Looking for a Bitcoin alternative? Check out these three ...

Bitcoin donations to Voat, a Reddit alternative, 04/01/2015 - 07/03/2015 [OC]

Bitcoin donations to Voat, a Reddit alternative, 04/01/2015 - 07/03/2015 [OC] submitted by rapemyradish to dataisbeautiful [link] [comments]

When newcomers to Bitcoin begin to understand on-chain tx fees...

As I fully expect Bitcoin's popularity to rise in the near future, I've been interested in seeing reactions of newcomers to Bitcoin (BTC) when they first experience trying to use it as peer to peer e-cash , especially for small tx. There are probably many people who own Bitcoin today, and there will be many more within the next year, who were not around in 2015-2017 during the scaling debate, who will be quite surprised to find that sending a BTC tx on-chain usually costs several dollars per tx, and they might be shocked when the market rises further and those tx fees rise to new heights. BCH should be a welcome alternative to those wishing to use it as peer-to-peer e-cash and transact on-chain, especially for small amounts.
https://np.reddit.com/ExodusWallet/comments/jg7o1e/super_high_fee_when_sending_4_in_btc/
submitted by sph44 to btc [link] [comments]

Vox.com: "2015 will be a crucial test for the alternative payment network. If Bitcoin does as poorly in 2015 as it did in 2014, a lot more people could question whether the technology really has a bright future."

Vox.com: submitted by montseayo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: The End of Money as We Know It (2015) - Is Bitcoin an alternative to national currencies backed by debt?

Bitcoin: The End of Money as We Know It (2015) - Is Bitcoin an alternative to national currencies backed by debt? submitted by dakecan to Documentaries [link] [comments]

Russia to launch alternative to SWIFT bank transaction system in spring 2015 Why don't they just use Bitcoin?

Russia to launch alternative to SWIFT bank transaction system in spring 2015 Why don't they just use Bitcoin? submitted by daanbarnard to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How a $64M hack changed the fate of Ethereum, Bitcoin's closest competitor: Cryptocurrency alternative to bitcoin was co-founded by 19-year-old Canadian-Russian in 2015

How a $64M hack changed the fate of Ethereum, Bitcoin's closest competitor: Cryptocurrency alternative to bitcoin was co-founded by 19-year-old Canadian-Russian in 2015 submitted by BobsBurgers4Bitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

How a $64M hack changed the fate of Ethereum, Bitcoin's closest competitor: Cryptocurrency alternative to bitcoin was co-founded by 19-year-old Canadian-Russian in 2015

How a $64M hack changed the fate of Ethereum, Bitcoin's closest competitor: Cryptocurrency alternative to bitcoin was co-founded by 19-year-old Canadian-Russian in 2015 submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

(x-post /r/Dogecoin) Sobering BTC article - tl:dr; payment alternatives offer little advantage over existing methods. (But... but we offer speed, community and pineapples! ;_; ) ~ 2014 was a bad year for Bitcoin and 2015 is unlikely to be much better ~

(x-post /Dogecoin) Sobering BTC article - tl:dr; payment alternatives offer little advantage over existing methods. (But... but we offer speed, community and pineapples! ;_; ) ~ 2014 was a bad year for Bitcoin and 2015 is unlikely to be much better ~ submitted by bit_moon to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step | Jrme Legoupil | Jun 01 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) | Adam Back | Jun 30 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) | Adam Back | Jun 30 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112) | Btc Drak | Nov 24 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Alternative name for CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112) | Btc Drak | Nov 24 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

alternatives to the 20MB block limit, measure first! | Ron | May 25 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

alternatives to the 20MB block limit, measure first! | Ron | May 25 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function | Gavin Andresen | May 28 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step function | Gavin Andresen | May 28 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

QR code alternatives (was: Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias) | Mike Hearn | Jul 20 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

QR code alternatives (was: Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias) | Mike Hearn | Jul 20 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction | Adam Back | May 30 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

soft-fork block size increase (extension blocks) Re: Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction | Adam Back | May 30 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction | Raystonn . | May 28 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Proposed alternatives to the 20MB stepfunction | Raystonn . | May 28 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat? | Matt Smith | Jun 19 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Alternate HD path structure: BIP, blog, or wat? | Matt Smith | Jun 19 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4) | Adam Back | Feb 22 2015 /r/bitcoin_devlist

alternate proposal opt-in miner takes double-spend (Re: replace-by-fee v0.10.0rc4) | Adam Back | Feb 22 2015 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

d down, k up, everybody's a game theorist, titcoin, build wiki on Cardano, (e-)voting, competitive marketing analysis, Goguen product update, Alexa likes Charles, David hates all, Adam in and bros in arms with the scientific counterparts of the major cryptocurrency groups, the latest AMA for all!

Decreasing d parameter
Just signed the latest change management document, I was the last in the chain so I signed it today for changing the d parameter from 0.52 to 0.5. That means we are just about to cross the threshold here in a little bit for d to fall below 0.5 which means more than half of all the blocks will be made by the community and not the OBFT nodes. That's a major milestone and at this current rate of velocity it looks like d will decrement to zero around March so lots to do, lots to talk about. Product update, two days from now, we'll go ahead and talk about that but it crossed my desk today and I was really happy and excited about that and it seemed like yesterday that d was equal to one and people were complaining that we delayed it by an epoch and now we're almost at 50 percent. For those of you who want parameter-level changes, k-level changes, they are coming and there's an enormous internal conversation about it and we've written up a powerpoint presentation and a philosophy document about why things were designed the way that they're designed.
Increasing k parameter and upcoming security video and everybody's a game theorist
My chief scientist has put an enormous amount of time into this. Aggelos is very passionate about this particular topic and what I'm going to do is similar to the security video that I did where I did an hour and a half discussion about a best practice for security. I'm going to actually do a screencasted video where I talk about this philosophy document and I'm going to read the entire document with annotations with you guys and kind of talk through it. It might end up being quite a long video. It could be several hours long but I think it's really important to talk around the design philosophy of this. It's kind of funny, everybody, when they see a cryptographic paper or math paper, they tend to just say okay you guys figure that out. No one's an expert in cryptography or math and you don't really get strong opinions about it but game theory despite the fact that the topics as complex and in some cases more complex you tend to get a lot of opinions and everybody's a game theorist. So, there was enormous amount of thought that went into the design of the system, the parameters of system, everything from the reward functions to other things and it's very important that we explain that thought process in as detailed of a way as possible. At least the philosophy behind it then I feel that the community is in a really good position to start working on the change management. It is my position that I'd love to see k largely increased. I do think that the software needs some improvements to get there especially partial delegation delegation portfolios and some enhancements into the operation of staking especially.
E-voting
I'd love to see the existence of hybrid wallets where you have a cold part a hot part and we've had a lot of conversations about that and we will present some of the progress in that matter at the product updates. If not this October certainly in November. A lot of commercialization going along, a lot of things going on and flowing around and you know, commercial teams working hard. As I mentioned we have a lot of deals in the pipeline. The Wyoming event was half political, half sales. We were really looking into e-voting and we had very productive conversations along those lines. It is my goal that Cardano e-voting software is used in political primaries and my hope is for eventually to be used in municipal and state and eventually federal elections and then in national elections for countries like Ethiopia, Mongolia and other places. Now there is a long road, long, long road to get there and many little victories that have to begin but this event. Wyoming was kind of the opener into that conversation there were seven independent parties at the independent national convention and we had a chance to talk to the leadership of many of them. We will also engage in conversation with the libertarian party leadership as well and at the very least we could talk about e-voting and also blockchain-based voting for primaries that would be great start and we'll also look into the state of Wyoming for that as well. We'll you know, tell you guys about that in time. We've already gotten a lot of inquiries about e-voting software. We tend to get them along with the (Atala) Prism inquiries. It's actually quite easy to start conversations but there are a lot of security properties that are very important like end-to-end verifiability hybrid ballots where you have both a digital and a paper ballot delegation mechanics as well as privacy mechanics that are interesting on a case-by-case basis.
Goguen, voting, future fund3, competitive marketing analysis of Ouroboros vs. EOS, Tezos, Algorand, ETH2 and Polkadot, new creative director
We'll keep chipping away at that, a lot of Goguen stuff to talk about but I'm going to reserve all of that for two days from now for the product update. We're right in the middle, Goguen metadata was the very first part of it. We already have some commercialization platform as a result of metadata, more to come and then obviously lots of smart contract stuff to come. This update and the November update are going to be very Goguen focused and also a lot of alternatives as well. We're still on schedule for an HFC event in I think November or December. I can't remember but that's going to be carrying a lot of things related multisig token locking. There's some ledger rule changes so it has to be an HFC event and that opens up a lot of the windows for Goguen foundations as well as voting on chain so fund3 will benefit very heavily from that. We're right in the guts of Daedalus right now building the voting center, the identity center, QR-code work. All this stuff, it's a lot of stuff, you know, the cell phone app was released last week. Kind of an early beta, it'll go through a lot of rapid iterations every few weeks. We'll update it, google play is a great foundation to launch things on because it's so easy to push updates to people automatically so you can rapidly iterate and be very agile in that framework and you know we've already had 3500 people involved heavily in the innovation management platform ideascale and we've got numerous bids from everything. From John Buck and the sociocracy movement to others. A lot of people want to help us improve that and we're going to see steady and systematic growth there. We're still chipping away at product marketing. Liza (Horowitz) is doing a good job, meet with her two three-times a week and right now it's Ouroboros, Ouroboros, Ouroboros... We're doing competitive analysis of Ouroboros versus EOS, Tezos, Algorand, ETH2 and Polkadot. We think that's a good set. We think we have a really good way of explaining it. David (David Likes Crypto now at IOHK) has already made some great content. We're going to release that soon alongside some other content and we'll keep chipping away at that.
We also just hired a creative director for IO Global. His name's Adam, incredibly experienced creative director, he's worked for Mercedes-Benz and dozens of other companies. He does very good work and he's been doing this for well over 20 years and so the very first set of things he's going to do is work with commercial and marketing on product marketing. In addition to building great content where hope is make that content as pretty as possible and we have Rod heavily involved in that as well to talk about distribution channels and see if we can amplify the distribution message and really get a lot of stuff done. Last thing to mention, oh yeah, iOS for catalyst. We're working on that, we submitted it to the apple store, the iOS store, but it takes a little longer to get approval for that than it does with google play but that's been submitted and it's whenever apple approves it or not. Takes a little longer for cryptocurrency stuff.
Wiki shizzle and battle for crypto, make crypto articles on wiki great again, Alexa knows Charles, Everpedia meets Charles podcast, holy-grail land of Cardano, wiki on Cardano, titcoin
Wikipedia... kind of rattled the cage a little bit. Through an intermediary we got contact with Jimmy Wales. Larry Sanger, the other co-founder also reached out to me and the everpedia guys reached out to me. Here's where we stand, we have an article, it has solidified, it's currently labeled as unreliable and you should not believe the things that are said in it which is David Gerard's work if you look at the edits. We will work with the community and try to get that article to a fair and balanced representation of Cardano and especially after the product marketing comes through. We clearly explain the product I think the Cardano article can be massively strengthened. I've told Rod to work with some specialized people to try to get that done but we are going to work very hard at a systematic approval campaign for all of the scientific articles related to blockchain technology in the cryptocurrency space. They're just terrible, if you go to the proof of work article, the proof of stake or all these things, they're just terrible. They're not well written, they're out of date and they don't reflect an adequate sampling of the science. I did talk to my chief scientist Aggelos and what we're gonna do is reach out to the scientific counterparts that most of the major cryptocurrency groups that are doing research and see if they want to work with us at an industry-wide effort to systematically improve the scientific articles in our industry so that there are a fair and balanced representation of what the current state of the art are, the criticisms, the trade-offs as well as the reference space and of course obviously we'll do quite well in that respect because we've done the science. We're the inheritor of it but it's a shame because when people search proof of stake on google usually wikipedia results are highly biased. We care about wikipedia because google cares about wikipedia, amazon cares about wikipedia.
If you ask Alexa who is Charles Hoskinson, the reason why Alexa knows is because it's reading directly from the wikipedia page. If I didn't have a wikipedia page Alexa would know that so if somebody says Alexa what is Cardano it's going to read directly from the wikipedia page and you know and we can either just pretend that reality doesn't exist or we can accept it and we as a community working with partners in the broader cryptocurrency community can universally improve the quality of cryptocurrency pages. There's been a pattern of commercial censorship on wikipedia for cryptocurrencies in general since bitcoin itself. In fact I think the bitcoin article is actually taken down once back in, might have been, 2010 or 2009 but basically wikipedia has not been a friend of cryptocurrencies. That's why everpedia exists and actually their founders reached out to me and I talked to them over twitter through PMs and we agreed to actually do a podcast. I'm going to do a streamyard, stream with these guys and they'll come on talk all about everpedia and what they do and how they are and we'll kind of go through the challenges that they've encountered. How their platform works and so forth and obviously if they want to ever leave that terrible ecosystem EOS and come to the holy-grail land of Cardano we'd be there to help them out. At least they can tell the world how amazing their product is and also the challenges they're having to overcome. We've also been in great contact with Larry Sanger.
He's going to do an internal seminar at some point with with us and talk about some protocols he's been developing since he left wikipedia specifically to decentralize knowledge management and have a truly decentralized encyclopedia. I'm really looking forward to that and I hope that presentation gives us some inspiration as an ecosystem of things we can do. That's a great piece of infrastructure regardless and after we learn a lot more about it and we talk to a lot of people in ecosystem. If we can't get people to move on over, it would be really good to see through ideascale in the innovation management platform for people to utilize the dc fund to build their own variant of wikipedia on Cardano. In the coming months there will certainly be funding available. If you guys are so passionate about this particular problem that you want to go solve it then I'd be happy to play Elon Musk with the hyperloop and write a white paper on a protocol design and really give a good first start and then you guys can go and try to commercialize that technology as Cardano native assets and Plutus smart contracts in addition to other pieces of technology that have to be brought in to make it practical.
Right now we're just, let's talk to everybody phase, and we'll talk to the everpedia guys, we're going to talk to Larry and we're going to see whoever else is in this game and of course we have to accept the incumbency as it is. So, we're working with obviously the wikipedia side to improve the quality of not only our article but all of the articles and the scientific side of things so that there's a fair and accurate representation of information. One of the reasons why I'm so concerned about this is that I am very worried that Cardano projects will get commercially censored like we were commercially censored. So, yes we do have a page but it took five years to get there and we're a multi-billion dollar project with hundreds of thousands of people. If you guys are doing cutting-edge novel interesting stuff I don't want your experience to be the same as ours where you have to wait five years for your project to get a page even after government's adopted. That's absurd, no one should be censored ever. This is very well a fight for the entire ecosystem, the entire community, not just Cardano but all cryptocurrencies: bitcoin, ethereum and Cardano have all faced commercial censorship and article deletions during their tenure so I don't want you guys to go through that. I'm hoping we can prove that situation but you know you don't put all your eggs in one basket and frankly the time has come for wikipedia to be fully decentralized and liberated from a centralized organization and massively variable quality in the editor base. If legends of valor has a page but Cardano didn't have one until recently titcoin, a pornography coin from 2015, that's deprecated, no one uses it, has a page but Cardano couldn't get one there's something seriously wrong with the quality control mechanism and we need to improve that so it'll get done.
submitted by stake_pool to cardano [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Can Blockchain Gaming Drive Cryptocurrency Adoption?

Can Blockchain Gaming Drive Cryptocurrency Adoption?
The gaming industry, with its approximately 2.5 billion gamers worldwide, is a lucrative target and an immense field of application for blockchain itself, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that could no doubt give a mighty push toward taking and making the technology mainstream. Honestly, this is not quite a news as the efforts to establish cryptocurrencies in the entertainment sector have gone a long way, with varying degrees of success.
by StealthEX
What they were, how it fared, and where things are going now – these questions deserve their own inquiry. So let’s take a look at how gaming facilitates cryptocurrency adoption, in what ways, and whether exposing the blockchain tech to a user base of a third of the world’s population would help oil the wheels of this sportster in a major way and ultimately cause a tectonic shift in the gaming industry itself.

A Little Bit of History

As Bitcoin kicked off in late 2008, with its first transaction hitting, or effectively starting, the blockchain in early January of 2009, it had taken well over two years till the cryptocurrency got involved in online gambling. It was the now-defunct mobile poker platform, Switchpoker, a developer of an online poker room that started to accept Bitcoin as a deposit and payment option. You can still find a topic on Bitcointalk.org about this news dated back to November 23, 2011.
In April 2012, Erik Voorhees, an American entrepreneur and early Bitcoin adopter, founded Satoshi Dice, arguably the oldest online cryptocasino on the block, which is still pretty much alive today, although Voorhees sold it in a year. What makes it truly intriguing is the fact that during its early years the casino was generating half of all the transactions on the Bitcoin network. In short, online gambling was critically important in Bitcoin’s infancy years as it helped promote cryptocurrency awareness that led to future growth and expansion into other areas.
Some folks are certainly going to argue that gambling is not the same thing as gaming. The commonly accepted view is that gaming is based on skill while gambling on chance. We won’t debate over this point. However, as every poker player knows, the outcome of a poker game depends not only on luck, but also on skill and expertise. Put simply, there are large gray areas and overlaps. All things considered, our exposition would be missing a big chunk of significant history without giving due credit to gambling and how it helped Bitcoin adoption.
Now that online gambling is off our chest, we can safely turn to gaming as it is understood in the industry, and look at how it helped the blockchain space. One of the first uses of Bitcoin in a major game that we are aware of started in 2014 with the launch of BitQuest, a Minecraft server that used Bitcoin for in-game transactions. Within the gaming environment you could buy valuable in-game stuff from other users with the so-called bits, small fractions of a Bitcoin, and earn them by completing in-game tasks or challenges like killing local monsters.
BitQuest closed the server in summer of 2019, and its brand name now belongs to a different entity not involved with gaming, but it still produced an impact. In essence, this effort successfully demonstrated how a cryptocurrency, in this case Bitcoin, can be used in lieu of a native in-game currency that players can earn, buy and spend as well as withdraw. This has serious implications for two main reasons. First, Bitcoin, unlike any other purely in-game currency, has uses outside the game and its ecosystem, and, second, its supply cannot be manipulated by the game developers, which makes the game by far more fair and square.
Needless to say, the example that BitQuest had set encouraged other market participants to look into Bitcoin as an alternative option for in-game currencies. Another popular Minecraft server, PlayMC, also introduced Bitcoin into its world in 2015, but ceased the operation just two years later. There were a few other servers experimenting with altcoins, more specifically, Dogecoin, but most of them disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter, failing to attract enough die-hard Minecraft fans.

What Has Changed?

With the arrival of smart contract-enabled blockchains such as Ethereum, EOS and TRON, the phrase “blockchain gaming” has taken on a more literal meaning as these blockchains allow games to be designed and played entirely on-chain in much the same manner trades are made on a decentralized exchange. While TRON stands for “The Real-time Operating system Nucleus”, there is an obvious reference to a once popular arcade game based on a titular 1982 science fiction film that ultimately garnered a cult following.
CryptoKitties is likely the most popular game ever released in the Ethereum ecosystem and probably in the whole crypto space so far. Its test version was made available on October 19, 2017, and it was an instant success. By the end of 2017 over 200,000 people signed up for the game, spending over $20 million in Ether. We won’t delve into its “gameplay” as it is beyond the scope of this article, and most certainly you are well familiar with it anyway. But what we absolutely should write about is the effect it made and the repercussions it produced.
It could be said that CryptoKitties was to the Ethereum blockchain what Satoshi Dice had been to Bitcoin in the early days of crypto. At the peak of its popularity the game reportedly accounted for 20-25% of all Ethereum’s traffic that clogged the entire Ethereum network, with transaction fees skyrocketing. No wonder lots of people got pissed off with this turn of events. However, despite all the rage and fury, CryptoKitties amply demonstrated what a success means in the blockchain gaming field, how it looks and feels in practice.
It is hard to estimate how much CryptoKitties contributed to cryptocurrency adoption. But given that a few hundred thousand people got involved in this game alone and many more with dozens of blockchain games that it has spawned, like Etherbots, Gods Unchained, The Six Dragons, etc, this indisputable triumph surely counts as a massive contribution by any definition or metric. Moreover, it also revealed the weaknesses of the contemporary blockchain solutions and what exactly should be done to overcome them.
Evolution never goes linearly. In fact, it generally doesn’t go in curves, circles, or zig zags, either. It always moves along very diverse routes, directions and entire dimensions like plants and animals, viruses and bacteria, and, well, dinosaurs and mammals. The evolution of gaming in crypto space is no different. СryptoKitties and other games share essentially the same tech under the hood – building games on some advanced general-purpose blockchain such as Ethereum. But it is not the only front that crypto gaming has been advancing on, nor is it the only way to introduce gaming to cryptocurrencies, and vice versa.
A more recent approach is based on designing either a standalone cryptocurrency or a token on a smart contract-enabled blockchain to be used across many games that support it as an in-game currency. As a result, gamers can enjoy true ownership of their in-game assets (the so-called non-fungible tokens, or NFTs), safe item trading outside the game, and cross-game compatibility. This path has been taken by such projects as Enjin (ENJ), GAME Credits (GAME), Decentraland (MANA), WAX (WAXP) and others, with their respective cryptocurrencies fueling a range of games.
A somewhat different avenue is taken by Funfair (FUN), Chromia (CHR) and Lucid Sight, which are offering platforms that blockchain games can be built on. Thus, Lucid Sight’s Scarcity Engine is focused more on game creators than end users, that is to say, gamers, allowing developers to integrate blockchain into their games. It aims to obliterate the difference between blockchain-based games and traditional gaming platforms. Funfair, on the other hand, leans more toward creating custom-built blockchain casinos, with its FUN token as a casino “chip”. So much for no more gambling, huh.
Our account of events would be incomplete if we didn’t mention yet another attempt to make use of Minecraft for the purpose of introducing cryptocurrencies to the gaming public. This time, a new Minecraft mod called SatoshiQuest has emerged. To participate in it, the gamers pay $1 in Bitcoin and get one in-game life. The pooled coins make up the loot, and the challenge is to find a minimum of 400 key fragments into which the keys to the Bitcoin wallet containing the prize are divided. And who said that evolution doesn’t loop?

Challenges and Future Prospects

The knockout popularity of СryptoKitties has clearly shown the scale of cryptocurrency mass adoption that blockchain gaming can trigger. As the game developers themselves put it, their “goal is to drive mainstream adoption of blockchain technology”. They believe that “the technology has immense benefits for consumers, but for those benefits to be realized, it needs to be experienced to be understood”. Speaking more broadly, as more people start using cryptocurrencies for gaming, they may eventually become interested in using their coins for purposes other than playing one game or another.
With that said, it is now as clear that there are two main barriers on the way there. The first is the limitations of the blockchain tech itself that essentially limits blockchain gaming to NFTs, in-game currencies, streamlined payments, and similar stuff. This is mostly a technical challenge anyway, and we could realistically expect it to be solved sooner or later. The other issue is applicable to the gaming industry as a whole. People en masse would only play games that are truly engaging and immersive, technical issues aside.
So the bottom line is that we need the convergence of these two vectors to make blockchain a dominating force in the gaming industry. First, the blockchain tech should have the capacity for running multiplayer games that major video game developers like Blizzard, Valve and Ubisoft produce, no trade-offs here. Then, we actually need the games like Warcraft, Counter-Strike or Far Cry that can be played on blockchain, to make it matter. Only after we get there, the gaming industry will likely become a primary driver behind cryptocurrency adoption.
What are your thoughts on how gaming facilitates cryptocurrency adoption? 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]](mailto:[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/2020/09/22/can-blockchain-gaming-drive-cryptocurrency-adoption/
submitted by Stealthex_io to StealthEX [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]

The Bitcoin Trader wie funktioniert Bitcoin kurzfassung 4 Min Bitcoin Q&A: A voluntary alternative to mandatory currencies Bitcoin - Dokus & Animations - YouTube What is Bitcoin? How to buy Bitcoin? Is it legal? Is this alternative of money in future?

An in-depth look into 10 bitcoin alternatives 1. Litecoin (LTC) Created as “the silver to bitcoin’s gold” by Google programmer Charlie Lee, Litecoin was launched in October 2011. Though also a peer-to-peer payment currency, Litecoin was designed to offer a few key benefits over bitcoin including reduced transaction fees and faster payment processing. Ether, launched in 2015, is currently the second-largest digital currency by market cap after bitcoin, although it lags behind the dominant cryptocurrency by a significant margin. As of January ... Ethereum ist nach Marktkapitalisierung (aktuell 38,78 Mrd. Euro. Quelle: coinmarketcap.com) die größte Kryptowährung neben Bitcoin, die derzeit am Markt existiert.Ethereum wurde 2015 entwickelt und ist eine Blockchainplattform, auf der Smart Contracts ausgeführt werden können (Transaktionen, die an Bedingungen geknüpft sind). Alternatives to Bitcoin. All of them share Bitcoin’s fundamental strengths, however - minimal or zero transfer fees, and freedom from traditional banking restrictions. Bitcoin is definitely the most well-known cryptocurrency. It represents the first application of blockchain technology and has been increasingly prevalent in the news over the past few years. But cryptocurrencies don’t just end at bitcoin. Soon after it was introduced, other coins followed, including litecoin, namecoin, and swiftcoin.

[index] [46206] [40618] [51080] [12834] [42848] [4420] [2327] [18927] [9329] [11863]

The Bitcoin Trader

The Mises Theory of Money, Bitcoin, and Saving the Economy Explained in 10 Minutes - Duration: 29:32. Texas Bitcoin Conference Recommended for you Bitheat's building a home miner to heat your water. Momentum for alternatives to Bitcoin Core growing. Mycelium Gear for WordPress woes. Crypto Threads now taking on new communities. Check out our ... Whatever Bitcoin may be; most people do not yet understand what this controversial and influential innovation is about and how it works. This documentary answers these questions. Bitcoin: The End ... Bitcoin is a global currency, it is the de facto currency of the internet, but it doesn't represent a zero-sum game; it's a choice you have in addition to all the other alternatives that may be ... 23.4.2015 Bitcoin für intelligente Laien erklärt (englisch) 3:24. Bitcoin – explained in 3 minutes! by simpleshow foundation. 14.4.2015 - Smarte 3 Minuten Bitcoin-Erklärung, die so auch auf ...

#