
Of course the fix would happen "abruptly" as soon as the necessary blockheight was reached, otherwise it would've gone on forever. It was a mess up and nobody denies this. The fact remains that the coins were sold for pennies as my analysis has shown. Here Evan talks about the launch himself. He clearly states that coins were spilt out too fast and he was under immense pressure to fix it asap.
Initially, Dash was only minable on Linux, which could have been intended so that fewer people would mine Dash and Duffield and Dash’s core team could dominate mining (over 90% of all computers use the Windows operating system).
Conjecture without a shred of evidence assuming ill-intent over good faith. Back in 2014 mining was still a niche hobby by nerds where Linux was the dominating operating system. Evan is a nerd who was using Linux at the time. He didn't own a Windows machine. If he did, why would he offer a reward to someone compiling a Windows binary? If he was the evil fastminer everyone accuses him of, it would be in his best interest to delay Windows mining as much as possible. The accusation holds no water.
Evan Duffield was able to temporarily mine Dash by himself for a while when the public miner wasn't working.
Dash was initially meant to have a max supply of 80 million DASH, but Evan Duffield held an obscure poll where the majority of the voters voted to reduce the Dash max coin supply from 80million to 20million (which instantly made the instamined DASH worth more).
First of all the value of all coins goes up with a lower supply, not just those that were first mined (duh!). This is intellectual dishonesty, but hardly surprising considering the previous lies of the author. Second, this poll is near worthless as a historic summary as it ignores what went down in the community before: Watch this analysis by Tao of Satoshi to learn that there was major community pressure on Evan's back with endless debates on how to change the reward structure and emission rate of Dash until it was finally settled after a full 7 adjustments in both directions. The narrative that there was one evil singular supply decrease to maliciously enrich Evan is completely stupid.
All in all, Dash’s launch is shrouded in controversy, and it's clear that Evan Duffield and Dash developers benefited tremendously from how everything went down.
The only thing shrouded in mystery is why anyone would believe these false conclusions, accusations and flat out lies when the facts are readily accessible. Of course the founder of any cryptocurrency benefits the most. It's how it's supposed to be. Satoshi "benefitted tremendously" as well from launching Bitcoin. The fact that Evan was able to quit his day job and work for Dash full time was the best thing that could have ever happened to this project. Of course our detractors don't like that, because they don't want to see Dash succeed. But we did and we're still here after 6 years of ceaseless innovation. Repeating ancient lies cannot undo that.
Imagine if there was one desk that all stories could cross so that, at 4am, a media plan could be decided upon and disseminated where all news outlets coordinated to set the goalposts of debate and hyper focused on specific issues to drive a narrative to control how you vote and how you spend money; where Internet shills were given marching orders in tandem to what was shown on television, printed in newspapers and spread throughout articles on the World Wide Web. https://i.imgur.com/Elnci0M.png In the past, we had Operation Mockingbird, where the program was supremely confident that it could control stories around the world, even in instructions to cover up any story about a possible “Yeti” sighting, should it turn out they were real. https://i.imgur.com/121LXqy.png If, in 1959, the government was confident in its ability to control a story about a Yeti, then what is their level of confidence in controlling stories, today? https://i.imgur.com/jQFVYew.png https://i.imgur.com/ZKMYGJj.png In fact, we have a recent example of a situation similar to the Yeti. When Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on the TARMAC to spike the Hillary email investigation, the FBI was so confident it wasn’t them, that their entire focus was finding the leaker, starting with searching within the local PD. We have documentation that demonstrates the state of mind of the confidence the upper levels of the FBI have when dealing with the media. https://i.imgur.com/IbjDOkI.png https://i.imgur.com/NH86ozU.png The marriage between mainstream media and government is a literal one and this arrangement is perfectly legal. https://i.imgur.com/OAd4vpf.png But, this problem extends far beyond politics; the private sector, the scientific community, even advice forums are shilled heavily. People are paid to cause anxiety, recommend people break up and otherwise sow depression and nervousness. This is due to a correlating force that employs “systems psychodynamics”, focusing on “tension centered” strategies to create “organizational paradoxes” by targeting people’s basic assumptions about the world around them to create division and provide distraction. https://i.imgur.com/6OEWYFN.png https://i.imgur.com/iG4sdD4.png https://i.imgur.com/e89Rx6B.png https://i.imgur.com/uotm9Cg.png https://i.imgur.com/74wt9tD.png In this day and age, it is even easier to manage these concepts and push a controlled narrative from a central figure than it has ever been. Allen & Co is a “boutique investment firm” that managed the merger between Disney and Fox and operates as an overseeing force for nearly all media and Internet shill armies, while having it’s fingers in sports, social media, video games, health insurance, etc. https://i.imgur.com/zlpBh3c.png https://i.imgur.com/e5ZvFFJ.png Former director of the CIA and Paul Brennan’s former superior George Tenet, holds the reigns of Allen & Co. The cast of characters involves a lot of the usual suspects. https://i.imgur.com/3OlrX7G.png
In 1973, Allen & Company bought a stake in Columbia Pictures. When the business was sold in 1982 to Coca-Cola, it netted a significant profit. Since then, Herbert Allen, Jr. has had a place on Coca-Cola's board of directors. Since its founding in 1982, the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference has regularly drawn high-profile attendees such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch, Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, Oprah Winfrey, Robert Johnson, Andy Grove, Richard Parsons, and Donald Keough. Allen & Co. was one of ten underwriters for the Google initial public offering in 2004. In 2007, Allen was sole advisor to Activision in its $18 billion merger with Vivendi Games. In 2011, the New York Mets hired Allen & Co. to sell a minority stake of the team. That deal later fell apart. In November 2013, Allen & Co. was one of seven underwriters on the initial public offering of Twitter. Allen & Co. was the adviser of Facebook in its $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp in February 2014. In 2015, Allen & Co. was the advisor to Time Warner in its $80 billion 2015 merger with Charter Communications, AOL in its acquisition by Verizon, Centene Corporation in its $6.8 billion acquisition of Health Net, and eBay in its separation from PayPal. In 2016, Allen & Co was the lead advisor to Time Warner in its $108 billion acquisition by AT&T, LinkedIn for its merger talks with Microsoft, Walmart in its $3.3 billion purchase of Jet.com, and Verizon in its $4.8 billion acquisition of Yahoo!. In 2017, Allen & Co. was the advisor to Chewy.com in PetSmart’s $3.35 billion purchase of the online retailer.
Previous conference guests have included Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren and Susan Buffett, Tony Blair, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Allen alumnus and former Philippine Senator Mar Roxas, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, Quicken Loans Founder & Chairman Dan Gilbert, Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang, financier George Soros, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, eBay CEO Meg Whitman, BET founder Robert Johnson, Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, Nike founder and chairman Phil Knight, Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell, NBA player LeBron James, Professor and Entrepreneur Sebastian Thrun, Governor Chris Christie, entertainer Dan Chandler, Katharine Graham of The Washington Post, Diane Sawyer, InterActiveCorp Chairman Barry Diller, Linkedin co-founder Reid Hoffman, entrepreneur Wences Casares, EXOR and FCA Chairman John Elkann, Sandro Salsano from Salsano Group, and Washington Post CEO Donald E. Graham, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, and Oprah Winfrey.
https://i.imgur.com/VZ0OtFa.png George Tenet, with the reigns of Allen & Co in his hands, is able to single-handedly steer the entire Mockingbird apparatus from cable television to video games to Internet shills from a singular location determining the spectrum of allowable debate. Not only are they able to target people’s conscious psychology, they can target people’s endocrine systems with food and pornography; where people are unaware, on a conscious level, of how their moods and behavior are being manipulated. https://i.imgur.com/mA3MzTB.png
"The problem with George Tenet is that he doesn't seem to care to get his facts straight. He is not meticulous. He is willing to make up stories that suit his purposes and to suppress information that does not." "Sadly but fittingly, 'At the Center of the Storm' is likely to remind us that sometimes what lies at the center of a storm is a deafening silence."
https://i.imgur.com/YHMJnnP.png Tenet joined President-elect Bill Clinton's national security transition team in November 1992. Clinton appointed Tenet Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council, where he served from 1993 to 1995. Tenet was appointed Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in July 1995. Tenet held the position as the DCI from July 1997 to July 2004. Citing "personal reasons," Tenet submitted his resignation to President Bush on June 3, 2004. Tenet said his resignation "was a personal decision and had only one basis—in fact, the well-being of my wonderful family—nothing more and nothing less. In February 2008, he became a managing director at investment bank Allen & Company. https://i.imgur.com/JnGHqOS.png We have the documentation that demonstrates what these people could possibly be doing with all of these tools of manipulation at their fingertips. The term for it is “covert political action” for which all media put before your eyes is used to serve as a veneer… a reality TV show facade of a darker modus operandum. https://i.imgur.com/vZC4D29.png https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol36no3/html/v36i3a05p_0001.htm
It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever costs. There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the US is to survive, longstanding American concepts of "fair play" must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated means than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.
Intelligence historian Jeffrey T. Richelson says the S.A. has covered a variety of missions. The group, which recently was reorganized, has had about 200 officers, divided among several groups: the Special Operations Group; the Foreign Training Group, which trains foreign police and intelligence officers; the Propaganda and Political Action Group, which handles disinformation; the Computer Operations Group, which handles information warfare; and the Proprietary Management Staff, which manages whatever companies the CIA sets up as covers for the S.A.
…Those operations we inaugurated in the years 1955-7 are still secret, but, for present purposes, I can say all that’s worth saying about them in a few sentences – after, that is, I offer these few words of wisdom. The ‘perfect’ political action operation is, by definition, uneventful. Nothing ‘happens’ in it. It is a continuing arrangement, neither a process nor a series of actions proceeding at a starting point and ending with a conclusion.
CIA FBI NSA Personnel Active in Scientology: https://i.imgur.com/acu2Eti.png When you consider the number of forces that can be contained within a single “political action group” in the form on a “boutique investment firm,” where all sides of political arguments are predetermined by a selected group of actors who have been planted, compromised or leveraged in some way in order to control the way they spin their message. https://i.imgur.com/tU4MD4S.png The evidence of this coordinated effort is overwhelming and the “consensus” that you see on TV, in sports, in Hollywood, in the news and on the Internet is fabricated.
Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most likely develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
When you find yourself feeling like common sense and common courtesy aren’t as common as they ought to be, it is because there is a massive psychological operation controlled from the top down to ensure that as many people as possible are caught in a “tension based” mental loop that is inflicted on them by people acting with purpose to achieve goals that are not in the interest of the general population, but a method of operating in secret and corrupt manner without consequences. Notice that Jeffrey Katzenberg, of Disney, who is intertwined with Allen & Co funds the Young Turks. He is the perfect example of the relationship between media and politics.
Katzenberg has also been involved in politics. With his active support of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he was called "one of Hollywood's premier political kingmakers and one of the Democratic Party's top national fundraisers."
Last week, former DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg’s new mobile entertainment company WndrCo was part of a $20 million funding round in TYT Network, which oversees 30 news and commentary shows covering politics, pop culture, sports and more. This includes the flagship “The Young Turks” program that streams live on YouTube every day. Other investors in the round included venture capital firms Greycroft Partners, E.ventures and 3L Capital, which led the round. This brings total funding for Young Turks to $24 million.
Hollywood activism long has been depicted as a club controlled by a handful of powerful white men: Katzenberg, Spielberg, Lear, David Geffen, Haim Saban and Bob Iger are the names most often mentioned. But a new generation of power brokers is ascendant, including J.J. Abrams and his wife, Katie McGrath, cited for their personal donations and bundling skills; Shonda Rhimes, who held a get-out-the-vote rally at USC's Galen Center on Sept. 28 that drew 10,000 people; CAA's Darnell Strom, who has hosted events for Nevada congresswoman Jacky Rosen and Arizona congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema; and former Spotify executive Troy Carter, who held three fundraisers for Maryland gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous (Carter also was a fundraiser for President Obama).
Viacom, after splitting off from Les Moonves Les Moonves ' CBS , still holds Paramount Pictures, and that movie studio in December agreed to acquire DreamWorks SKG, the creative shop founded by the Hollywood triumvirate of Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg (a former exec at The Walt Disney Co.). DreamWorks Animation had been spun off into a separate company. Now it's time for Freston to make back some money--and who better to do a little business with than George Soros? The billionaire financier leads a consortium of Soros Strategic Partners LP and Dune Entertainment II LLC, which together are buying the DreamWorks library--a collection of 59 flicks, including Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, and American Beauty.
To Vitalik and other ETH Devs, GPU Miners need you and you need GPU Miners (PoW/ProgPoW)
This is directed towardsu/nickjohnson,u/vbuterin,u/5chdnand other ETH Devs. Edit: Proof of ProgPoW: https://gangnam.wattpool.net/#/account/0x445c466856266f8a609f87fdc6b0aaeb274d203f Initial testing is seeing 8.8-10.15mh/s on RX480 and 3.8-4mh/s on RX460. Will include write-up soon, Newest ETH-Miner release! Let me start this by saying, I mined my first BTC before it was even $100 or well known. BTC Mined. That was my first foray into the PoW mining scene. I had a lot a fun doing so. I enjoy building computers, testing equipment, fixing problems. It's literally my everyday job as an IT Hardware Analyst for a company. I had to put down my mining on GPU dreams due to ASICs overtaking the networks of both BTC and LTC. I gave up on crypto as a hobby. Why bother? I don't want an ASIC in my house. There's no fun in tuning an ASIC, cannot change out components, upgrade it, etc. Then in 2017 I heard a whisper of GPU mineable coin that was ASIC resistant. It was called Ethereum. It was posed to be the next "Apple" with great innovations. At first I was beset by previous failures of GPU mineable coins getting overtaken by ASICs. Eventually with some discussion to my friend we built our first GPU mining rig in June of 2017. I got into Ethereum by mining it. Now ASICs run rampant through most of the top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The current outlook, regardless of the bear-market pricing, looks bleak. I want to appeal to Vitalik, Nick, and the other Ethereum developers. It was GPU miners you had in mind when you created the Ethereum network and not ASICs. Vitalik made the best effort of a ASIC-Resistant algorithm. It latest for years but it's a cat and mouse game. Continued development of ASIC-Resistant algorithms needs to continue, not fall by the wayside. u/AndLanu/ohgodagirl, Mr If, and others have poured non-paid work into ProgPoW and getting it working on the Ethereum network because they want to see Ethereum succeed. ASICs are now on the network, ProgPoW is a solution, and we need YOU DEVELOPERS, To stand with US, THE MINERS! Together lets push Ethereum forward to #1! The Developers and GPU Miners need a symbiotic relationship. GPU Miners are NOT against you! You should not be against us! We need to stand together to make Ethereum strong and succeed, not become Bitcoin, which as even in Ethereum's whitepaper you understood it became fairly centralized.
However, this mining algorithm is vulnerable to two forms of centralization. First, the mining ecosystem has come to be dominated by ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits), computer chips designed for, and therefore thousands of times more efficient at, the specific task of Bitcoin mining. This means that Bitcoin mining is no longer a highly decentralized and egalitarian pursuit, requiring millions of dollars of capital to effectively participate in.
In regards to Centralization Mr If, made an excellent argument last Dev meeting, for ProgPoW which I shall reiterate/paraphrase here for everyone on Reddit. PoW is geared towards industries of scale. This is why ASICs typically become the dominate force, because the ASIC manufactures have the capital, investment, and industry to produce them at a low cost. Thus they reap the PoW rewards. Hence why all PoW tends to go towards ASIC. They can decide to sell ASIC and recoup cost plus profit or keep mining with that equipment. Making ASICs egalitarian. ASIC manufactures decide, not the miner communities, what they do with the ASICs. You pay to play and you must be first. ProgPoW takes the same approach but changes who the industry is, instead of Bitmain/Innosilicon it is AMD/Nvidia. These two companies are industrial level manufactures and have the ability to produce on a scale to support PoW(Just look at all the overstock of Nvidia 1000 GPUs). In this sense we are trading one(ASICs) for another (ASIC-GPUs). We as PoW miners must use Nvidia/AMD GPUs to support the network. Because it is the commodity hardware mass available to everyone. ASICs ARE NOT commodity hardware and ARE NOT mass available to everyone. Changing from Eth-hash to ProgPoW changes the players in the game and chooses the lesser two evils (AMD/Nvidia). ProgPoW is not stricitly an Algorithm to replace Eth-hash but a has various "buttons" and "knobs" to tune. hence why its called Programmable! Ill let an Eth-miner Dev explain it... -Andrea LanFranchi (EthMiner Dev)
ProgPoW is not strictly an Algo, it is a finite set of basic operations. ProgPoW is to be considered more of a process which creates variants of the algo every specified interval. Due to this there is no concept of ProgPoW as an immutable algo like Eth-hash. It tune-able and can dial various "knobs" that allow the creation of large number "definition sets" which again due to the deterministic randomness create an infinite number of algo changes. ProgPoW creates a new search kernel every 50 blocks. Every 50 . blocks the gpu receives a completely new and different kernel from the previous which causes hashrate to change. In ProgPoW there is no fixed and constant hashrate for GPUs. You have to take into account averages across multiple periods to get the best out of the hardware. Variances are from 8-9%.
I personally supported the Network at $400, $180, $1400 and still support it now $100. I supported throughout the uncertainty of the Iceage and delays. Ethereum is still a PoW coin! ONE OF THE BEST! It's what made ethereum great! The project has excellent idea's of smart contracts and Dapps. On top of all is a massive GPU networking supporting it. Throughout 2017 there were no ASICs(That we know of) yet the ethereum network grew. What helped make Ethereum blossom was the miners and the mining community. I am personally invested into Ethereum want to see it succeed, I'm personally invested in PoW GPU mining, and want to see it succeed. I will invest my own time and money, being a GPU miner, into seeing that ProgPoW testnet gets fully scrutinized, put through it's paces to ensure that it is a fit for Ethereum and minimize problems. I plead, beg, and invite all other GPU miners to do so. If we want change we as miners must show through hashpower on the testnet, that we are pushing forward with ProgPoW. Throw a single GPU, a Rig, whatever you can spare or muster for ProgPoW testnet. I can and am more than willing to help anyone setup the necessary files, miners, etc needed to get mining on the test network. Right now you can download the ProgPoW Miner(Updates are constant) And Ethermine is in full support. Ethminer -P stratum://(ProgPoW Test Address)[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]):4444 -A progpow Let's make a Decision together on ProgPoW. Miners are in majority support of ProgPoW and 100% support of kicking ASICs of the network(Look at Ethermine's twitter poll). GPU miners supported you, helped build your network, not investors, not ICOs. At the very heart of Ethereum beats the GPU. Operating that GPU is a typically an enthusiast, hobby miner, and a believer in Crypto. *Edit:*PoW is the known best way to distribute token "fairly", yet everyone hates it and wants PoS? What happens when large ASIC manufacture and centralized parties mining with ASICs earn more tokens than anyone else? Wouldn't that lead to centralization in PoS? Ethereum is on PoW BECAUSE it needs it! And because Ethereum needs PoW, it needs GPU miners, and to stay decentralized to PoS and in PoS it needs to keep GPUs miners on board. Vitalik, Nick, and others, a time-line needs to be set, ProgPoW needs to be in the Agenda continually, discussed throughly, until it's launched on the main network. I will personally come chat, debate ideas, with any of you! Civil discussions are important!
U.S. stock futures were pointing to a higher open ahead of the Monday session, as investors look ahead to a two-day Fed meeting that begins tomorrow. The Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq were lower in three of the past four sessions, yet they all posted two consecutive weeks of gains. Halfway through the month, June remains on track to be the best month for the Dow this year. (CNBC)
When Federal Reserve officials meet this week they are expected to clear the way for a July interest rate cut by downgrading their economic forecast, tweaking the language in their statement and reducing their interest rate forecasts. (CNBC)
The Fed won't cut rates at its June meeting. Here's why (CNBC)
Bitcoin continued to rise this morning, after leaping across the $9,000 mark Sunday, boosted by reports that Facebook (FB) is soon set to launch its own cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is up 140% since the start of the year. But it's still more than 50% lower than its all-time high near $20,000 in December 2017. (CNBC)
On today's U.S. economic calendar, the New York Fed's Empire State manufacturing Index is out at 8:30 a.m. ET. The National Association of Home Builders is out with its June sentiment index at 10 a.m. ET. There are no companies reporting quarterly earnings today. (CNBC)
Shares of Array BioPharma (ARRY) were surging about 60% in premarket trading, after Pfizer (PFE) agreed to buy the cancer-fighting biotechnology company for about $11.4 billion. The boards of directors of both companies have approved the transaction. (CNBC)
Democratic presidential candidates approach their first televised debates in a scramble for the 2020 nomination, with former Vice President Joe Biden a vulnerable front-runner, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows.
President Donald Trump is ready to proceed with tariffs on the remaining $300 billion in Chinese goods in the absence of a trade deal, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told CNBC today. "We will eventually make a deal, but if we don't, the president is perfectly happy with continuing the tariff movements."
Wilbur Ross: It's 'complicated to negotiate with the European Union' (CNBC)
Huawei will reduce its production capacity, which could hit revenue growth, the CEO of the Chinese tech giant said today, as he revealed his plans to deal with the continued pressure from the U.S. "Our revenue will be down by about $30 billion dollars compared to forecasts, so our sales revenue due this year and next will be about $100 billion." (CNBC)
China's state news agency Xinhua said the country's investigation into FedEx (FDX) should not be seen as retaliation for trade tensions between the U.S. and China. China launched a probe over parcels intended for telecom giant Huawei delivered to the wrong address. (CNBC)
Iran said today it will surpass the internationally agreed levels of its low-enriched uranium levels in 10 days. The country would increase enrichment levels to 20%, significantly closer to bomb-grade material, for use in local reactors. (CNBC)
Iran's elite defense force finds new funding sources as tension rises with U.S.(WSJ)
Raytheon International (RTN) CEO John Harris told CNBC today the Trump administration should not worry about the company's merger with United Technologies (UTX). "The combination has little to no overlap," Harris said. Last week, the president told CNBC he's a "little concerned" about how the deal could harm competition. (CNBC)
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg believes the safe return of its best-selling plane, the 737 Max, is the company's most important objective. "This is a different show for us, it is not about orders," Muilenburg told CNBC. The 737 Max was grounded in mid-March after two fatal crashes involving those jets.
Target (TGT) said its registers are back online after outages over the weekend that prevented shoppers from making purchases on Saturday, and some from using credit cards on Sunday. The retailer said neither problem was caused by a cyberattack. (CNBC)
Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook warned that Silicon Valley companies needed to take responsibility for the "chaos" they create, in a speech at Stanford University. He mentioned no companies by name, but made a reference to disgraced startup Theranos. (CNBC)
Pfizer – The drugmaker is buying Array Biopharma for $48 per share in cash, or $11.4 billion, including debt. That’s a 62% premium over Array’s Friday close. Array specializes in treatments for diseases where there is a large unmet need, as well as cancer drugs.
Boeing – Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg told reporters at the Paris Air Show that it will take time to win back the confidence of its customers following the two fatal crashes involving the 737 Max jet. He also said the company had failed to communicate properly with regulators and customers about problems with a cockpit warning system.
Lockheed Martin – Lockheed executive Greg Ulmer said he is not concerned that the proposed merger of Raytheon and United Technologies would affect the F-35 program or put pressure on its profit margins. Ulmer is program manager for the F-35.
Deutsche Bank – Deutsche Bank plans to create a so-called “bad bank” to hold billions in non-core assets, according to Reuters. The move is said to be in conjunction with an overhaul of the bank’s trading operations.
Alibaba – Alibaba is proposing an eight-for-one stock split, in a move designed to increase flexibility in capital raising. The proposal will be brought up at the China e-commerce giant’s July 15 annual meeting.
Goldman Sachs – Goldman will combine four of its units that invest in private companies into one new operation, according to The Wall Street Journal. The paper said the newly created unit would be nearly as big as KKR and about one third the size of Blackstone.
Target – Target said its registers are back online after outages over the weekend that prevented shoppers from making purchases on Saturday, and some from using credit cards on Sunday. The retailer said neither incident was caused by a cyberattack.
FedEx – China’s state news agency Xinhua said the country’s investigation into FedEx should not be seen as retaliation for trade tensions between the U.S. and China. China launched a probe over parcels intended for telecom giant Huawei delivered to the wrong address.
A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment. To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space. Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex. As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous. About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now. The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC. https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404 The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’. https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/ When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents. https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1 https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3) If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient. Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well. LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation. In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”. https://imgur.com/urJbe10 Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes. Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime. His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such. This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money? https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55 Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
A few questions and comments regarding Zcash and its future.
Hi all, I don't usually post but I've been reading a bit about the Electric Coin Company's funding issues and am hoping to get some feedback on my thoughts. I'm curious as to how @zookozcash, the ECC team, the Foundation, and Redditors here feel. Please remember that this is a conversation, not a debate. Thank you.
The Zcash Foundation is confusing and arbitrary on the surface. There's a board and a Community Governance Panel composed of individuals who are self-nominated and selected. How is broader community feedback formally processed? Communication on the forum? Voting? Implied consent by continuing to use the current chain? -> Side note: Please read the essay for how unstructured systems can yield poor results.
Why the adherence to the same inflation parameters that Bitcoin had in its infancy? Given your governance structure and cash flow situation this doesn't seem to be useful. If the number of transactions or active addresses is a determinant of price then this clearly won't be a factor.
Following from above, if you believe that adoption drives price then why is there no significant push for light clients? Zcash's niche at the moment is truly private payments. The easiest way to get people to use your product is to make it convenient. If you feel that convenience can harm privacy (due to metadata and so forth) you're definitely right. However, that is a circumstance that can be adapted to by users and node operators. -> Side note: For example, I wanted to participate in the recent straw poll held by Zooko. Would it have been convenient to? I don't run a full node, so no. Worth my time? Unfortunately not.
I honestly think that the price of a cryptocurrency asset, although imperfect, reflects both how participants perceive it and its level of adoption. It's relatively clear that the sentiment surrounding Zcash is low. Reflexivity is a powerful force in markets and is something that I believe both the Foundation and ECC should keep in mind.
Progress appears... slow. I understand that zero knowledge cryptography and scaling is exceptionally difficult but all the aspects that are relevant to most users has been ignored. Appealing to the problems of the already established Zcash community, now formalized in the Foundation only makes this problem worse. The ECC is now bound to it in one way or another.
As implied in some other posts here the relationship between the ECC and the Foundation comes off as very odd. To a lot of people it looks as if the ECC wants to wash its hands of Zcash if it doesn't work out. However, from my perspective the split as designed makes plenty of legal sense. Regardless, clearer communication and publicized cooperation between the two entities would help to alleviate some fears of this.
I feel that there is a set of decisions made in an institutions's life that determine whether it lives or dies. And to me, this is definitely one of those moments.
A recent poll has shown that the NavCoin community greatly values auditability. However, the level of privacy that can be achieved while retaining full audibility is considered low. It seems this sentiment along with the voting format was not effectively propagated throughout the community which lead to confusion and possibly skewing the results of this very important decision. Let's put that poll aside for now and focus on the path forward. There has been an interesting option for privacy brought to the table by developer Alex (@aguycalled) which could satisfy both sides of the privacy/auditability debate. Alex is proposing to implement a solution based off of ValueShuffle which was first introduced by Tim Ruffing and Pedro Mereno-Sanchez ( https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/238 ). What is ValueShuffle? ValueShuffle combines three existing privacy techniques that if used independently provide limited privacy, but when packaged together create a solid foundation for privacy. ValueShuffle consists of the following three privacy-oriented techniques: - CoinJoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin) - Confidential Transactions (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confidential_transactions) - Stealth Addresses (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stealth-address-cryptocurrency.asp) ValueShuffle is based on the coin-mixing protocol known as CoinJoin which has well known and serious flaw regarding user's privacy. Through blockchain meta-data analysis, the private nature of CoinJoin begins to fall apart. As more data is added to the blockchain, it becomes easier to break through the privacy aspect of CoinJoin. This is where the feature set of confidential transactions and stealth addresses complement the flaws of CoinJoin to produce a strong solution for user's privacy. With these additional features, meta-data analysis is no longer possible since the required information is now obfuscated; sending address, receiving address and transaction amount. An important trait of ValueShuffle that the NavCoin community may appreciate is that the total coin supply remains auditable using only weak assumptions where as other implementations of privacy protocols would require much stronger assumptions (a weaker assumption is less likely to break). Auditability while retaining privacy is achieved using a discrete logarithm assumption (range proofs). Initially, the complexity of implementing range proofs was a weakness of this solution. However, two years have passed since ValueShuffle was first introduced and we now have a technique referred to as Bulletproofs. Bulletproofs allow the solution to become significantly simpler while also making it more robust. Although a correct implementation of ValueShuffle is fully auditable, it is important to note that this state of auditability is dependant upon the underlying cryptography as well as the correctness of the methods in which it is implemented. If you would like to read up more on ValueShuffle, further information can be found here: https://btcmanager.com/valueshuffle-a-way-to-improve-bitcoins-fungibility/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/valueshuffle-brings-together-the-best-of-both-worlds-for-privacy-1483557170 This article also includes comparisons with other methods of privacy: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@sames/the-future-of-bitcoin-privacy Improvements to ValueShuffle Although ValueShuffle offers a great solution for privacy, it does have shortcomings of its own: - It is designed as a centralized service. - It requires a lot of data stored on the blockchain. This is where a little ingenuity comes into effect as Alex's implementation will address and fully resolve these issues. Improvement #1: CoinJoin relies on a centralized server to manage the coin-mixing portion of the protocol. The authors of ValueShuffle did not see a reason nor a need to change this configuration, so left it as such. Having a centralized server goes against what NavCoin strives to retain as we all truly understand the critical importance of decentralization. A centralized service is susceptible to DoS attacks and even worse, manipulation and malpractice. The improved version of ValueShuffle will not have any centralized aspect to its implementation. All nodes (wallets) on the NavCoin network will have the ability to manage the coin-mixing portion of the transaction, thus retaining a trust-less decentralized environment. Improvement #2: With three different techniques being used behind the scenes within ValueShuffle; multiple transactions, addresses and amounts being encrypted... a lot of additional data is required to be stored on the blockchain which can quickly lead to bloating. This would cause the size of the NavCoin blockchain to grow significantly. Overtime, this blockchain growth would increase the necessary requirements to run a node on the network which in turn raises the cost of node operation and could have an impact on the decentralized nature of NavCoin. However, this can be avoided since NavCoin is in a fortunate scenario to handle this quite easily. Two years ago, the NavCoin community voted to enable SegWit which gives us the ability to use some valuable tools to aid in mitigating this: - Bulletproofs (https://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf) - BLS signatures (https://medium.com/cryptoadvance/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716) The activation of SegWit has eliminated transaction malleability which gives NavCoin access to unique tools to ensure our blockchain remains lean and efficient. By using aggregated Bulletproofs, the amount of data required to be stored on the blockchain for the range proofs will see up to a 10-fold reduction in size. There would also be an additional 40% capacity savings achieved by using BLS signatures for transactions. Another benefit of BLS signatures is that they would be signed over pairs of inputs/outputs within the coin-mixing transaction as opposed to Schnorr's signature that would be signed over the entire coin-mixing transaction. This adds some great resilience to a decentralized environment against malicious actors attempting to fail coin-mixing transactions. This improved version of ValueShuffle provides a very high level of privacy while keeping in line with the decentralized nature of NavCoin. It can also be considered as close as you can currently get to having a solid foundation for privacy while retaining auditability without the use of very strong cryptographic assumptions. There are currently no other protocols available to implement on NavCoin which meet those conditions. If this proposal is not accepted, developers will focus their work on other areas of development. If you have any questions or need clarification on the details contained within this proposal, please don't hesitate to ask other members or developers of the NavCoin ecosystem. It is your own responsibility to be fully aware and educated on what you are voting for. Please go vote: https://www.navexplorer.com/community-fund/proposal/27e3c0d3870edb24c88055ec35de822e802cd258177c5e3c5babe9edcdc534d5 Vote YES if you ACCEPT the implementation of an improved version of ValueShuffle as the method of privacy for NavCoin. Vote NO if you REJECT the implementation of an improved version of ValueShuffle as the method of privacy for NavCoin.
Understanding the truth about #UASF and the small block movement: An attempted subversion of Bitcoin's voting system through the introduction of a One-IP-address-One-vote system, a direct violation of the POW voting mechanism described in the white paper.
The proper way to gain influence in the system of Bitcoin is to invest in it's security. The amount of influence you have in the system is directly proportional to how much you have invested into it's security. This is mostly seen with mining, where you "vote" by extending blocks. Really quickly I want to get something out of the way: There's an argument to be made that coin hodlers have a say too. Holders have the ability to change the supply/demand equilibrium by adding or removing coins from circulation, increasing or decreasing the relative value of remaining circulating coins. What should be noted here is that again, this control of the system was not gained without first making an investment into it. Now, while we have acknowledged coin hodlers have some influence in the overall value of the system, they don't necessarily "vote" the way miners do, it's a little different. We can differentiate by remembering that Coin hodlers and investors have a vote in determining the overall value of the system, while miners vote on how the system works structurally. People need to remember, Bitcoin is not a democracy, if you don't invest, you're not supposed to have any control. If it weren't this way, then anyone with an Amazon cloud instance could spin up a bunch of non-mining nodes and start governing the system with no investment into it's security! Let's go to the white paper for a second, Section 4, it says: "The proof of work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one IP address-one vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IP's. Proof of work is essentially one CPU-one vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, Which has the greatest proof of work effort invested into it." To me, this is one of the most important parts of the white paper, and one of the biggest clues about who the good and bad actors are. Let's break each sentence down so everyone can understand:
"The proof of work also solves the problem of determining representation of majority decision making."
Satoshi understood that there needs to be some type of voting mechanism within the system in order to come to consensus about changes, such as block size, for example. He explains in the above sentence, that the "voting" is determined by CPU power. So whoever has the most CPU power has the biggest vote! Likewise, No CPU power = no vote! Remember, the person who has the most CPU power, is the person who has invested the most into Bitcoin's security, that's how he GOT the CPU power. It's extremely important to note here that "CPU" at the time the white paper was written, was the appropriate term, but now "hash" power would make more sense, since a lot is not done on CPU's anymore, which Satoshi predicted. So even though he says "CPU" we can really interpret that as "hash power." So for the purpose of this paper, CPU power = Hash power. (please, in the comments, someone post a link to where Satoshi predicted GPU and specialized hardware, I don't have the link but I know it exists.) Anyway, he is very clear: you have to consume electricity and use it to generate blocks, that's how you vote. Remember, non-mining nodes don't consume much energy, don't do any hashing, can't put your transaction into a block and basically have little to no power in the system, this is by design.
"If the majority were based on one IP address-one vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IP's."
Sound familiar? Think about the non-mining nodes that have made no investment into the security of the system (since they don't extend blocks.) They are trying to subvert it by allocating many IP's, exactly like Satoshi said in the white paper! Think about it: The twitter polls, the non-mining nodes, the sockpuppet accounts, The #UASF shills, these are all examples of "IP" and NOT "CPU." It's an attempt at subversion through allocating IP addresses, NOT contributing hash power! It is clearly explained that this is NOT the way to vote in the system. A user represents "IP" where a miner represents "CPU." We can draw a clear distinction by the fact that mining requires an expenditure of energy, this is what constitutes the "proof' in "proof of work."
"Proof of work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote."
When a miner mines your transaction, he performs a "Proof of work." He says that your transaction occurred, and backs it by the energy he expended to confirm your transaction. The fact that it requires work and an expenditure of energy to solve a block is the "proof." If no block is solved, no "proof" has occurred. Understanding this is absolutely crucial to understanding how Bitcoin works and why the system has value. The "proof" that your transaction is legitimate, is the fact that a miner had to expend energy to confirm it. Miners have collectively invested Billions of dollars into securing the system. They're the ones with skin in the game. Non-mining nodes and UASF people have no skin in the game, they do not confirm blocks. Anyone can spin up a non-mining node or make a twitter account and vote in twitter polls, etc. I can't stress the importance of this enough: Simply existing does not give you the right to vote in the system of Bitcoin. If you want a vote, you need to invest. A non-mining node is not an investment into the security of the system!
The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, Which has the greatest proof of work effort invested into it.
This sentence is pretty self explanatory, he's just saying that whatever most miners agree on, is the correct rules. So if most of the CPU power agreed that blocks are 1MB forever, then blocks are 1MB forever. If most of the CPU power votes for 2MB blocks, by mining them and adding them to the longest chain, then the majority hash power has spoken. THIS is how voting in Bitcoin works. NOT by allocating IP's that don't contribute to proof of work. If you don't contribute to proof of work, you don't vote. So how does this all tie into the segwit/segwit2x deal? In the case of the BTC chain, miners, who have the vote, want to increase block size. They're going to do this regardless of what the non-mining nodes want. They are well within their rights to do so, the system is designed so that miners have ultimate control. Remember, the instant a non-mining node rejects a block from a mining node, he is forking himself off the network. This is extremely important: These people that claim to use their non-mining nodes to "enforce consensus rules" are absolute bullshitters! They're not enforcing a damn thing! They're desperately attempting to usurp control that they're NOT supposed to have! They are attempting to steal control from miners, who have actual skin in the game! A non-mining node has two choices: Follow the mining nodes, or fork off. Quite frankly, the idea of a non-mining node "enforcing consensus" on a mining node is laughable! Remember, non-mining nodes are READ ONLY, they don't enforce ANYTHING. They can either follow the mining nodes, or fork themselves off the network. SORRY, this is how it works! It's not a matter of opinion, this is the structure of Bitcoin and it's not open for debate. So, according to the voting system outlined in the white paper, who is right? The segwit2xers, or the NO2xer's? The 2xers are right, the NO2xer's are wrong. Not because of their opinion on block size, but because they insist on having a vote when they are not supposed to. The NO2xer's are, exactly as CSW said at Bitkan: "Kicking and screaming outside the voting booth." They're very loud, very verbal, using propaganda, censorship and manipulation and other underhanded tactics, in attempt to subvert Bitcoin by turning it into a "One-IP-one-vote" system when it is CLEARLY supposed to be "One-CPU-one-vote." This is not a matter of opinion, this is how the system works. So, by every measurable metric, the NO2x movement is a sybill attack on Bitcoin, an attempt to subvert the rules of the system and gain control that should not be had. Tl;DR: Miners vote on how the system works structurally by extending blocks on the chain they deem to be the legitimate one. Miners make the rules, users do not. If you want a vote in the system, you have to invest in it's security by extending blocks. If you have NOT invested in the security of the system, you are NOT supposed to have a vote. Core minions, small blockers and the UASF movement in general, is nothing but a bunch of people who have not invested into the security of the system, attempting to dictate how the system works. This is a direct violation of the voting system outlined in section 4 of the white paper and thus, by most measurable metrics, an attack on Bitcoin.
What's going on? A non-partisan explanation of the ASIC softfork
In the past few days, there has been a lot of discussion about Bitmain's announcement of a Sia ASIC and the repercussions of that. It's led to a lot of debate about what Nebulous should do in response, who's right, who's wrong, what this means for Sia. Through all this discussion, I feel that the basic facts of what occurred have been obscured, so I'm trying to use this thread to summarize objective facts related to the new ASICs and the possible softfork to invalidate them. Disclaimer: This information is non-authoritative. It's my own understanding, and is subject to correction.
Nebulous is the company that develops Sia and employs all Sia developers.
Obelisk is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nebulous. It manufactures ASIC miners for the Sia and Decred cryptocurrencies.
Bitmain is the largest ASIC manufacturer in the world. They have long produced Bitcoin ASICs, and recently announced that they are producing a Sia ASIC miner.
Halong Mining is a new ASIC mining manufacturer. They have not yet shipped any hardware, but recently announced that they are producing a Sia ASIC miner.
2017-06-23: taek42announces the formation of Nebulous' hardware manufacturing subsidiary, Obelisk, whose mission is to produce Sia ASIC miners.
Obelisk begins collecting batch one of pre-orders for the Obelisk SC1, a Sia ASIC miner.
As an incentive to pre-order early, Obelisk promises that they will not ship any SC1 units until at least 6 weeks after all batch one units have been shipped.
Obelisk becomes the first company ever to announce plans for a Sia ASIC miner.
2017-11-24: Obelisk's batch one sale ends with 3,598 SC1 units sold.
2017-12-30: Obelisk begins its batch two pre-sale of the Obelisk SC1, estimating a batch two shipping date of 2018-08-31.
2018-01-06: Obelisk announces a ship date for SC1 batch one buyers of 2018-06-30 or earlier.
2018-01-17: At 12:23am ET, Bitmain announces and immediately begins selling the Antminer A3, a Sia ASIC, promising shipping within 10 days.
This makes Bitmain the first Sia ASIC manufacturer to market, beating Obelisk by several months
A3 units sell out, but Bitmain does not reveal the total number sold
Community members note that Bitmain advertises the A3 as a "Blake2b miner" instead of a "Siacoin miner." This contrasts Bitmain's other mining products, which are advertised for a particular named cryptocurrency.
2018-01-17: taek42reveals that the SC1 has, "an extra feature... that would allow [Obelisk] to invalidate the Bitmain hardware without invalidating the SC1."
The mechanism would be a soft fork in the Sia blockchain consensus algorithm, which Nebulous controls, as they maintain the Sia code.
This revelation leads to heated controversy in the Sia community over whether this feature should exist and whether Nebulous should implement the soft fork.
2018-01-19: Discord member @toaster announces work on a separate hardfork from the existing Sia codebase and0ptim0s's softfork: "My fork is about implementing some different ideas in the codebase. The fact that Sia could migrate to Nick's codebase and thus rescue the current Obelisk situation and the fact that A3s could point at my fork and not be bricked would be opportune."
2018-01-19: On the Sia Discord channel, taek42states, "The Nebulous entity is not actively pursuing a fork, and I personally am not actively pursuing a fork. However, if a fork manifests from elsewhere with substantial traction, I am ready to put my weight behind it. And I believe the Nebulous entity would also put its weight behind the fork..."
2018-01-22: I_CAPE_RUNTS posts pictures of a Bitmain A3 in-hand and mining (unclear if their own machine or a repost of images found online).
2018-01-22: stulentsev points out that hashrate on SiaMining is rapidly increasing, suggesting ASICs joining the pool. 34% increase in hashrate since midnight 2018-01-22.
2018-01-23: Luxor publishes an open letter to Nebulous advocating a soft fork, signed by 89 community members, including most of the known third-party Sia code contributors and developers of platforms that build on top of Sia.
Nebulous merges the softfork code in and cuts a new Sia release (e.g. 1.3.2)
Crypto exchanges and mining pools upgrade to the latest Sia version
The softfork activates
Antminer A3s break, as they are no longer compatible with any mining pools
Who decides whether a soft fork is activated?
In his revelation about the potential for the ASIC-breaking soft fork, taek42 stated:
The community would need to choose to adopt a soft-fork (it's not something we could just magically activate, we have to change the hashing algorithm slightly)
It's unclear who is considered a member of "the community." Discord channel participants? Reddit participants? Code contributors? SC1 owners? A3 owners? Sia investors? taek42's comments suggest that "the community" is represented by the #contributors channel of the Sia Discord. When polled, 62% reported that they were "unhappy" with the Bitmain announcement. This leads us to a complicated chain of influence which I believe is as follows:
The exchanges ultimately decide the authoritative Siacoin blockchain
Nebulous tells the exchanges which software to run because they're the only dev team maintaining Sia software
The #contributors channel of the Sia Discord influences Nebulous' decision to softfork
I think it's basically taek42's call, but he's resistant to acting unilaterally and is looking for strong consensus among Sia contributors.
Could the fork give rise to a new coin?
Possibly. It requires a dev team willing to support the non-Nebulous fork and get the new coin listed on exchanges. slowtoaster has announced plans to fork Sia into a new coin that maintains compatibility with Antminer A3:
My fork is about implementing some different ideas in the codebase. The fact that Sia could migrate to Nick's codebase and thus rescue the current Obelisk situation and the fact that A3s could point at my fork and not be bricked would be opportune. ... There are currently two of us working on it. We have plans to hire a team and handle the exchange funding issues.
Note that forming a full-time dev team and getting listed on major exchanges is a substantial endeavor, requiring significant blockchain expertise and financial resources. I don't know slowtoaster's track record or if there even is a track record to know, so it's unclear to me how likely this new coin is.
Would a softfork break all non-Obelisk ASICs or just the Bitmain Antminer A3s?
The extra circuit on the SC1 was added to give the network the ability to block certain ASICs without being forced to block every ASIC.
Can these ASIC-breaking softforks occur regularly or is this a one-time event?
Unclear. If you have evidence that answers this question, please respond below.
If you have questions, add them below and I will try to answer them here or in a self-reply. Remember that we are discussing evidence-based facts not opinions, strategy, or morality. Thanks to muunshot for providing additional details!
2019 was known for the growing trend of stealth miners mining on the BTC and BCH network. On Dec. 30, data shows that 68% of the Bitcoin Cash network’s hashrate is being mined by mystery miners. The power-hungry Bitcoin debate is back on again after the release of the latest research conducted by economist Alex De Vries; the last of which stirred the crypto community into a frenzy in late 2017.One year on, the cryptocurrency ecosystem in all of its forms has developed a far thicker skin. Bitcoin Cash IFP Debate: ABC Kicks Off Fundraiser, 3 Mining Pools Signal BCHN Support During the first week of March, there were prominent discussions concerning the recently announced ... Trods den spændte blok-størrelse debat (skalering af Bitcoin), den Bitcoin prisen på en fantastisk stabilitet og vedvarende høj H BTC/EUR: Aktueller Bitcoin - Euro Kurs heute mit Chart, historischen Kursen und Nachrichten. Wechselkurs BTC in EUR.
Debate Bitcoin entre Ricardo Schweitzer e Fernando Ulrich ...