No, Bitcoin Is Not a Ponzi Scheme - Alternative Investing ...

Courthouse News Service - Defense of "Bitcoin is not money" fails in ponzi scheme case

Courthouse News Service - Defense of submitted by fctc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

PRICE, FUD and Future

Hi Everybody!
I wanted to make another post because the amount of fear mongering is significant. Please ignore grammar. I wrote this in about 10 minutes and didn’t check it.
Firstly, the price drop has been disappointing. It doesn’t matter the quantum of loss, $1000 or $100k can feel equally bad depending your position in life. Losing 35% of value in 1 week is significant. What this tells me is that the real float of CRO is extremely low. There were likely some early adopters (i.e. Whales) that had been enjoying price appreciation and 18% and they bailed at the news. In any case, we don’t know how “real” the price of CRO ever was. This is true with Bitcoin as well, but the float is liquid enough where it takes a massive groundswell to truly move the price whereas CRO can move with only a few sellers. I don’t have any great insight, unfortunately.
In terms of CDC being a scazm (remove the z), this feels like total fear mongering from my vantage point. If CDC was a ponzi scheme, why would they lower the interest rate of CRO? There is absolutely no incentive if this was always a big Ponzi scheme. This is the exact kind of change that takes down scams. They can literally give CRO away at no cost to themselves. If this was a scazm, the logical decision would have been to lower every other interest rate while keep CRO unnaturally high to keep to pumping, so they could slowly sell into it. Anyways, this feels like a real business decision that was for profits while at the same time annoying customers.
Where I am disappointed is communication. CDC has been weak here for a long time and they need to get better. Kris’ unusual comment around staking amounts is another sign bad potential communication. They need to be more deliberate in these decisions. A 1 week price change should not force them to make a decision like this. I could understand a 3 to 6 month depressed price or conversely if it pumped. I would like to see them provide real guidance on how they plan to approach staking amounts so users can feel more confident in the product. For instance, be clear that current stakes would or would not get impacted by adjustments, etc.
In terms of the future, from my vantage point, CDC is one of the few crypto companies actually creating a compelling product. They have some issues, but at least there is a fundamental business behind it. The world needs crypto on ramps that are easy to use and CDC is building it. That said, they are at an important point of their life cycle and need to grow-up. If they want to become a big business, they need to start acting like one. Snap decisions are not “ok”. If they continue this path of changing massive items overnight, they will never break out as a go to company. This is what I will be watching going forward. I want the core of CDC to become boring for the most part while offering new products that may or may not work as they build out a platform.
submitted by LivingFlow to Crypto_com [link] [comments]

Lition - $8 Million Dollar Market Cap With Real Use Right Now and a New Product They Are Developing Which Has Huge Potential.

Preface

I’m not usually one to shill my own coins but I’ve stolen a few good picks from this sub so I thought I’d share a new one I recently stumbled upon. Before I go into more details, I’d like to preface this by saying that I never invest in anything which I don’t think has the fundamentals to last at least 5-10 years and I don’t think this is a project which you will see a few hundred percent gains in a month or two. The hype isn’t there with this project and it’s more of a mid-long term play. If you want overnight gains, gamble on some of the smaller caps posted in this sub which are more like ponzi schemes riding on DeFi hype which you sell to a greater fool.

Introduction

Lition is a layer 2 blockchain infrastructure on top of Ethereum that enables commercial usage of dApps. The Lition protocol complements the Ethereum mainchain by adding features such as privacy, scalability and deletability for GDPR compliance. Everybody can choose to build on Lition without the need for permission.
In addition to the above, they also have a P2P energy trading platform currently operating and is supplying green power to customers in over 1000 towns and cities across Germany. Through their power platform, Lition customers are able to save about 20% on their monthly energy bill, while producers generate up to 30% higher profits since they are cutting out the middle men.
However, the real moonshot here is not their already successful smart energy platform (which utilises the same token) it is the enterprise layer 2 solution described in the quote above.
Their layer 2 enterprise infrastructure which is still in development will offer infinite scalability through sidechains and nodes staking LIT tokens on these sidechains. Block times will be fast at around 3 seconds and fees will be tiny fractions of a cent. However, the real selling point for enterprises will be that the data on these sidechains can be deleted and can be public or private, with private chains being validated via Zero-Knowledge proofs to verify that the private data is correct. This is huge and makes Lition a solution for a wide range of enterprise use cases due to these optional features. But it doesn’t stop there. Lition is also GDPR compliant - a big deal for Europe based enterprises and for the record, very very few blockchain solutions are GDPR compliant (I believe VeChain is one of the few other projects which are).

Important Bullet Points

Tokenomics

Their token has two primary uses. First, it is a utility token and they plan on making the LIT token the preferred payment method for all of the services on the Lition protocol. Secondly, it is used as collateral for staking which I can see locking up a large proportion of the supply in the future.
Unfortunately the circulating supply is currently 50% of the max supply but that said, coins like LINK have just 35% of the total tokens currently circulating, so relative to other projects, this isn’t too bad and many of the tokens are still to be earned by staking.

Conclusion

With their existing energy platform seeing real adoption and steady growth in Germany, in my opinion, this alone would be enough to justify their current market cap. However, I can see their second layer solution for enterprise being a really big deal in the future as protocol coins tend to accrue more value than utility tokens. As a versatile L2 solution for Ethereum, LIT gets the best of both worlds - adoption and network effects from Ethereum by helping it to scale as well as accruing value from the wide range of enterprise use cases which can be built on top of Lition. At just $8 million dollars in market cap, it seems to me that their work-in-progress L2 enterprise solution has not been priced in. However, due to a lack of hype and marketing right now, I don’t see LIT exploding in the short term. Rather, I can see it slowly outperforming ETH and climbing up the CMC rankings throughout this bullrun, much like Chainlink did in the bear market. Their building and partnerships over marketing strategy also reminds me when I held Chainlink back in 2018 when Sergey was busy building out the project rather than blowing their ICO money on marketing a bunch of vaporware like so many other projects.
Personally, I can see LIT becoming a top 100 project (not top 10) as it isn’t the first of an important new type of project like Chainlink was/is but it is an L2 protocol with unique advantages and selling points over other existing L2 projects which scatter the top 20-200 range. This would put the market cap at just under $120 million dollars which is a 15x from here. This is of course a valuation which assumes that the total crypto market cap remains where it is right now at just under $400 billion dollars. However, if BTC makes it to 100K and Ethereum gets to $5K then that is another 10x from here which compounds on any LIT/BTC or LIT/ETH ratio gains. In this scenario, a top 100 project would be worth around $1 BILLION DOLLARS by market cap which is over 100x from here and probably even more if ETH hits 10K and Bitcoin dominance falls back down to the 30% range or below towards the end of the bullrun. Disclaimer, the above figures are a theoretical best case scenario and are far from financial advice. They are my moonshot estimates which assumes all goes well for the project and the wider crypto space.
Website: https://www.lition.io/
CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/lition
Medium: https://medium.com/lition-blog

TL;DR

TL;DR: LIT has current real world use which is consistently growing with their P2P energy trading platform and has huge potential with their new L2 protocol for enterprise due to its unique features. They have a close partnership with SAP and are also partnered with Microsoft. Currently around #400 on CMC, my target is for LIT to be top 100 by the end of the bullrun.
Edit: Sorry 4chan, I didn't mean to shill one of your FUDed coins. Lit is a shitcoin scam, ignore this post.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

BTC Global – A Huge Ponzi Scheme

Oh No! Another Cryptocurrency Scam

Since Bitcoin was created back in 2008, there have been numerous shady individuals and companies for that matter that have used the hype to their advantage to facilitate cryptocurrency scams. These shrewd schemes conned thousands upon thousands of people who knew virtually nothing about cryptocurrency but wanted to invest in this alluring venture. 2018 is underway but here is this year’s top cryptocurrency scam thus far:

BTC Global

Just a little over two weeks ago BTC Global collapsed and Broker Complaint Registry has received numerous complaints pertaining to this fraudulent broker. The company claimed to be an exclusive platform providing unparalleled earnings through valid binary trading services, but that was unfortunately not the case. Here are excerpts from there website:
“We are backed by our founding trader at Steven Twain.”
This “Steven Twain” character is not a real individual.
“Steven has 6 years of experience trading binary options with consistent success, over the last 3 years he has started providing trading services for other large account holders ($10,000+ only).”
I have not come across any trading history pertaining to Steven Twain.
“Through our partnership with Steven, BTC Global have secured access to guaranteed 14% WEEKLY returns from as little as $1,000 in your account. We have also secured extra returns to pay out as referral commissions should you decide to share this opportunity with others! There are very few legitimate opportunities to get the kind of returns on investment BTC Global is offering so we encourage you to get involved as soon as possible to avoid disappointment.”
How can a legitimate company guarantee any sort of returns?
In BTC Global there were two ways one could earn:

  1. Return on investment, which was 14% of the dollar amount that was invested, paid weekly in BTC.
  2. Team shares or commissions on the people that the investor recruited or referred (think of a pyramid scheme).

BTC Global – a textbook Ponzi scheme.

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is as follows:
A deceitful investing scam guaranteeing high rates of return with little to no risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme produces returns for earlier investors by procuring new investors. BTC Global certainly fits the bill
Investment values generally go up and down over a duration of time, especially the ones that offer potentially high yields. If an investment consistently generates the same returns despite the market conditions or guarantees these high returns that is cause for pause.
Additionally, Ponzi schemes usually involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC, FSB or any other regulatory agency. Obviously, registration is pivotal as enables investors to access pivotal information pertaining to the firm’s management, services, products and most importantly finances.
Lastly and most importantly if you do not receive a “scheduled” payment or incur difficulty when trying to cash out your investment that is the biggest red flag. Those who promote Ponzi schemes regularly ask investors to “roll over” investments and often promise returns in excess of the amount that was rolled over.

How to protect yourself from a cryptocurrency scam

Although we have just talked about the BTC Global scam, this is not the only one. The very best way to ensure your funds are safe is to know how to identify and avoid ponzi schemes like BTC Global.
Stay far away from ICOs, unidentified companies and companies that do not provide suitable information. Be sure that creator’s names and all team members are publicly listed and verified and, if reviews give consistent negative feedback it best to avoid that cryptocurrency broker.
If you have fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam, send a complaint to at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), and we will do our very best to get into contact with you as soon as we can to initiate your funds recovery process. Visit www.fundsrecovery247.com for more information or Contact - [email protected] com.
submitted by dskhan34 to u/dskhan34 [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

A Real Crypto Hedge Fund With a DeFi Token

A Real Crypto Hedge Fund With a DeFi Token
Hello Redditors,
my name is Alex Gutmann, I am the CEO of Bitrockxa Capital and today I present you my DeFi Token Rockxa.finance. The Bitrockxa Capital Lending Fund is a modern, highly automated and profitable crypto hedge fund and the first Bitcoin lending fund of its kind. 20 years of market experience paired with the most modern trading and lending engines generate an average return of over 14% per year.
After joining the crypto universe six years ago and hearing many unfortunate stories from people who lost everything to make up for their losses by trading alts while all they had to do was hold bitcoin, I came across one solution. An interest based crypto fund.
I want to expand my company further by creating the DeFi Token Rockxa.Finance. DeFi is a very interesting concept and it certainly has enormous potential for the future. So far it seems to me that it is definitely a zero-sum game at the moment. The high returns are only bearable as long as other people fill the "Ponzi" scheme. This is usually always the case with new emerging markets. Therefore, I designed the Rockxa Finance Token so that it is fully update capable in order to update future developments that will offer the best possible return and / or function. I don't want to set up a pump and dump scheme, but rather offer an opportunity to participate in the new DeFi market at an early stage. The income from the presale will be used to expand rockxa finance and Bitrockxa Capital. 25% of the income will be invested in the lendings funds at Bitrockxa capital, and the income is used to support the Rockxa Finance network. 25% go back to DeFi pools as liquidity and the remaining 50% will be used for the further development of Bitrockxa and Rockxa. The aim is to get a hedge fund with a license on the US stock exchange.
The main goal behind Bitrockxa and Rockxa Finance is to give the rest of the world access to attractive returns and investment opportunities. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a country that allows free access to the financial markets.
Now a few facts about Rockxa.Finance
total supply 4,200,000 tokens presale: 1,300,000 tokens website and presale: rockxa.finance price $ 1.50 per Rockxa / 210 Rockxa per ETH Presale is open!
Coming updates: staking, farming, lending, burning
Also AMA
Regards Alex Gutmann CEO Bitrockxa Capital
submitted by RockxaFinance to defi [link] [comments]

DeFi: Finance, but not always Decentralised?

As a recent blog post explored, DeFi – decentralised finance – can and will be used in whatever ways developers and the market see fit. This is the nature of open, decentralised systems. You can’t stop it, and there’s a very strong argument for saying we shouldn’t try. To restrict any element of DeFi, at least at the protocol level, is to introduce centralisation and single points of failure, thereby killing the core innovation by misguidedly trying to protect it.
But “decentralisation” is widely misunderstood. It is, first of all, not a binary matter: a project is not either “decentralised” or “centralised”. Decentralisation lies on a spectrum. One node in a blockchain “network” is centralised; Bitcoin, with many thousands of nodes in its network, is typically considered decentralised. At what point does the threshold between centralised and decentralised lie? 10, 100, 1,000 nodes?
Secondly, there are different types of decentralisation. A blockchain network might be decentralised, but its mining infrastructure may not be, especially if a few pools comprise 51% of hashrate. If there are very few exchanges, or active developers, these are also forms of centralisation and points of potential vulnerability.
DeFi’s recent failings of decentralisation
We have seen other forms of centralisation and failure in the DeFi space in recent weeks, suggesting that a significant proportion of DeFi cannot truly be considered Decentralised at all.
At least two recent DeFi projects (one a fork of the other, and clearly designed to appeal to yield farmers, with improbable gains promised), include an “infinite mint” function that poise the devs to carry out an exit scam, pulling the rug from under holders when it is most lucrative (if not timelocked). SushiSwap, a now-notorious clone of UniSwap, apparently suffered a similar exit scam when its founder Chef Nomi took $14 million from the dev fund – only to return it in what may have been genuine remorse, or possibly an act of theatre.
Many of the ‘new’ DeFi protocols are simply clones of existing dApps, making them akin to a Ponzi or HYIP scheme. It’s worse when the users, who pour millions of dollars into these smart contracts, don’t wait for an audit – as was the case with Yam Finance, which led to a bug that caused its token price to crash to zero.
The ruthless elimination of centralisation
DeFi is not DeFi when it contains any of the above single points of failure. “Decentralisation” is about far more than the blockchain. Using a blockchain and smart contracts is an entry-level requirement for DeFi: necessary but not sufficient.
No protocol can be considered decentralised if it includes back doors, whether built in deliberately like the “infinite mint” function (Yuno), or that exist inadvertently, like the rebase bug in Yam Finance. They’re not decentralised if individual developers or small groups control large amounts of funds, the theft of which will destroy the project.
Adequate decentralisation from the outset may be impossible, but what matters is that unnecessary centralisation – in all its forms – is eliminated as soon as possible.
This is what Ergo is seeking to do: Building decentralised applications on decentralised blockchain infrastructure, with a strong and independent community of developers, smart contracts that are safe to run and easy to audit, and using custom joint signatures to protect community-owned funds.
submitted by eleanorcwhite to cardano [link] [comments]

Passive investing strategy

I have been holding crypto and following the ecosystem for a long time, and I believe crypto will revolutionise the financial system and still has much potential to increase in value.
However until now my holdings have been mostly handpicked. In traditional investments I am a subscriber to passive investing and usually invest in broad index funds, and I want to apply that investment philosophy to my crypto holdings.
With this in mind I looked at some available crypto indices and none of them seemed to fill my needs, but looking at them helped me define some of the criteria for my own index:
I will be reproducing the index manually, so having too many assets will make the extra hassle of trading and storing the small-weighted assets not worth it.
I don't see the point of including stablecoins in a cryptoasset index. If I wanted to invest in the asset the stablecoin tracks I'd be better off holding the followed asset itself.
All indices I found included assets such as Binance Coin and OKB. I see investing in such assets as investing in the managing entity and not in the crypto ecosystem itself, as those tokens will be much more correlated with the business success of the entity than with the success of the ecosystem.
The asset must be available for trading in a reasonable number of exchanges.
Free-float market cap weighting is the standard method of weighting whole-market indices. I have seen some indices that use square root of market cap weighting in order to not be so Bitcoin-heavy, but I am not convinced that that is a better representation of the market or that it would lead to better returns.
With these criteria in mind I evaluated the top coins by market capitalization. I decided to use CoinGecko as my main source, but I do cross check the values with CoinMarketCap and CoinCap.io to avoid some big flaw in CoinGecko's methodology.
Obviously the big guy is in.
I also have no issues with Ethereum.
Ripple is a bit too centrally-controlled for my taste and there's also the worry that the value of the XRP token itself may not be too correlated with the network's success, but I still consider it to be worthy for inclusion.
Tether is excluded due to being a stable coin and being centrally-controlled.
The only thing that worries me about Bitcoin Cash is that the community seems to be too worried about insisting that it is the true Bitcoin instead of developed, but I don't see any reason to exclude it given my criteria.
This is the first asset with which I don't have too much experience. Their website is a bit too heavy on buzzwords, but my research seems to show that it is a real network, there's no big problems with their whitepaper.
I personally have no idea how Bitcoin SV is so high in market capitalization, as I see it as just Craig Steven Wright's tool to strengthen his Satoshi claim, but the point of the index and the criteria is to remove my personal feelings from the decision, so it stays in.
Litecoin is one of the oldest assets around and I have no objection for it.
This is the first one where I am having a hard time deciding if it stays in or not. Its website is full of buzzwords. They have a whitepaper explaining how the network works, but I can't see it as much more than a centrally-managed token with a bunch of apps around it and no real value proposition. The company itself seems shady, having been through a name change, as it was previously called Monaco, the way their cards work smells heavily like a Ponzi scheme, they promise huge interest rates for staking random coins with them and the amount of people that show up speaking well of it in any post about it reeks of paid shills.
For some reason it is also not listed on CoinCap.io, although it is listed on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap. It is also listed on fewer exchanges than other coins we've seen so far.
I couldn't find any concrete evidence of it being a scam, but I am excluding it for being a centrally-controlled token.
This is a Binance-controlled token, so it is out.
I also didn't know much about this coin, but my research didn't raise any red flags about it, so it's in.
This one is an ERC20 token, but it is managed by a smart contract and although it seems to be somewhat centrally-controlled by now it does have a governance model to make this control be diluted over time. It is also trying to solve a real problem, so it is in.
I was not too familiar with it, but after researching about it I really like the idea. I see no problem in including it.
Stellar feels to me a bit too much like Ripple 2.0, but I don't have any concrete problems with it.
This is an OKEX-controlled token, so it is out.
Another one of the old kids in town, I have no problems with it.
I have a "too buzzwordy" feeling about TRON, and I feel it is a bit too much connected to its founder, but no concrete problems as well.
This is a bitfinex-controlled token, so it is out.
USD Coin is excluded due to being a stable coin and being centrally-controlled.
This is an asset that I am not too sure I understand completely, and it is not listed from CoinCap.io and its market cap is not computed on CoinMarketCap.
From what I can gather a cToken is meant to be a token that identifies that you have deposited in Compound's loan market. The only place where it is really traded is in the Compound exchange itself, and it's value is tied to the interest accrued from the loans in the platform and to the underlying asset, which in this case is DAI, a stablecoin.
I find Compound Finance interesting and intend to read more about it, but I don't think cDAI is fit for my index, as it is not freely tradeable and tied to a stablecoin.
This is a Huobi-controlled token, so it is out.
This is one more buzzwordy smart contract platform with no concrete red flags to it.
A fork from the main Ethereum chain that rejects the rescue of stolen funds from a buggy smart contract. I am sympathetic to the idea of rejecting a centrally-proposed hardfork, and I see no red flags with this coin.
And with this we are up to my intended 15 assets. This is the composition of the index with current market capitalizations:
Asset Weight
bitcoin 72,29%
ethereum 12,71%
ripple 3,80%
bitcoin-cash 1,89%
cardano 1,56%
bitcoin-cash-sv 1,42%
litecoin 1,28%
eos 1,03%
chainlink 0,96%
tezos 0,73%
stellar 0,71%
monero 0,51%
tron 0,46%
vechain 0,36%
ethereum-classic 0,30%
This is the portfolio I intend to target from now on, with occasional rebalances of course. I would like to hear what you think about my criteria and my application of them, and where I could improve it.
submitted by Miserable_Profile151 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

DeFi: Finance, but not always Decentralised?

As a recent blog post explored, DeFi – decentralised finance – can and will be used in whatever ways developers and the market see fit. This is the nature of open, decentralised systems. You can’t stop it, and there’s a very strong argument for saying we shouldn’t try. To restrict any element of DeFi, at least at the protocol level, is to introduce centralisation and single points of failure, thereby killing the core innovation by misguidedly trying to protect it.
But “decentralisation” is widely misunderstood. It is, first of all, not a binary matter: a project is not either “decentralised” or “centralised”. Decentralisation lies on a spectrum. One node in a blockchain “network” is centralised; Bitcoin, with many thousands of nodes in its network, is typically considered decentralised. At what point does the threshold between centralised and decentralised lie? 10, 100, 1,000 nodes?
Secondly, there are different types of decentralisation. A blockchain network might be decentralised, but its mining infrastructure may not be, especially if a few pools comprise 51% of hashrate. If there are very few exchanges, or active developers, these are also forms of centralisation and points of potential vulnerability.
DeFi’s recent failings of decentralisation
We have seen other forms of centralisation and failure in the DeFi space in recent weeks, suggesting that a significant proportion of DeFi cannot truly be considered Decentralised at all.
At least two recent DeFi projects (one a fork of the other, and clearly designed to appeal to yield farmers, with improbable gains promised), include an “infinite mint” function that poise the devs to carry out an exit scam, pulling the rug from under holders when it is most lucrative (if not timelocked). SushiSwap, a now-notorious clone of UniSwap, apparently suffered a similar exit scam when its founder Chef Nomi took $14 million from the dev fund – only to return it in what may have been genuine remorse, or possibly an act of theatre.
Many of the ‘new’ DeFi protocols are simply clones of existing dApps, making them akin to a Ponzi or HYIP scheme. It’s worse when the users, who pour millions of dollars into these smart contracts, don’t wait for an audit – as was the case with Yam Finance, which led to a bug that caused its token price to crash to zero.
The ruthless elimination of centralisation
DeFi is not DeFi when it contains any of the above single points of failure. “Decentralisation” is about far more than the blockchain. Using a blockchain and smart contracts is an entry-level requirement for DeFi: necessary but not sufficient.
No protocol can be considered decentralised if it includes back doors, whether built in deliberately like the “infinite mint” function (Yuno), or that exist inadvertently, like the rebase bug in Yam Finance. They’re not decentralised if individual developers or small groups control large amounts of funds, the theft of which will destroy the project.
Adequate decentralisation from the outset may be impossible, but what matters is that unnecessary centralisation – in all its forms – is eliminated as soon as possible.
This is what Ergo is seeking to do: Building decentralised applications on decentralised blockchain infrastructure, with a strong and independent community of developers, smart contracts that are safe to run and easy to audit, and using custom joint signatures to protect community-owned funds.
submitted by eleanorcwhite to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment

Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment
Being created on the basis of blockchain, stablecoins were considered to be a safe haven for investors… until recently. Why is their immunity elusive and how does the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plan to control them?
Established in 1989 by the G7, the FATF inter-governmental organization develops policies to resist money laundering and financing of terrorism. It sets standards and implements legal and regulatory measures to combat illegal financial transactions.
They developed recommendations for the monitoring of money laundering and keep revising them regularly. In case of non-compliance, law enforcement is executed via regional financial organizations. As of 2019, there are 39 full members of FATF, including the USA, UK, Australia, most EU countries, Singapore, India and the Russian Federation.
Since 1st July, the FATF organization has been headed by Marcus Pleyer. During the last FATF meeting, the new president expressed his concerns about global stablecoins and organizations that issue them. Although the organization had already dealt with these cryptocurrencies, it highlighted that, “it is essential to continue closely monitoring the ML/TF risks of so-called stablecoins, including anonymous peer-to-peer transactions via unhosted wallets”.
Is it ever possible to control crypto wallets that are not hosted on online exchanges? – you’d ask. We’re used to the fact that cryptocurrencies are outside the reach of banks and governments. However, when it comes to stablecoins, things are different.

It’s in the code

What makes stablecoins special is that they are pegging to fiat currency, for example, 1 TUSD = $1 USD. This means that such assets should be backed up by real money stored in the bank accounts of the issuing organization. Consequently, stablecoin creators need to comply with the requirements of the SEC, FATF and other controlling agencies, if they are to operate in the cryptocurrency sphere and be authorised to sell stablecoins. Transparent reports are not the only requirement, stablecoins must also provide the possibility of account blocking.
Surprisingly, this feature is implemented in each stablecoin. The experts from QDAO DeFi are covering several stablecoin protocols that enable this function.

OMNI-based USDT

Issued by Tether Limited, USDT is a stablecoin that was originally created to be worth $1 with each token backed by a $1 real fiat reserve. The currency was successfully promoted and added to major cryptocurrency exchanges but stayed a controversial asset. Despite the claims of Tether Limited, they failed to provide any contractual right or other legal claims to guarantee that USDT can be swapped for dollars or be redeemed.
In April 2019, Tether’s lawyers explained that each USDT was backed by only $0.74 in cash or equivalent assets. No audit of dollar collateral was done. A month before that, it changed the backing to include loans to affiliate companies. The scandal also involved the Bitfinex exchange that was accused of using USDT funds to cover $850 million in funds lost since 2018. They were also accused of manipulating USDT to push the BTC price.
Tether is available on five blockchains: Omni, Ehereum, EOS, Tron and Liquid. Only the latter does not have a freezing feature. Omni was the first protocol for USDT. Blocking of users’ accounts is possible, thanks to the following piece of code:

https://preview.redd.it/uqho45l33om51.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0feebdae086b0deeccde05278eaf3cc760f9e2b
Apparently, it’s used to blacklist addresses and contracts.

PAX

The concerns about PAX were centered around the notorious MMM BSC Ponzi scheme. Before the widespread adoption of DeFi services, it was the second-largest gas consumer after Ethereum. Out of 25,000 daily transactions, 5,000 were performed by MMM BSC. It was reported to be a scam but none of the accounts were frozen. Does it mean PAX lacked the resources to regulate illicit activities?
Evidently, not. The protocol code has a LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONALITY function that allows for the freezing/unfreezing of contracts or burning assets on blacklisted accounts. It turns out, anyone risks having their PAX coins destroyed during an investigation process while their accounts stay blocked.

History of frozen accounts

In 2019, the ZCash Foundation and Eric Wall conducted research on the privacy of stablecoins and revealed several frozen addresses. It’s not clear why exactly they were blocked. Most probably, it happened shortly after the exchange withdrawal – users took this action after witnessing platforms being hacked.

https://preview.redd.it/pkbruqm83om51.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=b068c5b8c5e5439892eaf5feefa3fbc93c694c8c
USDT was implicated at least twice in scandals to do with freezing. In April 2019, about $850 million in Tether dollars sent by Crypto Capital Corp. were frozen by a New York court. Tether and Btfinex were accused of participating in a cover-up to hide about $850 million worth in clients’ funds. By July 2020, Tether had frozen 40 Ethereum addresses with millions of USDT (some of them are shown in the screenshot above).
The Centre Consortium was the next to follow their lead; about a month ago, it blacklisted an address with USDC worth $100,000. That was done in response to law enforcement.
Yet, it’s not only Europe and the USA imposing control over cryptocurrencies. Since June 2020, the Chinese government managed to block several thousands of users’ bank accounts. It was done to resist illicit activities, especially money laundering. On some of those accounts, no activity had been detected for several months. Meanwhile, prior to April 2020, Chinese residents moved over $50 billion worth of crypto outside the country borders – more than is officially allowed (a maximum of $50,000 per person).
The authorities claim that USDT and other stablecoins are often used in illegal activities. Together with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), they are developing new ways of investigating digital crimes and money laundering operations involving exchanges and crypto wallets. Local financial bureaus and police are working tight-lipped about investigating startups and crypto exchanges. And they are succeeding at it.
In July 2020, Chinese authorities confiscated BTC, ETH and USDT worth $15 million from people who allegedly ran a fake cryptocurrency scheme.
By the way, not only corporate accounts are being closed. One investor claims his account had been frozen after using yuan to purchase crypto. Also, users who transfer illegally obtained money outside of the mainland in large amounts are under suspicion. Does it mean the Chinese government has started tightening the screws on cryptocurrency users?

DAI, USDT on Liquid and USDQ are the main options for stablecoin deposits

So, where can you store your crypto assets? USDT on Liquid and DAI are not the only solutions available. Consider making a deposit in USDQ, the stablecoin of the QDAO ecosystem. Like other stablecoins, it’s 1-to-1 pegged to USD. However, it cannot be frozen by a government, financial organization or anyone from the QDAO team. You can check it yourself by reading our Smart contract and USDQ Audit.
In QDAO, users’ accounts are never frozen by a single person – all account issues are solved by the entire QDAO community, with the help of a QDAO governance token.
In case of blocking (the chances of which are almost non-existent), you can address the QDAO community and get timely help.

Bottom Line

With FATF taking this new course of action, we might witness serious pressure on stablecoin providers. Some projects will resist it, but it’s still not safe to store your assets in popular stablecoins, especially USDT. Your account can be frozen by authorities for dozens of reasons without the possibility of retrieval.
Yet, there are a number of reliable alternatives and USDQ stablecoin is one of them. QDAO DeFi platform users feel free to manage their crypto reserves and make profitable deposits.
Want to be the first to hear QDAO DeFi news and updates? Visit our website and stay in touch with us on social media: Twitter, Facebook, Telegram and LINE (for the Japanese-speaking community).
submitted by QDAODeFi to u/QDAODeFi [link] [comments]

DeFi: Finance, but not always Decentralised?

As a recent blog post explored, DeFi – decentralised finance – can and will be used in whatever ways developers and the market see fit. This is the nature of open, decentralised systems. You can’t stop it, and there’s a very strong argument for saying we shouldn’t try. To restrict any element of DeFi, at least at the protocol level, is to introduce centralisation and single points of failure, thereby killing the core innovation by misguidedly trying to protect it.
But “decentralisation” is widely misunderstood. It is, first of all, not a binary matter: a project is not either “decentralised” or “centralised”. Decentralisation lies on a spectrum. One node in a blockchain “network” is centralised; Bitcoin, with many thousands of nodes in its network, is typically considered decentralised. At what point does the threshold between centralised and decentralised lie? 10, 100, 1,000 nodes?
Secondly, there are different types of decentralisation. A blockchain network might be decentralised, but its mining infrastructure may not be, especially if a few pools comprise 51% of hashrate. If there are very few exchanges, or active developers, these are also forms of centralisation and points of potential vulnerability.
DeFi’s recent failings of decentralisation
We have seen other forms of centralisation and failure in the DeFi space in recent weeks, suggesting that a significant proportion of DeFi cannot truly be considered Decentralised at all.
At least two recent DeFi projects (one a fork of the other, and clearly designed to appeal to yield farmers, with improbable gains promised), include an “infinite mint” function that poise the devs to carry out an exit scam, pulling the rug from under holders when it is most lucrative (if not timelocked). SushiSwap, a now-notorious clone of UniSwap, apparently suffered a similar exit scam when its founder Chef Nomi took $14 million from the dev fund – only to return it in what may have been genuine remorse, or possibly an act of theatre.
Many of the ‘new’ DeFi protocols are simply clones of existing dApps, making them akin to a Ponzi or HYIP scheme. It’s worse when the users, who pour millions of dollars into these smart contracts, don’t wait for an audit – as was the case with Yam Finance, which led to a bug that caused its token price to crash to zero.
The ruthless elimination of centralisation
DeFi is not DeFi when it contains any of the above single points of failure. “Decentralisation” is about far more than the blockchain. Using a blockchain and smart contracts is an entry-level requirement for DeFi: necessary but not sufficient.
No protocol can be considered decentralised if it includes back doors, whether built in deliberately like the “infinite mint” function (Yuno), or that exist inadvertently, like the rebase bug in Yam Finance. They’re not decentralised if individual developers or small groups control large amounts of funds, the theft of which will destroy the project.
Adequate decentralisation from the outset may be impossible, but what matters is that unnecessary centralisation – in all its forms – is eliminated as soon as possible.
This is what Ergo is seeking to do: Building decentralised applications on decentralised blockchain infrastructure, with a strong and independent community of developers, smart contracts that are safe to run and easy to audit, and using custom joint signatures to protect community-owned funds.
submitted by Guilty_Pea to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

DeFi: Finance, but not always Decentralised?

As a recent blog post explored, DeFi – decentralised finance – can and will be used in whatever ways developers and the market see fit. This is the nature of open, decentralised systems. You can’t stop it, and there’s a very strong argument for saying we shouldn’t try. To restrict any element of DeFi, at least at the protocol level, is to introduce centralisation and single points of failure, thereby killing the core innovation by misguidedly trying to protect it.
But “decentralisation” is widely misunderstood. It is, first of all, not a binary matter: a project is not either “decentralised” or “centralised”. Decentralisation lies on a spectrum. One node in a blockchain “network” is centralised; Bitcoin, with many thousands of nodes in its network, is typically considered decentralised. At what point does the threshold between centralised and decentralised lie? 10, 100, 1,000 nodes?
Secondly, there are different types of decentralisation. A blockchain network might be decentralised, but its mining infrastructure may not be, especially if a few pools comprise 51% of hashrate. If there are very few exchanges, or active developers, these are also forms of centralisation and points of potential vulnerability.
DeFi’s recent failings of decentralisation
We have seen other forms of centralisation and failure in the DeFi space in recent weeks, suggesting that a significant proportion of DeFi cannot truly be considered Decentralised at all.
At least two recent DeFi projects (one a fork of the other, and clearly designed to appeal to yield farmers, with improbable gains promised), include an “infinite mint” function that poise the devs to carry out an exit scam, pulling the rug from under holders when it is most lucrative (if not timelocked). SushiSwap, a now-notorious clone of UniSwap, apparently suffered a similar exit scam when its founder Chef Nomi took $14 million from the dev fund – only to return it in what may have been genuine remorse, or possibly an act of theatre.
Many of the ‘new’ DeFi protocols are simply clones of existing dApps, making them akin to a Ponzi or HYIP scheme. It’s worse when the users, who pour millions of dollars into these smart contracts, don’t wait for an audit – as was the case with Yam Finance, which led to a bug that caused its token price to crash to zero.
The ruthless elimination of centralisation
DeFi is not DeFi when it contains any of the above single points of failure. “Decentralisation” is about far more than the blockchain. Using a blockchain and smart contracts is an entry-level requirement for DeFi: necessary but not sufficient.
No protocol can be considered decentralised if it includes back doors, whether built in deliberately like the “infinite mint” function (Yuno), or that exist inadvertently, like the rebase bug in Yam Finance. They’re not decentralised if individual developers or small groups control large amounts of funds, the theft of which will destroy the project.
Adequate decentralisation from the outset may be impossible, but what matters is that unnecessary centralisation – in all its forms – is eliminated as soon as possible.
This is what Ergo is seeking to do: Building decentralised applications on decentralised blockchain infrastructure, with a strong and independent community of developers, smart contracts that are safe to run and easy to audit, and using custom joint signatures to protect community-owned funds.
submitted by Guilty_Pea to btc [link] [comments]

My collection of amazing early Bitcoin comments, right here from Reddit:

On buying (or not) a gaming rig to mine Bitcoin:
With the difficulty skyrocketing and exchange rates sitting stagnant at $5~8 for the last week or so, you pretty much missed the boat to buy dedicated mining hardware, IMHO. If you already have the hardware, or are looking for an excuse to buy a couple bitchin' new graphics cards for a gaming rig, there's definitely money to be made mining when you're not using it.
But I don't think I'd drop $1k into a rig that's only to mine with unless it was $1k I'd blow on something even more retarded. I certainly wouldn't sink next month's rent into it.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuv1b/?context=1
On easily cashing out Bitcoin using mtgox:
I think getting money is not that difficult. The daily volume on mtgox is over $100K, so I think anyone can currently sell Bitcoins for USD without problems.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuhjh/?context=1
On it being $10:
Is Bitcoin 10 usd yet?
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hpq6c/is_bitcoin_10_usd_yet/
Bonus: Snapshot of the isbitcoin10usdyet website from 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125320/http://www.isbitcoin10usdyet.com/
Mtgox might disappear:
400K bitcoins is $4M dollars. Given all risks and uncertainties around bitcoins, no wonder some of the early founders exit their investments. Tomorrow mtgox or dwolla may disappear. It is the matter of one government intervention.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hq1wj/_/c1xgesq/?context=1
Bitcoin is terrible at friendly front-end:
This is a dangerous point-of-view. The entire bitcoin ecosystem is ugly, confusing, and deeply unusable. Really think about the questions posed in the article. The client works, as in, it creates a functional front-end for some bitcoin-related tasks, but it isn't at all designed for how humans would want to interact with the currency. The point of the article isn't that the client is hard, it's that the client works pretty well for obsessive nerds (present company included), but if bitcoin is really going to succeed at the goals it sets out to accomplish, it needs to not only be usable by normal people, it needs to be exceptional. If you think it's reasonably usable, you're welcome to that opinion, but please understand that you're the exact sort of person Mr. Falkvinge was referring to. Great with complex logic, terrible at friendly front-end.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xtfuy/?context=1
On wallets going out of sync:
One thing that I think is lacking is the ability to functionally use wallets on different machines as they will tend to get out of sync. This might be able to be overcome if new addresses were deterministically created from a seed contained in the wallet, but there are probably better ways.
Also, the UI for the official client is kind of a bone.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1y730k/?context=1
On Bitcoin’s ease of use:
In fact, BTC is in such an infant state right now only enthusiasts investors, and geeks who can actually grasp how the system truly works, are using it for real.
The usability issues raised by the article are real. No grandma, or any well respected enterprise for that matter, would accept working with this type of GUI. If anything, a REAL enterprise backend still needs to be developed to handle the BTC's ungly guts, with all transactions details, hashes, mining, wallets, proxy connections, peer discovery via IRC channels... I mean... this is all too RAW for the end user. I can see a near future where startups will begin to offer user friendly GUIs, online access, maybe even online banking for your bitcoin accounts, automated backups and safety mechanisms to protect your coins in case of theft.
All of us geeks will end up supporting the bootstrap of this network so that, later on, your grandma will be able to use this just as she would use a credit card today.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xungz/?context=1
rBitcoin is not a sub for memes:
This isnt a subreddit for memes. Take it back to pics
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/i7z0v/_/c21m3ld/?context=1
I think I’ll keep my money elsewhere:
This further reinforces BC's image as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When the distribution is skewed that heavily towards early adopters, they will have almost total control over the market. Those 32 could manipulate to their hearts content. I think I'll keep my money elsewhere....
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ifl26/_/c23e3ei/?context=1
Tulip mania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://www.reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/i_just_invested_half_of_my_next_months_rent_in/c1wuhkt/
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

What do regulators say about BitQT ?

What do regulators say about BitQT ?

We discovered that it is so convenient to create a deposit. There are different on-line payment platforms to settle on from, for our initial live trading session, we have a tendency to created a deposit by doing an instantaneous bank transfer from our account into the BitQT account. The transaction was completed in seconds.
Live trading with BitQT

https://preview.redd.it/zrxveikvhim51.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=524850e4ff5890df2a7c25e4213090444bf46255
This is often the best part; we have a tendency to started our live trading session early within the morning and ended it when six hours. During the live trading session, we have a tendency to hardly required to try to to something except activating the live trading robot with a click. After the live trading session started, we had nothing else to try and do, the trading robot took complete control, and it automatically selected and completed the best deals out there.BitQT success
What we have a tendency to suppose concerning BitQ
Here are the most points we noted while testing the essential options of BitQT
We tend to attributed the high win rate for the majority of the finished transactions to the quick trading system. It's straightforward to see why thus many investors have continued using their BitQT
We tested the online customer service, and it is glorious. The customer service is on-line twenty fouseven, and there are not any lapses in the trading system. We tend to were impressed with the courtesy and high-level priority given to our case after we sought facilitate from the customer care team
The possibilities of experiencing hacking or information breach on BitQT are terribly low. There is a secure online antivirus and malware network that keeps the user data and information regarding funding secret

We tested BitQT on smartphones and laptops to grasp if the system is responsive. We have a tendency to can confirm that each user will trade with their smartphones or laptops. This is often terribly convenient for people who would really like to monitor their trading sessions while outdoors.BitQT benefits

Here are some tips that will facilitate new investors to urge the maximum edges from trading with BitQT;

It is better to start with a little deposit;BitQTallows users to begin trading with as low as $250, that is excellent for brand new users.
Always withdraw your profit after earning. This can be a great plan for everyone.
Reinvest the capital; to continue the earning cycle, it's best to reinvest the capital.
Realize a mentor online; you'll be able to get helpful data about the crypto market by following a mentor and crypto trading skilled on social media
BitQT has been created for everybody; it's user-friendly and profitable. We encourage our audience to join us, begin making money from the crypto market each day.
© 20twenty Straightforward To Browse • Powered by GeneratePress

BitQT BQ could be a laptop program that trades bitcoin CFDs automatically. The program claims to rely on advanced AI technologies to conduct trading research execution with a supposed win rate of up to 99p.c. BitQT BQ appears widespread with passive on-line investors, providing it is easy to use for all and doesn’t require a lot of your time to operate
It's conjointly said to require solely a tiny minimum capital deposit ($250) and reportedly generates up to $1k in daily profits from such a little account. However is BitQT BQ legit and if so, does it earn its users the said profits
As usual, we tend to have conducted a thorough investigation to determine if this bot is legit. We have a tendency to will gift our findings in this review and offer tips to assist you get started with it
https://preview.redd.it/4my2soawhim51.png?width=1046&format=png&auto=webp&s=515978aeca1497910fb83c4168326888697ef07a
BitQT BQ App reviewWhat is BitQT App?How will BitQT App work?Getting started with BitQT BQ
STEP ONE: Register a free accountSTEP 2: Verify ID with the underlying brokerSTEP 3: Deposit at least 250 USD as trading capitalSTEP FOUR: Trade with a demo accountSTEP FIVE: Live tradingIs BitQT BQ legit? The verdict!FAQsWhat is BitQT BQ App?Is BitQT App a Ponzi scheme?How much ought to I invest with BitQT BQ?How do I withdraw the supposed profits from BitQT BQ app?

Our criteria for determining the legitimacy of BitQT BQ took under consideration multiple factors, together with transparency, reputation, safety, simple use, and client service. The findings are summarized below.

BitQT BQ creates a transparent trading ecosystem through the coveted blockchain technology. This technology makes it possible for users to watch their accounts in real-time and raises disputes through smart contracts.
The robot has an glorious reputation with a rating of on ForexPeaceArmy when nearly 6k reviews.
We can make sure that a minimum of 95% of BitQTBQ reviewers report a positive experience with this robot.
BitQT BQ additionally scores exceptionally well in customer service. Users are pleased with how fast customer care responds and the way knowledgeable they are.
We tend to have additionally conducted background checks on Bitcoin BitQT partner brokers, and they seem well regulated and reputable.
BitQT BQ ensures users data privacy by applying 128-bit key encryption on all its platforms. It additionally appears to go with information privacy measures among them the EU General Knowledge Protection Regulation (GDPR)
As mentioned above, BitQT BQ may be a robot for all. Scan our Bitcoin Robot review for the fundamentals of auto trading.
What is BitQT App?
cribes itself as a highly specialised and powerful pc algorithm that automatically conducts the trading functions of an skilled BTC CFDs trader.
https://www.cryptoerapro.com/bitqt/

http://www.cryptoerapro.com/

https://twitter.com/cryptoerapro

https://www.instagram.com/cryptoerapro/

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/cryptoerapro/

https://www.facebook.com/cryptoerapro
submitted by Anteater_Same to u/Anteater_Same [link] [comments]

How does the BitQT App work?

How does the BitQT App work?

https://preview.redd.it/81cx1yfe1pm51.jpg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ceddeda7d5dc0be5c7d4b4dfa7a715baac65b3a
In the later part of websites are the testimonials screaming out loud regarding their success.BitQT review can be quiet judgemental at this point as a result of neither these testimonials prove the legitimacy of the web site nor the live profit reviews account such
You extremely want to understand that if you opt to speculate you’ll surely not visiting recover. TheBitQT just prove this by themselves stating it not being on affiliate terms with others. Something that’s claiming that you simply’ll earn 110zero greenbacks every day is doing a true-time scam job
Perhaps, theBitQT states advertising itself on Times, CNN and Forbes however neither of them found supportive during this regard. You'll check it all by yourself. This is often the sound proof of its scamming regime throughout the globe
It doesn’t have that laser-accurate performance as in trading bitcoin you can never guarantee the minimum amount of profit you be earning the other day. Its what happens when trading with Forex

Many of the websites agree onto the proficiency ofBitQT negating the crucial and impactful proves I shared with you higher than. They are saying it’s flawless. Will something be this flawless letting you earn regarding one thousand bucks each day without charging a penny? The automated transactions are known to be deposited directly into the user’s account that is nowhere to find affiliation with. Undoubtedly, most of the revealing sites have the only supportive argument beginning with, ‘As the review suggests’. Do raise yourselves, is that this the legitimate way to prove legitimacy ofBitQT
They too argue regarding the legitimate verification method. That’s the explanation why there’s a number of complaints with reference to the current. If these products would have really worked, why not each single person select to remain off from their offices integrating with it somehow:

Merely head to the SIGN-UP section on theBitQT site, fill in your personal info, and present your registration. When acknowledged, you'll be able to be able to access our restrictive Bitcoin exchanging

To induce your exchange account in progress, you’ll have to include some assets. WithBitQT, you can create a initial investment of as low as $250, although you'll be able to contribute as a lot of as you wantoy
Since your enlistment has been acknowledged and you’ve invested some funds, you’re fully done. Simply click on ‘trade’ to receive the rewards ofBitQT’s highly rated algorithm. In case you need a hands-on approach, you can shift to manual operation by changing the settings

There’s no harm in trading in terms of cryptocurrency. We have a tendency to’re not against it. But we tend to really aim to reveal the very fact thatBitQT isn't a legitimate website to believe during this case. To actually invest in bitcoin you initially want to shop for a bitcoin wallet so as to store all bitcoins. a series of blockchain integrations which permits you to top-up and earn.

But, as stated earlier you’ve no actual guarantee concerning the number you wish to earn. Secondly, you wish to integrate your bitcoin wallet to your account and then you’ll be ready to head towards the foremost step. Here, you’ll jin a bitcoin exchange system for trading bitcoin for any different traditional currencies of the market.

It works well solely if you for legitimate sites for functioning and planning. Perhaps, it too needs a nice amount of ability and we never promise you to begin earning when you join Bitcoin Exchanger somehow. This was all aboutBitQT Review as a full fulling the aim of alerting the scam going around.


Money Forex Cluster scamThe Cash Forex Group is run by a company named CFxG which allegedly was founded by a team of experts in all kinds of areas, mainly education in the monetary trading field and network promoting.

https://preview.redd.it/0gc7ga9f1pm51.jpg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c031ac047e635c47d3ee592ab9235878613c890
These experts and their automated trading system will supposedly facilitate your to form heaps of cash. In trading solely you'll allegedly make fifteenp.c weekly on your investments. Then there are referral programs and multi-level structures that can boost your income even more. Is that t
Money FX Group scamLet’s begin this Money Forex Group review by stating the obvious, this scheme may be a total scam, you just have to look at the numbers.BitQT

When they promise you fifteen%+ weekly, it means that 60percent+ monthly, which is totally ridiculous in the important world. It means a lot of than 560zeropercent per year, therefore you'd need solely $18,00zero greenbacks to become a millionaire within year. And this is often plain impossible.

No legitimate business can create you a gradual fifteenpercent weekly, no financial markets are that predictable and that easy to trade. It may appear straightforward to you, but it really is this straightforward, a program promising fifteenp.c weekly should be a scam, there is no alternative method, the Money FX Group is a scam.

However there is additional to go through in this review.
Massive lies

Money FX Cluster testimonialThe Money Forex Cluster claims to be regulated by the subsequent institutions: FAC – Financial Conduct Authority of London, DFSA – Monetary Services Authority in Dubai, FSCA – Monetary Sector Conduct Authority of South Africa and FSA – the Monetary Services Authority of Seychelles.

But guess what, the FAC will not even exist, while the others (DFSA, FSCA and FSA) haven't issued any license whatsoever to Cash Forex Cluster. Therefore not only Money FX Group is not regulated at all, it conjointly is lying huge time regarding its regulatory status.

The fact is that it's no license whatsoever, so it cannot supply investment services legally in most countries.

This is often conjointly why they want you to deposit cryptocurrencies, they wish to remain as anonymous as potential, so that they will run away along with your cash.
Regulatory warning

Not long when we have a tendency to printed our analysis, the Financial Conduct Authority (financial regulator in Nice Britain) came up with its own warning.

The regulator said that CashFX is providing investment services without the mandatory authorization and advised the public to remain off from it. This is often a very serious argumentBiTQT.

It'd be terribly unwise to deposit money with an unregulated and basically anonymous entity, as a result of it would not be protected in any means. No matter where the cash finally ends up, this program is promising you impossible returns on investments, which in itself confirms that something is wrong.
How it works

Let’s end this Cash Forex Group review by explaining the essential principle of this investment program. It's a Ponzi theme that does no real economic activity. It just collects money from individuals and may pay out some profits, but the most recent clients’ deposits can be used for that.

This will have an inevitable outcome, the system can sooner or later crumble. It's simply a matter of your time when there can be not enough deposits to hide withdrawals and also the inevitable end can

Nobody has not been paid, that is NOBODY ….. after all you can't compound or upgrade your CFX account unless you withdraw (get paid) …. CFX are not regulated…. as a result of they use a Regulated broker (everfx) to trade…so that information is also incorrect…and judging by the actual members comments….I’d say, members are happy….. long might that continue. BUT, you must never place in more than you are prepared to lose (In SOMETHING). However do correct analysis, ask

members, don’t rely on people that play safe and stay poor. Do your own due diligence. (ps MOST sites that decision each business out as a scam…have their own links…..promoting guess what ? ….tip. SCAMS ! Beware.

https://www.cryptoerapro.com/bitqt/


http://www.cryptoerapro.com/

https://twitter.com/cryptoerapro

https://www.instagram.com/cryptoerapro/

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/cryptoerapro/

https://www.facebook.com/cryptoerapro
submitted by bitqtadvantage to u/bitqtadvantage [link] [comments]

Summary of Tau-Chain Monthly Video Update - July 2020

Karim
Agoras Live: Five functionalities complete: 1. Registration 2. Login 3. User Profile Page 4. Calendar 5. Categories List 6. Wallet Screen Payments: Decided that implementing lightning would be too complex. Instead, we decided to implement our own micropayment mechanism using the native BTC multisig addresses. We are going to use the Omni wallet for payments. TML: Continued debugging, getting a TML demo and test cases ready. Hiring: More hiring efforts to increase team size. Timelines: Committing ourselves to a release of Agoras Live and a basic version of discussions in TML in 2020.
Umar: Been working on making improvements to the context free grammar parsing. We now are able to add constraints to productions in the grammar, allowing us to recognize grammars that are context sensitive. Developed test cases for that, too.
Tomas: Fixed issues in TML and ran several steps in a TML program. Now adding more tests to make sure everything is stable and won’t break. Also been working on a TML tutorial, a recorded script based on the intro to TML which was contained in the TML Playground. Also new features are going to be covered such as arithmetics.
Kilian: More outreach & follow-ups to potential partner universities. Positive response by a professor based in Toronto, presented to him our project. Also, response by KULeuven, Belgium, who unfortunately don’t see a good fit in our project. We’ve had one applicant for the IDNI Grant program and currently are evaluating his proposal. Also, we’ve had an applicant from Bangalore, India for the IDNI Ambassador program and we also have been discussing his proposal. Translation Bounties: We’ve had the blog post “The New Tau” translated to Chinese and have been reviewing the translation. We are going to publish the translation on our website and on the Bitcointalk Chinese forum section. Still to be claimed: German translation of “The New Tau”. Done more effort on reach out to potential tribe channels: Research groups, LinkedIn groups, Facebook groups. Most represented keywords: Complex Adaptive Systems, NLP, Computational Linguistics. Usual feedback: Likes but no further interaction. Created an FAQ answering all possible questions surrounding IDNI, Tau & Agoras Idea: Hosting a virtual panel to spread the word about our project among the scientific community, as well as to create some visual content for our community. Two professors are interested in participating, one from Argentina with a focus in semantic parsing, the other one from the University of Washington with a focus on human-computer interaction and social computing. First step: organizing a pre-panel discussion where in 1on1 calls with the professors we get an opinion of them about what we are doing.
Andrei: Agoras Live: Implemented mail system so users now get their mails (e.g. registration email). Improved UX together with Mo’az, e.g. user profiles. Token creation for accessing calls to identify and charge users. Customized Jitsi interface to suit our needs: E.g. display of how much time passed in a call and how much it costs. Next up: Further improve UX; make sure everything works as intended.
Mo’az: Almost finished the IDNI website. Added two more pages: Events & Bounties in collaboration with Fola & Kilian. Agoras Live: Finetuned all the website’s components in collaboration with Andrei.
Juan: Continued working on the payments system for Agoras Live. Had some delays due to the complexity of debugging such applications. Still, we made significant progress and got the funding transactions implemented over the Lightning network through the Omni layer. Spent time analyzing the minimum amount of BTC to pay for the fees associated to the Omni transactions. We aren’t using segregated witness native addresses and instead are using embedded segregated witness. So transaction sizes are enlarged and transaction fees are a bit higher. So there is a bit of finetuning analysis needed in order to enable the multisig address to pay for the closing & refund transactions. So to provide payment channels over the Omni layer, the main remaining technical detail we have to solve at this point is the closing transaction & the refund transaction.
Fola: Have been continuing to look for great talent in different areas. Continued working on website with Mo’az and Kilian. Been working on the branding for Tau & Agoras. Been getting external support to make sure the branding for Tau & Agoras will be as professional as it can be. Working on marketing efforts needed for the release of Agoras Live to get the media pack for marketing ready. Working together with external people to put a plan together for listing the Agoras token on more prominent exchanges as we get closer to release of Agoras Live.
Ohad: Continued working on restricted versions of second-order logic to understand how to implement them. There is a translation in the literature about how to convert second-order logic by Horn into Datalog. Also, I have been revisiting papers that deal with descriptive complexity of higher-order logic. They mention that they have a translation from second-order logic to QBF. I wasn’t able to find where they explain this translation but I wrote one of them and he said he will send me the paper. If so, that will be very good because we already have a QBF solver. Any binary decision diagram is already a QBF solver, so we can just translate arbitrary second-order logic formulas into QBF. This will be very helpful for us to implement second-order logic. Also, those papers mention several aspects that are relevant for self-interpretation, the laws of laws. Apparently, they suggest that certain fragments of higher-order logic may also support the laws of laws. But this is part of the papers that I didn’t have access to, so I have to wait to get further clarification. I also pushed the whitepaper significantly this month and hope we will be finishing it soon. Also, I was thinking about some optimizations for the parser and also was looking into the Lightning network. It was my mistake that I haven’t done so beforehand and if I had done it beforehand, I would have understood earlier, that Lightning is too much. It is too drastic of a change to how traditional payments work and there apparently is no reason to believe that it is secure. So I’m glad I discovered better now than later that it’s not something we’d like to rely on, although we can have it as an optional feature.
Q&A:
Q: With the project development taking longer than other projects such as Tezos, when can AGRS holders expect something to be released and, how can you reassure us that we made the right decision?
A: With regards to when we see some releases, it seems that we will see some releases in 2020. For comparing to Ethereum and Tezos: Let’s first talk about funding. Both projects had a lot of money. For Ethereum, the reason for is that it has probably done one of the most aggressive marketing campaigns in history. It was completely lacking any kind of honesty. It was simply aggressive. None of Ethereum’s visions and promises became true. It simply became an insecure platform for scams. None of their vision of creating a world computer, of creating a better society, a better currency, became true. Because of this aggressive marketing, they not only raised a lot of money, they also took the price to be so high in the market. If you remember the campaign of the flipping, they did a whole campaign on how they would overtake the marketcap of Bitcoin. For Tezos, they made maybe the largest ICO in history in terms of money, mainly because they came at the right time, at the top of the bubble in 2017, and also their promises for better coordination didn’t come true. Their solution is based on voting and based on Turing completeness and the only reason why they managed to gain such a market cap as of today, is not because they offer better currency, better society, better anything. It basically is a Ponzi-scheme because they offer very high interest rate by very high inflation (5,51%). The only reason why people buy Tezos is to get into this Ponzi-scheme. Because both Tezos and Ethereum lack any true economical or technological substance, their value will not sustain and this is true for almost all projects in the cryptocurrency world. In the software, high-tech market, if you come up with good tech and you do all the right things, you succeed big time. But if you don’t have it and you are purely relying on brainwashing people, it will not sustain. Of course, our solution is so disruptive and sustainable. We offer to do advancements for humanity and for economy.
Q: What three subjects would you first like to see discussed on Tau?
A: Of course, picking three subjects now is a bit speculative, but the first thing that comes to mind is the definitions of what good and bad means and what better and worse means. The second subject is the governance model over Tau. The third one is the specification of Tau itself and how to make it grow and evolve even more to suit wider audiences. The whole point of Tau is people collaborating in order to define Tau itself and to improve it over time, so it will improve up to infinity. This is the main thing, especially initially, that the Tau developers (or rather users) advance the platform more and more.
Q: What is stopping programmers using TML right now? If nothing, what is your opinion on why they aren’t?
A: There is nothing essentially missing in TML in order to let it release. And in fact, we are now working towards packaging it and bringing it towards a release level. For things like documentation, bug fixes, minor features, minor optimizations. We indeed actively work towards releasing TML 1.0 and then we can publish it in e.g. developers channels for them to use it.
submitted by m4nki to tauchain [link] [comments]

OBSERVATIONS, QUESTIONS AND NOOBS DON'T DO THIS

When you are initiating a trade, they tell you to follow the seller's instructions exactly. But this does not mean release escrow right away when the scammer tells you to.
Right now I'm just kinda watching the different sellers for wire transfers and Western Union. Base20 is an interesting one. Why would a medical doctor all of a sudden do major wheeling and dealing on Paxful six days ago? No way is a doctor going to have enough in the gas tank. But she is verified through their system. If her identity has been stolen it's a very clever ruse, to steal the credibility of a medical doctor moonlighting as a shady crypto trader? PoisedFly18 is really moving product – does anyone have experience with him? This cat Yassinesalhi is a total scam. He collected 11 bad ratings today which brings me to my first observation about Paxful. His instructions said release the bitcoin right away and I texted him to say I was not going to do that. The order was canceled instantly. This scammer Yassinesalhi had offers for everything today. You name it gold, cash, cards. What he was doing almost certainly was fishing for noobs who were dumb enough to release bitcoin. And it looks like he found 11 today. I'm sure there are people in boiler rooms fishing all day asking noobs to release bitcoin. Then they drain the Paxful account and start with another fake account the next day.
It seems like the vast majority of accounts are new – less than three months it seems. It looks to me like it might be a Ponzi scheme with accounts where the scammer plays it straight the first 10 people then pulls an exit scam. This is my first day really watching it – has anyone else observed this is the case? Or let's say you have 11 fake accounts who trade with each other for reviews and then exit scam. It seems more likely.
Other than releasing bitcoin early like a dumb ass and getting chargebacks, what other ways are there to get burned? Let's say they are supposed to do a bank transfer, which will take a couple of days. I won't under any circumstances release bitcoin until the transfer is received. How does that work? Do they give you some half assed receipt?
submitted by legiaourbanag to paxful [link] [comments]

18 P106-100 & 1 P104-100 Mining Rig Build

18 P106-100 & 1 P104-100 Mining Rig Build

19 GPU Build with ASUS B250 Mining Expert - 470MH/s

Its my dream to achieve and build a mining rig of this extent.
Allow me to describe this journey of mine to the GPU mining community.
Kudos to all! Feel free to ask me questions and I would love to help you out.

2017 - Bull Market - Dipped my toes into the GPU mining market. Spent nearly 3k USD, 6x GTX 1060 3GB & 2x GTX 1070ti.

Back then, my setup was really simple, An ASUS B250 Mining Expert with Pentium G4400, 8GB of RAM, 2 PSU (Coolermaster 700w as well as a V1200W PSU)
Placed this entire setup on a DIY metal shelf
Bought extra 2 GTX 1060 3GB on my Ryzen 7 1700 setup back then. Mining Monero too on Cryptonight Algo. Really profitable on these 2 rigs combined. Earning approximately 35USD per day at the peak :)
Without much experience back then, my overclocking skills sucks. I was drawing a ton of power with very little efficiency. However, at that point I was literally making few hundreds every month. It has been a really wonderful journey until bear market hits.

2018 - Nicehash Hacked, Bitconnect & Bear Market Hits...

If you still remember the dreadful hack of Nicehash. One morning I woke up seeing that my rig was no longer mining. Saw my balance turned to zero. And the moment I saw this article, my heart sanked. With over 100 USD inside my account that point, I knew I wouldnt be able to pay for my electric that month. This pulled down my confidence but quite a little.
Still remember Bitconnect? Hahahaha well entered into this ponzi scheme too. Invested 100 USD into this, got it back and donated the money.
Disconnected my entire rig... It was a pretty sad moment :\")
My house became cooler, quieter and my power usage instantly went down.
Kept 1 GTX 1070ti & 1 GTX 1060 3GB and built myself a Ryzen 7 gaming computer hehe.

My disconnection from Crypto 2018-2019

I exited this market back at the very end of the bull run and never touched Bitcoin until 2019. I began to plan my future, created an investment portfolio where I finally included Bitcoin back into my high risk asset class. The resurgence of Bitcoin mining begans :)

2019 - Sold my Ryzen 7 1700 & MB for ASUS B250 Mining Expert with 19 GPU build in mind

It all started with my small mining rig of one ZOTAC GTX 1070ti as well as an ASUS B250 Mining Expert which I was using to mine Ethereum at 33MH/s, get paid 0.05eth approximately every 2 weeks on 2miners.com

Purchased 2 more GTX 1070ti, bringing my total hashrate to 130MH/s.
Revamped & Redesigned into a DIY rig. Didnt wanna spend the money to find a frame hehe decided to use my mums shoe rack instead HAHAHAH
Back then, 1 GTX 1070ti resale value was approximately 230 USD here in Singapore.
Calculated hash per dollar and I notice the insane price I was paying with my 1070tis.
Sold all 4 of my GTX 1070tis and manage to trade for the following cards:
  • x4 Gigayte RX 570 8GB cards @ 70USD
  • x1 Sapphire Nitro RX 570 8GB @ 85USD
  • x5 P106-100 6GB cards @ 63USD
4 Gigabyte RX 570, 1 Sapphire RX 570, 5 P106-100 6GB
With all the skills and experience I have accumulated in 2017, I began redesigning my entire 10 GPU setup. This was the end product of my 10 GPU mining rig consisting of 5 NVIDIA P106-100 6GB cards as wel as 5 AMD RX 570 8GB cards. Working fine alongside with one another as claimed by ASUS.
Hashrates:
  • NVIDIA P106-100 6GB: 24.8MH/s @ 85watts
  • AMD RX 570 8GB: 29MH/s @ 95watts

DEAL OF THE MONTH - ZOTAC P106-100 6GB @ 56 USD

The dream of building 19 cards were never off my brain. Been sourcing for cheaper 2nd hand cards and snap! 56 USD per card for ZOTAC P106-100. It was insanely a great deal. Sold my 5x RX 570 8GB, use the cash and baammm!
Got 8 ZOTAC P106-100 6GB (2 not in photo) for test. PERFECT CONDITION and I cant believe the speed I was getting in Ethereum. 450MH/S for 18x P106-100 6GB

2ND DEAL OF THE MONTH - P104-100 8GB @ 70 USD

Managed to achieve 35.9MH @ 124w. Bringing my total GPU to 19.

The screen all miners with B250s love to see :)
The entire setup of my 19 GPU rig. Fan is blowing at single direction, expelling all the hot air towards my door exit. Keeping my living room relatively cool.

Underclocked my rig to 466MH for better stability and power draw. Has been running fine for 2 weeks without any manual interventions.
Bought a HP 1200w PSU. Placed a 120mm fan on top of it to keep it cool. In case if you are asking how loud is it, actually its pretty quiet. I have only used 600w, half of the capacity. Hence, under full load I am not sure how loud it will be.

All in all, my journey of a 19 GPU build. Feel free to ask me any questions :)
submitted by amtf99 to gpumining [link] [comments]

Transcript of Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet presenting at the Bitcoin Cash City conference on September 5th, 2019

Transcript of Bitcoin ABC’s Amaury Sechet presenting at the Bitcoin Cash City conference on September 5th, 2019
I tried my best to be as accurate as possible, but if there are any errors, please let me know so I can fix. I believe this talk is important for all Bitcoin Cash supporters, and I wanted to provide it in written form so people can read it as well as watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOv0nmOe1_o For me, this was the first time I felt like I understood the issues Amaury's been trying to communicate, and I hope that reading this presentation might help others understand as well.
Bitcoin Cash’s Culture
“Okay. Hello? Can you hear me? The microphone is good, yeah?
Ok, so after that introduction, I’m going to do the only thing that I can do now, which is disappoint you, because well, that was quite something.
So usually I make technical talks and this time it’s going to be a bit different. I’m going to talk about culture in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. So first let’s talk about culture, like what is it? It’s ‘the social behaviors and norms found in human society.’
So we as the Bitcoin Cash community, we are a human society, or at least we look like it. You’re all humans as far as I know, and we have social behaviors and norms, and those social behaviors and norms have a huge impact on the project.
And the reason why I want to focus on that point very specifically is because we have better fundamentals and we have a better product and we are more useful than most other cryptos out there. And I think that’s a true statement, and I think this is a testimony of the success of BCH. But also, we are only just 3% of BTC’s value. So clearly there is something that we are not doing right, and clearly it’s not fundamental, it’s not product, it’s not usefulness. It’s something else, and I think this can be found somewhat in our culture.
So I have this quote here, from Naval Ravikant. I don’t know if you guys know him but he’s a fairly well known speaker and thinker, and he said, “Never trust anyone who does not annoy you from time to time, because it means that they are only telling you what you want to hear.”
And so today I am going to annoy you a bit, in addition to disappointing you, so yeah, it’s going to be very bad, but I feel like we kind of need to do it.
So there are two points, mainly, that I think our culture is not doing the right thing. And those are gonna be infrastructure and game theory. And so I’m going to talk a little bit about infrastructure and game theory.
Right, so, I think there are a few misconceptions by people that are not used to working in software infrastructure in general, but basically, it works like any other kind of infrastructure. So basically all kinds of infrastructure decay, and we are under the assumption that technology always gets better and better and better and never decays. But in terms of that, it actually decays all the time, and we have just a bunch of engineers working at many many companies that keep working at making it better and fighting that decay.
I’m going to take a few examples, alright. Right now if you want to buy a cathode ray tube television or monitor for your computer (I’m not sure why you want to do that because we have better stuff now), but if you want to buy that, it’s actually very difficult now. There are very little manufacturers that even know how to build them. We almost forgot as a human society how to build those stuff. Because, well, there was not as high of a demand for them as there was before, and therefore nobody really worked on maintaining the knowledge or the know how, and the factories, none of that which are required to build those stuff, and therefore we don’t build them. And this is the same for vinyl discs, right? You can buy vinyl disk today if you want, but it’s actually more expensive than it used to be twenty years ago.
We used to have space shuttles. Both Russia and US used to have space shuttles. And now only the US have space shuttles, and now nobody has space shuttles anymore.
And there is an even better counter example to that. It’s that the US, right now, is refining Uranium for nuclear weapons. Like on a regular basis there are people working on that problem. Except that the US doesn’t need any new uranium to make nuclear weapons because they are decommissioning the weapons that are too old and can reuse that uranium to build the new weapon that they are building. The demand for that is actually zero, and still there are people making it and they are just basically making it and storing it forever, and it’s never used. So why is the US spending money on that? Well you would say governments are usually pretty good at spending money on stuff that are not very useful, but in that case there is a very good reason. And the good reason is that they don’t want to forget how it’s done. Because maybe one day it’s going to be useful. And acquiring the whole knowledge of working with uranium and making enriched uranium, refining uranium, it’s not obvious. It’s a very complicated process. It involves very advanced engineering and physics, a lot of that, and keeping people working on that problem ensures that knowledge is kept through time. If you don’t do that, those people are going to retire and nobody will know how to do it. Right.
So in addition to decaying infrastructure from time to time, we can have zero days in software, meaning problems in the software that are not now exploited live on the network. We can have denial of service attack, we can have various failures on the network, or whatever else, so just like any other infrastructure we need people that essentially take care of the problem and fight the decay constantly doing maintenance and also be ready to intervene whenever there is some issue. And that means that even if there is no new work to be done, you want to have a large enough group of people that are working on that everyday just making it all nice and shiny so that when something bad happens, you have people that understand how the system works. So even if for nothing else, you want a large enough set of people working on infrastructure for that to be possible.
So we’re not quite there yet, and we’re very reliant on BTC. Because the software that we’re relying on to run the network is actually a fork to the BTC codebase. And this is not specific to Bitcoin Cash. This is also true for Litecoin, and Dash, and Zcash and whatever. There are many many crypotos that are just a fork of the Bitcoin codebase. And all those crypos they actually are reliant on BTC to do some maintenance work because they have smaller teams working on the infrastructure. And as a result any rational market cannot price those other currencies higher than BTC. It would just not make sense anymore. If BTC were to disappear, or were to fail on the market, and this problem is not addressed, then all those other currencies are going to fail with it. Right? And you know that may not be what we want, but that’s kind of like where we are right now.
So if we want to go to the next level, maybe become number one in that market, we need to fix that problem because it’s not going to happen without it.
So I was mentioning the 3% number before, and it’s always very difficult to know what all the parameters are that goes into that number, but one of them is that. Just that alone, I’m sure that we are going to have a lower value than BTC always as long as we don’t fix that problem.
Okay, how do we fix that problem? What are the elements we have that prevent us from fixing that problem? Well, first we need people with very specific skill sets. And the people that have experience in those skill sets, there are not that many of them because there are not that many places where you can work on systems involving hundreds of millions, if not billions of users, that do like millions of transactions per second, that have systems that have hundreds of gigabytes per second of throughput, this kind of stuff. There are just not that many companies in the world that operate on that scale. And as a result, the number of people that have the experience of working on that scale is also pretty much limited to the people coming out of those companies. So we need to make sure that we are able to attract those people.
And we have another problem that I talked about with Justin Bons a bit yesterday, that we don’t want to leave all that to be fixed by a third party.
It may seem nice, you know, so okay, I have a big company making good money, I’m gonna pay people working on the infrastructure for everybody. I’m gonna hire some old-time cypherpunk that became famous because he made a t-shirt about ERISA and i’m going to use that to promote my company and hire a bunch of developers and take care of the infrastructure for everybody. It’s all good people, we are very competent. And indeed they are very competent, but they don’t have your best interest in mind, they have their best interest in mind. And so they should, right? It’s not evil to have your own interest in mind, but you’ve got to remember that if you delegate that to others, they have their best interest in mind, they don’t have yours. So it’s very important that you have different actors that have different interests that get involved into that game of maintaining the infrastructure. So they can keep each other in check.
And if you don’t quite understand the value proposition for you as a business who builds on top of BCH, the best way to explain that to whoever is doing the financials of your company is as an insurance policy. The point of the insurance on the building where your company is, or on the servers, is so that if everything burns down, you can get money to get your business started and don’t go under. Well this is the same thing. Your business relies on some infrastructure, and if this infrastructure ends up going down, disappearing, or being taken in a direction that doesn’t fit your business, your business is toast. And so you want to have an insurance policy there that insures that the pieces that you’re relying on are going to be there for you when you need them.
Alright let’s take an example. In this example, I purposefully did not put any name because I don’t want to blame people. I want to use this as an example of a mistake that were made. I want you to understand that many other people have done many similar mistakes in that space, and so if all you take from what I’m saying here is like those people are bad and you should blame them, this is like completely the wrong stuff. But I also think it’s useful to have a real life example.
So on September 1st, at the beginning of the week, we had a wave of spam that was broadcasted on the network. Someone made like a bunch of transactions, and those were very visibly transactions that were not there to actually do transactions, they were there just to create a bunch of load on the network and try to disturb its good behavior.
And it turned out that most miners were producing blocks from 2 to 8 megabytes, while typical market demand is below half a megabyte, typically, and everything else above that was just spam, essentially. And if you ask any people that have experience in capacity planning, they are going to tell you that those limits are appropriate. The reason why, and the alternative to raising those limits that you can use to mitigate those side effects are a bit complicated and they would require a talk in and of itself to go into, so I’m going to just use an argument from authority here, but trust me, I know what I’m talking about here, and this is just like raising those limits is just not the solution. But some pool decided to increase that soft cap to 32 megs. And this has two main consequences that I want to dig in to explain what is not the right solution.
And the first one is that we have businesses that are building on BCH today. And those businesses are the ones that are providing value, they are the ones making our network valuable. Right? So we need to treat those people as first class citizens. We need to attract and value them as much as we can. And those people, they find themselves in the position where they can either dedicate their resources and their attention and their time to make their service better and more valuable for users, or maybe expand their service to more countries, to more markets, to whatever, they can do a lot of stuff, or they can spend their time and resources to make sure the system works not when you have like 10x the usual load, but also 100x the usual load. And this is something that is not providing value to them, this is something that is not providing value to us, and I would even argue that this is something that is providing negative value.
Because if those people don’t improve their service, or build new services, or expand their service to new markets, what’s going to happen is that we’re not going to do 100x. 100x happens because people provide useful services and people start using it. And if we distract those people so that they need to do random stuff that has nothing to do with their business, then we’re never going to do 100x. And so having a soft cap that is way way way above what is the usual market demand (32 megs is almost a hundred times what is the market demand for it), it’s actually a denial of service attack that you open for anyone that is building on the chain.
We were talking before, like yesterday we were asking about how do we attract developers, and one of the important stuff is that we need to value that over valuing something else. And when we take this kind of move, the signal that we send to the community, to the people working on that, is that people yelling very loudly on social media, their opinion is more valued than your work to make a useful service building on BCH. This is an extremely bad signal to send. So we don’t want to send those kind of signals anymore.
That’s the first order effect, but there’s a second order effect, and the second order effect is to scale we need people with experience in capacity planning. And as it turns out big companies like Google, and Facebook, and Amazon pay good money, they pay several 100k a year to people to do that work of capacity planning. And they wouldn’t be doing that if they just had to listen to people yelling on social media to find the answer. Right? It’s much cheaper to do the simple option, except the simple option is not very good because this is a very complex engineering problem. And not everybody is like a very competent engineer in that domain specifically. So put yourself in the shoes of some engineers who have skills in that particular area. They see that happening, and what do they see? The first thing that they see is that if they join that space, they’re going to have some level of competence, some level of skill, and it’s going to be ignored by the leaders in that space, and ignoring their skills is not the best way to value it as it turns out. And so because of that, they are less likely to join it. But there is a certain thing that they’re going to see. And that is that because they are ignored, some shit is going to happen, some stuff are going to break, some attacks are going to be made, and who is going to be called to deal with that? Well, it’s them. Right? So not only are they going to be not valued for their stuff, the fact that they are not valued for their stuff is going to put them in a situation where they have to put out a bunch of fires that they would have known to avoid in the first place. So that’s an extremely bad value proposition for them to go work for us. And if we’re going to be a world scale currency, then we need to attract those kinds of people. And so we need to have a better value proposition and a better signaling that we send to them.
Alright, so that’s the end of the first infrastructure stuff. Now I want to talk about game theory a bit, and specifically, Schelling points.
So what is a Schelling point? A Schelling point is something that we can agree on without especially talking together. And there are a bunch of Schelling points that exist already in the Bitcoin space. For instance we all follow the longest chain that have certain rules, right? And we don’t need to talk to each other. If I’m getting my wallet and I have some amount of money and I go to any one of you here and you check your wallet and you have that amount of money and those two amounts agree. We never talk to each other to come to any kind of agreement about how much each of us have in terms of money. We just know. Why? Because we have a Schelling point. We have a way to decide that without really communicating. So that’s the longest chain, but also all the consensus rules we have are Schelling points. So for instance, we accept blocks up to a certain size, and we reject blocks that are bigger than that. We don’t constantly talk to each other like, ‘Oh by the way do you accept 2 mb blocks?’ ‘Yeah I do.’ ‘Do you accept like 3 mb blocks? And tomorrow will you do that?’
We’re not doing this as different actors in the space, constantly worrying each other. We just know there is a block size that is a consensus rule that is agreed upon by almost everybody, and that’s a consensus rule. And all the other consensus rules are effectively changing Schelling points. And our role as a community is to create valuable Schelling points. Right? You want to have a set of rules that provide as much value as possible for different actors in the ecosystem. Because this is how we win. And there are two parts to that. Even though sometimes we look and it’s just one thing, but there are actually two things.
The first one is that we need to decide what is a valuable Schelling point. And I think we are pretty good at this. And this is why we have a lot of utility and we have a very strong fundamental development. We are very good at choosing what is a good Schelling point. We are very bad at actually creating it and making it strong.
So I’m going to talk about that.
How do you create a new Schelling point. For instance, there was a block size, and we wanted a new block size. So we need to create a new Schelling point. How do you create a new Schelling point that is very strong? You need a commitment strategy. That’s what it boils down to. And the typical example that is used when discussing Schelling points is nuclear warfare. So think about that a bit. You have two countries that both have nuclear weapons. And one country sends a nuke on the other country. Destroys some city, whatever, it’s bad. When you look at it from a purely rational perspective, you will assume that people are very angry, and that they want to retaliate, right? But if you put that aside, there is actually no benefit to retaliating. It’s not going to rebuild the city, it’s not going to make them money, it’s not going to give them resources to rebuild it, it’s not going to make new friends. Usually not. It’s just going to destroy some stuff in the other guy that would otherwise not change anything because the other guys already did the damage to us. So if you want nuclear warfare to actually prevent war like we’ve seen mostly happening in the past few decades with the mutually assured destruction theory, you need each of those countries to have a very credible commitment strategy, which is if you nuke me, I will nuke you, and I’m committing to that decision no matter what. I don’t care if it’s good or bad for me, if you nuke me, I will nuke you. And if you can commit to that strongly enough so that it’s credible for other people, it’s most likely that they are not going to nuke you in the first place because they don’t want to be nuked. And it’s capital to understand that this commitment strategy, it’s actually the most important part of it. It’s not the nuke, it’s not any of it, it’s the commitment strategy. You have the right commitment strategy, you can have all the nuke that you want, it’s completely useless, because you are not deterring anyone from attacking you.
There are many other examples, like private property. It’s something usually you’re going to be willing to put a little bit of effort to defend, and the effort is usually way higher than the value of the property itself. Because this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever, and you’re pretty committed to it, and therefore you create a Schelling point over the fact that this is your house, this is your car, this is your whatever. People are willing to use violence and whatever to defend their property. This is effectively, even if you don’t do it yourself, this is what happens when you call the cops, right? The cops are like you stop violating that property or we’re going to use violence against you. So people are willing to use a very disproportionate response even in comparison to the value of the property. And this is what is creating the Schelling point that allows private property to exist.
This is the commitment strategy. And so the longest chain is a very simple example. You have miners and what miners do when they create a new block, essentially they move from one Schelling point when a bunch of people have some amount of money, to a new Schelling point where some money has moved, and we need to agree to the new Schelling point. And what they do is that they commit a certain amount of resources to it via proof of work. And this is how they get us to pay attention to the new Schelling point. And so UASF is also a very good example of that where people were like we activate segwit no matter what, like, if it doesn’t pan out, we just like busted our whole chain and we are dead.
Right? This is like the ultimate commitment strategy, as far as computer stuff is involved. It’s not like they actually died or anything, but as far as you can go in the computer space, this is very strong commitment strategy.
So let me take an example that is fairly inconsequential in its consequences, but I think explains very well. The initial BCH ticker was BCC. I don’t know if people remember that. Personally I remember reading about it. It was probably when we created it with Jonald and a few other people. And so I personally was for XBC, but I went with BCC, and most people wanted BCC right? It doesn’t matter. But it turned out that Bitfinex had some Ponzi scheme already listed as BCC. It was Bitconnect, if you remember. Carlos Matos, you know, great guy, but Bitconnect was not exactly the best stuff ever, it was a Ponzi scheme. And so as a result Bitifnex decided to list Bitcoin Cash as BCH instead of BCC, and then the ball started rolling and now everybody uses BCH instead of BCC.
So it’s not all that bad. The consequences are not that very bad. And I know that many of you are thinking that right now. Why is this guy bugging us about this? We don’t care if it’s BCC or BCH. And if you’re doing that, you are exactly proving my point.
Because … there are people working for Bitcoin.com here right? Yeah, so Bitcoin.com is launching an exchange, or just has launched, it’s either out right now or it’s going to be out very soon. Well think about that. Make this thought experiment for yourself. Imagine that Bitcoin.com lists some Ponzi scheme as BTC, and then they decide to list Bitcoin as BTN. What do you think would be the reaction of the Bitcoin Core supporter? Would they be like, you know what? we don’t want to be confused with some Ponzi scheme so we’re going to change everything for BTN. No, they would torch down Roger Ver even more than they do now, they would torch down Bitcoin.com. They would insult anyone that would suggest that this was a good idea to go there. They would say that everyone that uses the stuff that is BTC that it’s a ponzi scheme, and that it’s garbage, and that if you even talk about it you are the scum of the earth. Right? They would be extremely committed to whatever they have.
And I think this is a lesson that we need to learn from them. Because even though it’s a ticker, it’s not that important, it’s that attitude that you need to be committed to that stuff if you want to create a strong Schelling point, that allows them to have a strong Schelling point, and that does not allow us to have that strong of a Schelling point.
Okay, so yesterday we had the talk by Justin Bons from Cyber Capital, and one of the first things he said in his talk, is that his company has a very strong position in BCH. And so that changed the whole tone of the talk. You gotta take him seriously because his money is where his mouth is. You know that he is not coming on the stage and telling you random stuff that comes from his mind or tries to get you to do something that he doesn’t try himself. That doesn’t mean he’s right. Maybe he’s wrong, but if he’s wrong, he’s going bankrupt. And you know just for that reason, maybe it’s worth it to listen to it a bit more than some random person saying random stuff when they have no skin in the game.
And it makes him more of a leader in the space. Okay we have some perception in this space that we have a bunch of leaders, but many of them don’t have skin in the game. And it is very important that they do. So when there is some perceived weakness from BCH, if you act as an investor, you are going to diversify. If you act as a leader, you are going to fix that weakness. Right? And so, leaders, it’s not like you can come here and decide well, I’m a leader now. Leaders are leaders because people follow them. It seems fairly obvious, but … and you are the people following the leaders, and I am as well. We decide to follow the opinion of some people more than the opinion of others. And those are the defacto leaders of our community. And we need to make sure that those leaders that we have like Justin Bons, and make sure that they have a strong commitment to whatever they are leading you to, because otherwise you end up in this situation:

https://preview.redd.it/r23dptfobcl31.jpg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=750fbd0f1dc0122d2791accc59f45a235a522444
Where you got a leader, he’s getting you to go somewhere, he has some goal, he has some whatever. In this case he is not that happy with the British people. But he’s like give me freedom or give me death, and he’s going to fight the British, but at the same time he’s like you know what? Maybe this shit isn’t gonna pan out, you gotta make sure you have your backup plan together, you have your stash of British pound here. You know, many of us are going to die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
That’s not the leader that you want.
I’m going to go to two more examples and then we’re going to be done with it. So one of them is Segwit 2x. Segwit 2x came with a time where some people wanted to do UASF. And UASF was essentially people that set up a modified version of their Bitcoin node that would activate segwit on August 1, no matter what. Right? No matter what miners do, no matter what other people do, it’s going to activate segwit. And either I’m going to be on the other fork, or I’m going to be alone and bust. Well, the alternative proposal was segwit 2x. Where people would activate segwit and then increase the size of the block. And what happened was that one of the sides had a very strong commitment strategy, and the other side, instead of choosing a proportional commitment strategy, what they did was that they modified the activation of segwit 2x to be compatible with UASF. And in doing so they both validate the commitment strategy done by the opposite side, and they weaken their own commitment strategy. So if you look at that, and you understand game theory a bit, you know what’s going to happen. Like the fight hasn’t even started and UASF has already won. And when I saw that happening, it was a very important development to me, because I have some experience in game theory, a lot of that, so I understood what was happening, and this is what led me to commit to BCH, which was BCC at the time, 100%. Because I knew segwit 2x was toast, even though it had not even started, because even though they had very strong cards, they are not playing their cards right, and if you don’t play your cards right, it doesn’t matter how strong your cards are.
Okay, the second one is emergent consensus. And the reason I wanted to put those two examples here is because I think those are the two main examples that lead to the fact that BTC have small blocks and we have big blocks and we’re a minority chain. Those are like the two biggest opportunities we had to have big blocks on BTC and we blew both of them for the exact same reason.
So emergent consensus is like an interesting technology that allows you to trade your bigger block without splitting the network. Essentially, if someone starts producing blocks that are bigger than … (video skips) ,,, The network seems to be following the chain that has larger blocks, eventually they’re going to fall back on that chain, and that’s a very clevery mechanism that allows you to make the consensus rules softer in a way, right? When everybody has the same consensus rules, it still remains enforced, but if a majority of people want to move to a new point, they can do so by bringing others with them without creating a fork. That is a very good activation mechanism for changing the block size, for instance, or it can be used to activate other stuff.
There is a problem, though. This mechanism isn’t able to set a new point. It’s a way to activate a new Schelling point when you have one, but it provides no way to decide when and where or to what value or to anything to where we are going. So this whole strategy lacks the commitment aspect of it. And because it lacks the commitment aspect of it, it was unable to activate properly. It was good, but it was not sufficient in itself. It needs to be combined with a commitment strategy. And especially on that one there are some researchers that wrote a whole paper (https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) unpacking the whole game theory that essentially come to that conclusion that it’s not going to set a new size limit because it lacked the commitment aspect of it. But they go on like they model all the mathematics of it, they give you all the numbers, the probability, and the different scenarios that are possible. It’s a very interesting paper. If you want to see, like, because I’m kind of explaining the game theory from a hundred mile perspective, but actually you can deep dive into it and if you want to know the details, they are in there. People are doing that. This is an actual branch of mathematics.
Alright, okay so conclusion. We must avoid to weaken our commitment strategy. And that means that we need to work in a way where first there is decentralization happening. Everybody has ideas, and we fight over them, we decide where we want to go, we put them on the roadmap, and once it’s on the roadmap, we need to commit to it. Because when people want to go like, ‘Oh this is decentralized’ and we do random stuff after that, we actually end up with decentralization, not decentralization in a cooperative manner, but like in an atomization manner. You get like all the atoms everywhere, we explode, we destroy ourself.
And we must require a leader to have skin in the game, so that we make sure we have good leaders. I have a little schema to explain that. We need to have negotiations between different parties, and because there are no bugs, the negotiation can last for a long time and be tumultuous and everything, and that’s fine, that’s what decentralization is looking like at that stage, and that’s great and that makes the system strong. But then once we made a decision, we got to commit to it to create a new Schelling point. Because if we don’t, the new Schelling point is very weak, and we get decentralization in the form of disintegration. And I think we have not been very good to balance the two. Essentially what I would like for us to do going forward is encouraging as much as possible decentralization in the first form. But consider people who participate in the second form, as hostile to BCH, because their behavior is damaging to whatever we are doing. And they are often gonna tell you why we can’t do that because it’s permissionless and decentralized, and they are right, this is permissionless and decentralized, and they can do that. We don’t have to take it seriously. We can show them the door. And not a single person can do that by themself, but as a group, we can develop a culture where it’s the norm to do that. And we have to do that.”
submitted by BCHcain to btc [link] [comments]

Iamsatoshi.global and Arbitrage.is: Big MLM Scams

The growing popularity of bitcoin or other virtual currency attracting the people and on the other hand many scam investment companies are emerging every day just like rainy frogs. Everyone keeps on proving how the benefits offered by their company are better.
However, the number of people caught in such breathtaking claims is very huge in the world. Everyone knows that such companies can be a scam, yet many people do not feel any difficulty in losing their hard-earned money in such companies.
For this reason, in the discussion of whether such companies are scams or not, we also would not like to waste our time.
Now the point of discussion is only, that investing in which company can be less risky.
Today in this article we will discuss iamsatoshi.global and arbitrage.is. From the primary point of view, both concepts are Ponzi schemes only.
The difference is that iamsatoshi.global is being claimed to be a Decentralized block-chain smart contract, and arbitrage.is collect the investment in the usual way.

Let us know about iamsatoshi.global

The most important thing here is that IAMSATOSHI.GLOBAL is far ahead of ARBITRAGE.IS, to attract investors. Their website and presentations are very good and can easily catch the investor in their trap. But all the big claims are being made by iamsatoshi.global, are absolutely false.
iamsatoshi.global is claimed that Satoshi Nakamoto (believed to be the creator of bitcoin) is behind this business, although this is unlikely to be the case at all. Why the person like Satoshi Nakamoto need to start a Ponzi scheme? See the screenshot below, what is in the headings and what is the body text ... This is where lies are caught.
Read more
submitted by growideindia to u/growideindia [link] [comments]

9 Rules of Crypto Trading That Helped One Trader Go from $1k to $46k in Less Than a Year

No, the successful trader is not me. I’ve gotten lucky a few times and I’m still refining and trying out strategies; on the other hand, I’m part of communities of people who trade on a daily basis to grow their portfolios, and while some of the results can be attributed to luck, a majority of it is based on fundamentals, good habits, and experience.
The Result of Good Habits
Miles is the co-founder of Pure Investments. In May 2017, he started off by playing with $1,000, which he accumulated through saving 10% of his paychecks for a while. Today, he is at $46,000; i.e., he grew his portfolio by 46x in less than a year. Similarly, after starting Pure Investments back in September 2017, Miles got one of his first community members, who goes by the pseudonym SP on the Discord channel. When SP started, he put in $40,000. By January 2018, he had over $1 million (today it’s ~$800k due to the recent Bitcoin crash). While markets like cryptocurrency are extremely volatile and all investors are subject to its price fluctuation including Miles, SP, myself, and you, good habits will help mitigate the losses and maximize profits. Nine Rules of Crypto Trading
Please note that none of this is investment advice. Invest at your own risk!
  1. Only invest what you can lose. During the recent crash in January 2018, hobby-investors got burned. Reports of frustration and losses came at the cost of broken monitors, smashed laptops, and heavy monetary losses. While the rules are in more particular order of importance, it’s safe to assume that this is the most important rule, the rule to rule the rules. As soon as your money is converted into cryptocurrency, consider it lost forever. There is absolutely no guarantee you can get it back. Losses don’t simply come from dips in the market; extraordinary factors such as hacks, bugs, and government regulation can mean you’ll never see any of your money again. If you are investing money you can’t afford to lose, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current financial situation, because what you’re about to do is an act of desperation. This includes: using credit cards, taking out mortgages, applying for loans, or selling everything and traveling the world (as glamorous as that sounds).
  2. Always pay attention to Bitcoin. Most altcoins (every cryptocurrency except Bitcoin) are pegged more closely to Bitcoin than Asian currencies were to the USD during the Asian Financial Crisis. If Bitcoin price pump drastically, altcoins price can go down as people try to exit altcoins to ride the BTC profits; inversely, if Bitcoin prices dump drastically, altcoin prices can go down, too, as people exit altcoins to exchange back into fiat. The best times for altcoin growth appear when Bitcoin shows organic growth or decline, or remains stagnant in price.
  3. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify. While the potential to earn more is increased with the amount of money you invest into a coin, the potential to lose more is also magnified. Another way to think about it is to look at the cryptocurrency market as a whole; if you believe that this is just the beginning, then more than likely the entire market cap of cryptocurrencies will increase. What are the chances that this market cap increase will be entirely driven by one coin vs. being driven by many coins? The best way to safely capture the overall growth of cryptocurrency is to diversify and reap the benefits of growth from multiple coins. Also, fun fact — Between January 2016 and January 2018, Corgicoin has increased by 60,000x, and Verge has increased by 13,000x. During the same period, Bitcoin has increased by 34x. While you would have gotten impressive gains from Bitcoin, expanding into other coins could have landed you potentially larger ones.
  4. Don’t be greedy. No one ever lost money taking a profit. As a coin begins to grow, the greed inside us grows along with it. If a coin increases by 30%, why not consider taking profit? Even if goals are set to 40% or 50%, you should at least pull out some of the profit on the way up in case a coin doesn’t reach the goal. If you wait too long or try to get out at a higher point, you risk losing profit you already earned or even turning that profit into a loss. Get into the habit of taking profits and scouting for re-entry if you want to continue reaping potential profits.
  5. Don’t invest blindy. There are people in this world who would sell a blind person a pair of glasses if they could make money. Those same people play in the cryptocurrency markets and use every opportunity to exploit less-informed investors. They’ll tell you what to buy or claim certain coins will moon, just to increase the prices so they can exit. Due to the highly speculative nature of the cryptocurrency markets today, a good investor will always do his or her own research in order to take full responsibility for the potential investment outcome. Information coming from even the best investor is, at best, great information, but never a promise, so you can still get burned.
  6. Don’t FOMO. This is a spot that people most frequently lose money on. A dash of manipulation, two tablespoons of media hype, a cup of CME and CBOE announcements, and a generous handful of FOMO drove Bitcoin prices from $10,000 to $20,000 in December. Since that time, Bitcoin fell to a low of $9,000 and is currently sitting at around $11,000. It’s easy to look back and say, “if only I waited one month, then I could’ve bought at $9,000 instead of waiting for Bitcoin to hit $20,000 again for me to break even.” But the reality is, the combination of 1) being greedy, 2) investing blindly, and 3) FOMO were likely large contributors to the purchase at an all-time-high. Even in the crazy world of cryptocurrency, if a coin pumps that quickly, it will correct — it’s a matter of time. Speculative pumps are almost always followed by dips. While trying to jump onto a train going full speed sounds like something straight out of a James Bond movie, I’m sure most of us can agree we would probably save some limbs if we just waited for it at the next stop.
  7. Categorize your investments and look at the long picture. In the process of your research, you’ll eventually realize you’re coming across a few different categories of coins. For some of them, you believe they have good teams, great vision, amazing publicity and a track record for successful execution. Great! Put these into medium or long-term holds and let them marinate into a delicious tenderloin. When the price dips, don’t even consider panic selling because anything in your medium or long-term portfolio should remain untouched for a set amount of time. BNB is a good example of a coin Miles considers a long hold. Recently, it dipped 20% for a while, and within our community, we witnessed some sell-offs to preserve investments. A week later, it jumped up almost 3x for a period of time.
  8. Always learn from your mistakes. Never accept a total loss. Always evaluate the situation and try to figure out why it happened. Take that experience as an asset for your next move, which will be better because you are know more now than you knew before. We all start off as amateurs, and we have all lost money throughout out trading experience. In his first month of trading, Miles went from $1,000 to $300. I’ve lost a lot by selling at losses inspired by fear. No one is perfect, no one wins every single trade. Don’t let the losses discourage you, because the reality is they’re making you better trader if you choose to learn from them.
  9. If you are doing any active trading, set stop losses. For any coins not in your medium or long-term holds, always set stop losses. This is important for several reasons — the most obvious is mitigating your losses. But more importantly, you force yourself to decide on a point of acceptable loss, and because you now have a reference point, you are able to measure your effectiveness to keep or adjust for future trades. Sometimes, during a market dip, altcoins can plummet, and stop losses can lead to profitability by automatically selling for fiat that you can use to re-enter at lower prices.
  10. 10 Bonus — always check the ticker symbol. Ticker symbols are not universal, and may vary from exchange to exchange in rare cases. Those cases, though, can come back to bite you. For example, Bitcoin Cash trades on some exchanges as BCH, while it trades on others as BCC. BCC is also the ticker symbol for BitConnect, which was recently outted as a Ponzi Scheme. If you bought BCC under the impression was Bitcoin Cash, you would’ve lost a lot of money.

You Don’t Have to Go At It Alone While these rules are by no means the only lessons you need, they’re definitely a great starting point. Sometimes, though, things are easier said than done, such as watching your portfolio value plummet and still having the iron willpower of resisting the sell button. One of the best solutions I’ve found to this was to join a community of like-minded cryptocurrency investors. Educated and smart crypto-traders, as well as the community members, will all be there to support your efforts and will be holding with you in the rough times.
On top of that, the cryptocurrency market travels at lightspeed compared to other markets. New coins enter the market on a daily basis (in 2016, there were about 550 different coins, today there are about 1,500), and each one has news every day. I’m not doubting your ability to consume and analyze news, but that level of information bombardment will always be more effectively consumed as a group. In these communities, you’ll see members link news and relevant articles about coins you’ve invested in and coins you’ve never heard of. The community will definitely expand your knowledge much faster than doing it all yourself.
The Pure Investments community, as well as many other communities out there, have a free and paid membership. The paid membership is similar to the free one in that each one can access the community, but the paid one has more hands-on guidance from the analysts, and you can learn more through the education sections.
submitted by FmzQuant to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin a Pyramid or Ponzi Scheme? Fact: Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Scheme James Rickards: Bitcoin is a Fraud, a Ponzi, and a Bubble Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme.  MaiView  20190719 Is Bitcoin a Ponzi?

Another example is Bitcoin Savings and Trust, which was fined $40.7 million in 2014 by the SEC for creating fake investments and using a Ponzi scheme to scam investors. According to Coin Telegraph ... Bitcoin has none of the attributes of such a scam. For one thing, “Bitcoin itself can’t be a Ponzi scheme because it isn’t controlled by a central person or group,” David says. Indeed, a central operator skimming money from clueless investors is a key requirement for something to be a Ponzi scheme – and Bitcoin clearly does not have one. If bitcoin fails in this fashion, it will have in fact been a form of Ponzi scheme, but not in the money itself – rather in the simple math that says it will run out of processing the same way a ponzi scheme runs out of potential new members to fuel the system. When it happens, it won’t be pretty. The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from product sales or other means, and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds.” –Wikipedia; Now, let us address these, one by one: Bitcoin is not a business, nor an organization, company, etc. Bitcoin is a protocol, not an entity. Bitcoin never, and cannot ... “What they allegedly did amounts to little more than a modern, high-tech Ponzi scheme that defrauded victims of hundreds of millions of dollars. Working with our law enforcement partners here and across the country, we will ensure that these scammers are held to account for their crimes.” “Those arrested today are accused of deploying elaborate tactics to lure thousands of victims with ...

[index] [7497] [39651] [39306] [29686] [17403] [45606] [2834] [48841] [46474] [27850]

Is Bitcoin a Pyramid or Ponzi Scheme?

Like any other currency, BitCoin is designed to be used as money, not as an investment. A Ponzi scheme is a type of confidence scam where people who think they are earning unusually high returns ... This video breaks down why bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, why it's price fluxates, and why $100,000 bitcoin will NEVER happen. If you like my work, please considering donating to my PayPal or becoming ... The Bull vs. Bear Case - Duration: 22:05. Bloomberg Markets and Finance 386,107 views. 22:05. ... Why Bitcoin Is a Ponzi Scheme with David Heinemeier Hansson - Duration: 52:52. Make More Marbles ... Bitcoin is NOT a Ponzi scheme. MaiView 20190719 MaiCoin Group. Loading... Unsubscribe from MaiCoin Group? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 1.17K. Loading ... Remove all; Disconnect; The next video is starting

#