Coin of the Magi is a peer-to-peer global currency that enables instant payments to anyone in the world. XMG utilizes proof-of-work and proof-of-stake systems and is CPU and eco focussed - rewards reduce as hash increases.
/r/BitcoinAll supports XT/Unlimited/SV clients and recommends all hobby miners (like myself) to use pools that run this software (Bitcoin.com, SV POOL). Say no to Amaury Coin/Yang Coin. Believe in Satoshi's Vision. Run Bitcoin.
Core ideologically opposes cryptocurrency. They only care about a single software implementation of a single currency. They don't care about the ideology that caused Satoshi to create bitcoin or the community that embraced it. If an alt client or currency wins, they'll pout and go home. Pa /r/btc
You'd have to have at least one participant who has access to the paywalled content, but ideally many more than that who can all participate in tossing the content back over the paywall.
You would need to have an immutable and accessible place to put the paywalled content so that other people could point their browsers to that location and see the same content that they would if they were looking at the source.
As noted, you'd want to eliminate as much legal risk as possible. That goes for both the content "suppliers" and the content "consumers" (or, Robinhood and those he gives to).
I am not sure exactly what would happen if I just started copying and pasting paywalled content on, say, Reddit, but I am pretty sure it would catch up with me eventually because I am explicitly re-publishing. This solution would need to be so foolproof that it would put those who would otherwise enforce against it in an untenable position. So, bear with me, here's what I want to know: how flawed, immoral, antisocial, and generally lacking is the following idea? My suspicion is that it is a pretty bad idea and is also pretty naive, but it's still been fun to think about and maybe some of you would like to discuss it. I am interested in any implications that come to mind. ~ The idea: If you want to participate in this scheme, you install a browser extension. If you have access to any paywalled content, then every time you visit a page and view that content, the browser extension grabs the text and compresses it to its smallest possible representation. Next, the browser extension make the smallest possible arbitrary transaction on the blockchain (looks to be about $0.06 currently), and stores as much of the article as it can fit in the OP_RETURN field, which is basically just a blank field for arbitrary text and currently has a size limit of 256 bytes (Note: There are tons of similar ways to accomplish the same thing, any many better blockchains for this use case. I just don't really keep up with the smaller blockchains and think that we can use the Bitcoin blockchain as a simple way to demonstrate the idea). It may take a few transactions to store an entire article, but once it's part of the blockchain, it's there forever, and anyone who would want to subsequently view that article would only need to have access to the indices of the transactions and software that can de-compress the OP_RETURN values and reconstruct the article. I imagine this would also happen in the browser extension. In this way, it's a lot like private torrent trackers. Everybody shares what they have access to, and the pieces of data that comprise the underlying media fly around the network freely. The software client is responsible for piecing them together and making the data cohesive for a given end user. Today, a torrent client is completely legal, but having pirated media on your computer is not. Also, I'm pretty sure that opening your media collection to peers is also illegal, but I'm not actually sure. Using the blockchain as the storage mechanism changes the calculus a little bit. You're not storing any pirated data on your machine, rather, you are stashing bits and pieces of it in a decentralized ledger, which nobody owns, meaning that nobody is really accountable for it. It's also impossible to take down. The question of legality here is something like "are you allowed to include copyrighted works in transaction text on the blockchain?". And if not, how many chunks would the article need to be broken apart into to make it no long "The Article", but rather just pieces of arbitrary data which, if put together in the right order, would happen to reproduce "The Article"? Someone who is more knowledgable than I am would need to chime in here. ~ I wanted to get a sense of if this is even practical so I grabbed the text from a NYT article called "Opinion | No, the Democrats Haven’t Gone Over the Edge" by David Brooks. After running the text through 1000 rounds of compression I got it down to 2702 bytes. The current OP_RETURN size limit for a BTC transaction is 256 bytes, so you would need to make around 10 transactions to store this single article. And each transaction has a fee that goes to miners, which appears to be around 128 satoshis/byte according to https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimato The BTC sent in a given transaction is recoverable, because it could be sent to a wallet that is owned by the sender, but the fees are unavoidable. Given the current rate, storing a NYT Opinion article on the Bitcoin blockchain, forever, would cost about 2707 * 128 Satoshis, or roughly $37. So my immediate thought is wow that's expensive. I also know that it's frowned upon by the Bitcoin community and would be perceived as antagonistic by the miners. But my guess is that there's a better way to accomplish the same thing (again, off-chain transactions or using a totally different blockchain such as Ethereum, or BSV). In fact, in "The unfuckening of OP_RETURN", Shadders shows that one can practically store up to 100kb of text in a given BSV transaction (BSV is a fork of bitcoin, which aims to align more with Satoshi's "original" vision). The result of Shadders experiment? Well, here's the complete prequel to "Alice and Wonderland" in a single transaction, on the blockchain, forever: https://whatsonchain.com/tx/ef21e71d00b9fce174222e679640b09e29ac8a55f321c93e64b16cc3109959f8 Good thing Alice and Wonderland is in the public domain, right? Or... should it even matter what's "public" and what's "paywalled"? What do you think?
Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking
thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020. The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more. In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000. DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain. While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO. Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud. On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams. His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund. Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity. You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race? I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned. I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated. Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well? Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse. Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump. In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly? Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.” We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was. You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business? All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups. were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that? Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases. Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case. You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not? Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn. You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN? I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles. In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad? I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses. Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there? My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information. [Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”] What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer?[Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.] I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak? I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored. What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein? I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality? I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right? [Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.] Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy. You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean? “Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it. I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice. Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests? I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests. My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality. Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that? I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability. [Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.] You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that. Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa. I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people. You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City? I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future. You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship? No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions. What do you think the investigation will find? I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad. [Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”] But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details. [Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.] We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that? I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert? You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room. Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here. She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time? Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job. During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart? I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans. Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election? Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention. Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material? Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.” [Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.] So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser. Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is? We all are Satoshi Nakamoto. You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man? I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend. OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
Updated list of Global Beermoney opportunities (+180!) - June 2020
Updated list of Global Beermoney opportunities (+180!) - June 2020
The current, and now previous, Beermoney Global list started nearly 5 years ago. It’s been updated and has grown over all that time, but it also became a hassle to keep current. It was time to build a new list from scratch based on my experience in the Beermoney world over all these years and all the contributions all of you have been making in this sub. The lists consist of opportunities that are available in at least one country that is not the US. This means there are sites which only work in Canada or the UK. There’s sites which are open to the whole world, but this does not mean everyone can really earn something on it. It’s all still very demographic and therefore location dependent. This list should give you a starting point to try out and find what works for you. I’m not using everything myself as I prefer to focus on a few, so not all are tested by me. They are found in this sub, other subreddits and other resources where people claim to have success. I’ve chosen the format of a simple table with the bare minimum of information to keep things clean. It includes a link, how you earn, personal payment proof if available and sign-up bonus codes if applicable. Some of these bonuses are also one-time use codes specifically made for this sub! For the ones I don’t have payment proof (yet) feel free to provide some as a comment or via modmail so others know it’s legit. I am working on detailed instructions for each method that I personally use which will include things like cashout minimum, cashout options, tips & tricks,... For now I’ve split things up based on the type of earning like passive or mobile. Because of this there’s sometimes an overlap as some are both passive and on mobile or both earning crypto and a GPT (Get Paid To) website. The lists are obviously not complete so I invite you to keep posting new ones in the sub, as a comment to this post, or in modmail. Especially if you have sites or apps which work for one single specific country I can start building a list, just like I did for The Netherlands and Belgium. If you recognize things which are in fact scams or not worth it let me know as well.
Get Paid To (Surveys, tasks, offers, videos, clicking links, play games, searching)
For The Netherlands there are a few very good options next to a bunch of ‘spaarprogramma’s. There ‘spaarprogramma’s are all the same where you receive and click a bunch of e-mails, advertisements, banners,... I advise you to create a separate e-mail address or use a good filter in your inbox as you will be spammed to death. I believe they can be a nice piece of beermoney but they take quite the effort.
Payment processing has always been the biggest strain on the online gambling industry. Changing regulatory environments have sent casinos into a tailspin when they find out their main source of deposits is suddenly not available to them. In other cases, when an online casino finds a company willing to take them on as a client, the rates they are charged are as close to robbery as can be; this ends up cutting margins down to a bare minimum, making running an online casino less of an enticing career move. The introduction of crypto-currency over the last few years has shown some signs of promise in the online gaming space. As the general public gets more accustomed to the idea of Bitcoin and its uses, we will see it adopted across more traditional purchasing. The gaming industry has adopted the technology from the start, with several Bitcoin-only sites popping up in 2013 and beyond. Recently, many providers have added cryptocurrency to their traditional payment methods, offering special bonuses for players to use the option. Golden Star Casino is one of the true hybrid casinos when it comes to payments. As you will see in the review, the casino has integrated Bitcoin into all facets of their operations, from games to payments to promotions. This is a great way for players who aren’t familiar with the product to be able to give it a try without committing to a Bitcoin-only site.
About Golden Star Casino
Golden Star Casino is owned and operated by Jubise International N.V. Casinos, a Curacao based company. Established in 2012, the company also has a gaming license from the Curacao Gaming Authority. This license isn’t exactly rock-solid for players; the country tends to turn a blind eye to company behavior until it is too late. With the license, however, Jubise is able to attract the payment processors and software vendors it needs to provide you with a positive gaming experience at their site. >>Claim Your Free Spins Bonus<<
Who Can Play at Golden Star Casino?
Even though the company is licensed in Curacao, which would clearly give the impression that they would take players from the U.S., Golden Star doesn’t allow Americans to deposit or gamble. Well, actually… there is a way, but you need to be aware of what you are getting into. It seems that U.S. players who use Bitcoin to deposit can actually create real money accounts and play at the tables. However, there have been several instances of players trying to withdraw their funds which, once it was determined they were in the U.S., had those funds confiscated and accounts closed. It is hard to say if you can withdraw right into your Bitcoin account without it being detected, but for the time being, I do not advise you try this from the States unless you are willing to take the risk that your deposit may be taken away from you. As for other restricted countries, here is the list:
Also, please bear in mind that certain software suppliers restrict what countries are allowed to access their games. As a result, you may find some of the games written about in this review are not actually available in your country. The best thing to do is to create an account, and you will be able to see all the options for your casino play.
As mentioned, Golden Star has chosen to work with several software partners for their brand. This is excellent news for you; the company has chosen a broad spectrum of vendors including some of the most prestigious in the industry. You can find games from the following companies currently at Golden Star Casino:
The casino games at Golden Star are available in a no-download format, meaning you can play them instantly through your browser. Many of the games are also formatted to be able to be played on most mobile phones or tablets, allowing you to take your casino experience on the move with you no matter where you are. >>Claim Your Free Spins Bonus<<
The Good Stuff
I love a casino that not only has several progressive jackpots available for its players but one who isn’t shy about telling you who has won them. At Golden Star, you can select from over 20 different jackpot games, and if you look on their jackpots page, there is a scrolling bar of recent winners; no one like to see that a jackpot isn’t paying out. Give some of their jackpot games a go if you want to get a little something extra out of your slots experience.
This is an interesting option for players; there are slots in the casino lobby that are designed for Bitcoin-only play. Why would a casino do this? Well, with the fluctuating value of Bitcoin these days, players may not want to get hosed on exchange rates. Also, this is an excellent way to have players learn about Bitcoin by having to think regarding the cryptocurrency throughout their entire casino experience. Satoshi’s Secret is the most popular Bitcoin game in the industry, and you can try it at Golden Star Casino for free if you like to get a feel for the slot machine.
The Bad Stuff
Complaints about Terms and Conditions
No one likes to see complaints about an online casino, and many times I can dismiss them as individuals who are just upset that they lost their money. However, there are recurring concerns about the changing Terms and Conditions at Golden Star Casino. The company denies that they have made any changes without letting their players know, and have taken a strong stance on that accusation. I will continue to monitor that situation; if I find it to be actually happening, then it will be a big strike against the casino.
Games limited by Country
I’ll add this to the Bad Stuff because I live in Canada, and as a result, I am not able to access some of the better games that Golden Star Casino has on their site. While I totally understand why the casino isn’t allowed to offer all their games to all their players, it would be beneficial to have this information laid out in a clear manner somewhere on their website. I would much rather know going in instead of reading a review like this only to find out a game I love is not available when I make my deposit.
As I mentioned, you will find over 900 games at Golden Star Casino. I am going to take a look at all the different categories in more detail for you now.
It isn’t surprising to hear that the majority of available games in the Golden Star Casino lobby are slots games – this goes for almost every casino in the industry, whether online or land-based. However, having the multiple providers allows this casino to provide you several different looks to their slots catalog. They range from the fantastic content of the Microgaming slots to the 3D slot games that made Betsoft famous.
The table games options at Golden Star Casino are a bit underwhelming considering how many suppliers the company has partnered with. Now, I may be missing some of the table games because of where I am reviewing the site from; all accounts are that they aren’t using Microgaming or NetEnt for games outside North America.
Along the same theme, there aren’t as many video poker variants as I would like to see at Golden Star Casino. I know that I am in the minority when it comes to video poker; I like the game more than most people do. Still, an online casino should easily be able to offer as many games as they can. Maybe they will read this review and add some from their vendors; I know they are available!
One area where Golden Star Casino has apparently spent some time in development is in the Specialty Games offering. Using their partners like Quickfire, the casino gives you many different types of games to play that are not like the typical table games and slots. Many of these games have worse chances of coming out a winner, but I always consider them to be a nice way to take a break from a long session at the Blackjack table.
Golden Star Casino has selected Ezugi as their Live Dealer provider. While the studios and dealers used by Ezugi are quite nice, there isn’t much in the way of selection from a games perspective. You can play the following games via the Live Dealer function:
The promotions at Golden Star are pretty bland overall. They are focused on the deposit bonuses as their primary form of attracting to you to their brand. Here is an overview of the bonuses currently available on the website:
First Deposit Bonus
100% up to €100 or 100 mBTC + 100 FREE SPINS
Make your first deposit in Golden Star Casino and get up to €100 or 100 mBTC and 100 free spins in the Lucky Sweets slot
Second Deposit Bonus
75% up to €100 or 100 mBTC
Keep having fun! Make your second deposit, and we will refill your balance up to €100 or 100 mBTC.
Third Deposit Bonus
50% up to €100 or 100 mBTC
More and more bonuses for you! Get up to €100 or 100 mBTC on third deposit! The company does have one ongoing bonus for players who play on the weekend. They have a “Have A Nice Weekend” recurring bonus of 50% up to $50 or 50 mBTC. Overall, it is pretty disappointing to see no leaderboard or jackpot promotions, especially given how many games they could use for these types of offers.
Golden Star Casino does have a large selection of tournaments running on a daily and weekly basis. For someone who gets bored with slots play pretty quickly, I enjoy the tournament concept; if I go on a long run, I can make some additional cash, and it is the only way I actually see any other screen names while I am at the casino. >>Claim Your Free Spins Bonus<<
As I have discussed many times in this review, the company seems to be very focused on making you a Bitcoin user, offering special games and bonuses for players who use the cryptocurrency. Golden Star does also have traditional payment methods available to its players; of course, each will be restricted by what countries are available. The most up-to-date payment methods for your country will be listed in the cashier section of the lobby after you login to your account.
Bank Wire Transfer
Golden Star Casino does offer its players a hybrid Comp/VIP program. In essence, this is a comp program that has tiers to it, giving you more enticing conversion rates for your comp points. While I am a big fan of casinos that give you comp points that you can cash in for real money, I am disappointed that there isn’t more to the VIP part of the program. I am hopeful that there is a more individual program that they just don’t advertise. Here are the levels of the system and what conversion rates come with each level.
New Star – (0-149 CP) – no exchange
Bronze – (150-999 CP) – 14:1 Exchange
Silver – (1000-4999 CP) – 13:1 Exchange
Golden – (5000-14,999 CP) – 12:1 Exchange
Platinum – (15,000-29,999 CP) – 11:1 Exchange
Diamond – (30,000 CP) – 10:1 Exchange
Customer Service at Golden Star is available three ways: a web form on the Support page of their website, email or Live Chat. There is no phone number to reach the casino at this point; the only way to get a hold of them in real time is via the Live Chat function. >>Claim Your Free Spins Bonus<<
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
Internet del dinero Josué Aquino – AB15002 El dinero, en sí mismo, no tiene valor real; puede ser una concha, una moneda de metal o un trozo de papel. Su valor es simbólico; transmite la importancia que la gente le da. El dinero deriva su valor en virtud de sus funciones: como medio de cambio, unidad de medida y depósito de riqueza. El dinero permite que las personas intercambien bienes y servicios de manera indirecta, ayuda a comunicar el precio de los bienes (los precios escritos en dólares y centavos corresponden a una cantidad numérica en su posesión, es decir, en su bolsillo, bolso o billetera) y les brinda a las personas un forma de almacenar su riqueza a largo plazo. El dinero es valioso simplemente porque todos saben que será aceptado como forma de pago. Sin embargo, a lo largo de la historia, tanto el uso como la forma del dinero han evolucionado. Si bien la mayoría de las veces, los términos "dinero" y "moneda" se usan indistintamente, hay varias teorías que sugieren que estos términos no son idénticos. Según algunas teorías, el dinero es inherentemente un concepto intangible, mientras que la moneda es la manifestación física (tangible) del concepto intangible de dinero. Por extensión, según esta teoría, el dinero no se puede tocar ni oler. La forma básica de dinero son los números; hoy en día, la forma básica de moneda son los billetes de papel, las monedas o las tarjetas de plástico (por ejemplo, tarjetas de crédito o débito). Si bien esta distinción entre dinero y moneda es importante en algunos contextos, para propósitos de este ensayo los terminos se utilizarán sin distinción. El dinero, de alguna manera, ha sido parte de la historia de la humanidad durante al menos los últimos 3000 años. Antes de ese momento, los historiadores generalmente están de acuerdo en que probablemente se utilizó un sistema de trueque. El trueque es un comercio directo de bienes y servicios; por ejemplo, un agricultor puede cambiar una fanega de trigo por un par de zapatos de un zapatero. Sin embargo, estos arreglos llevan tiempo. Si está intercambiando un hacha como parte de un acuerdo en el que se supone que la otra parte debe matar a un mamut lanudo, debe encontrar a alguien que piense que un hacha es un comercio justo por tener que enfrentarse a los colmillos de 12 pies de un mamut. Si esto no funciona, tendrá que modificar el trato hasta que alguien esté de acuerdo con los términos. Lentamente, se desarrolló a lo largo de los siglos un tipo de moneda, que involucra artículos de fácil comercio como pieles de animales, sal y armas. Estos bienes comercializados sirvieron como medio de intercambio (aunque el valor de cada uno de estos artículos todavía era negociable en muchos casos). Este sistema de comercio se extendió por todo el mundo y todavía sobrevive hoy en algunas partes del mundo. Uno de los mayores logros de la introducción del dinero fue el aumento de la velocidad a la que se podían realizar negocios, ya fuera matanza de mamuts o construcción de monumentos. Alrededor del 700 a. C., los chinos pasaron de las monedas al papel moneda. Algunas partes de Europa todavía usaban monedas de metal como su única forma de moneda hasta el siglo XVI. Esto fue ayudado por sus esfuerzos coloniales; la adquisición de nuevos territorios a través de la conquista europea les proporcionó nuevas fuentes de metales preciosos y les permitió seguir acuñando una mayor cantidad de monedas. Sin embargo, los bancos finalmente comenzaron a usar billetes de papel al rededor del siglo 16 para que los depositantes y prestatarios los llevaran en lugar de monedas de metal. Estos billetes pueden llevarse al banco en cualquier momento y cambiarse por su valor nominal en monedas de metal, generalmente plata u oro. El primer papel moneda emitido por gobiernos europeos fue en realidad emitido por gobiernos coloniales en América del Norte. Debido a que los envíos entre Europa y las colonias de América del Norte tomaban tanto tiempo, los colonos a menudo se quedaban sin efectivo a medida que se expandían las operaciones. En lugar de volver a un sistema de trueque, los gobiernos coloniales emitieron pagarés que se negociaban como moneda. La primera instancia fue en Canadá (entonces colonia francesa). En 1685, los soldados recibieron naipes denominados y firmados por el gobernador para usarlos como efectivo en lugar de monedas de Francia. La competencia entre países a menudo conducía a guerras de divisas, en las que los países competidores intentaban cambiar el valor de la moneda de la competencia elevándola y encareciendo demasiado los bienes del enemigo, reduciéndola y reduciendo el poder adquisitivo del enemigo (y la capacidad de pago). para una guerra), o eliminando la moneda por completo. Pagos móviles El siglo XXI ha dado lugar a dos formas novedosas de moneda: los pagos móviles y la moneda virtual. Los pagos móviles son dinero que se paga por un producto o servicio a través de un dispositivo electrónico portátil, como un teléfono celular, un teléfono inteligente o una tableta. La tecnología de pago móvil también se puede utilizar para enviar dinero a amigos o familiares. Cada vez más, servicios como Apple Pay y Google Pay están compitiendo para que los minoristas acepten sus plataformas para pagos en el punto de venta. Moneda virtual Como todos saben, Bitcoin es muy popular hoy en día, pero este no era el caso en el pasado. Su inicio se remonta a 2008. El dominio Bitcoin.org fue registrado ese año por un precursor anónimo. Así empezó todo y pasado un tiempo la entidad conocida como Satoshi Nakamoto hizo historia. Más tarde ese mismo año, el 31 de octubre se publicó el libro blanco de Bitcoin llamado “Bitcoin-A peer-to-peer electronic cash system”. En noviembre, el documento se distribuyó a través de una lista de correo. El año que viene, el 3 de enero, Nakamoto, crea el bloque fundador de la cadena de bloques de Bitcoin llamado Genesis Block. El Genesis Block viene con 50 BTC que no se pueden gastar y generó la creación de otros bloques. Se tarda un promedio de 10 minutos en crear nuevos bloques. Sin embargo, se necesitaron 6 días para agregar el siguiente bloque a la cadena de bloques. Varias teorías explican por qué fue así. El más interesante afirma que Satoshi esperó 6 días para imitar el Génesis en la Biblia. La primera transacción de Bitcoin se realizó el 22 de mayo de 2010. Laszlo Hanyecz, uno de los contribuyentes al proyecto, compró 2 pizzas de Papa John's por 10,000 BTC. Esta transacción fue el hito del fenómeno Bitcoin que conocemos hoy. ¿Cómo funciona una transacción en la red BTC? Supongamos que una persona A le quiere enviar bitcoins a una persona B. Por lo general, una transacción en la red BTC consiste de tres elementos: Una entrada, una cantidad y una salida. Por entrada se entiende el registro de la dirección BTC de la cual la persona A le mandará dinero a la persona B, tenemos también la cantidad de BTC que la persona A le quiere mandar a la persona B y finalmente la salida, es decir, la llave pública de la persona B, conocida comúnmente como “dirección bictoin”. El envío de BTC requiere tener acceso a las claves públicas y privadas asociadas con esa cantidad de bitcoin. Cuando se habla de alguien que tiene bitcoins, lo que realmente se quiere decir es que esa persona tiene acceso a un par de claves compuesto por:
Una clave pública a la que se envió previamente cierta cantidad de bitcoins
La clave privada única correspondiente que autoriza que el BTC enviado previamente a la clave de publicación anterior se envíe a otro lugar.
Las claves públicas, también llamadas direcciones de bitcoin, son secuencias aleatorias de letras y números que funcionan de manera similar a una dirección de correo electrónico o al nombre de usuario de un sitio de redes sociales. Son públicos, por lo que está seguro de compartirlos con otros. De hecho, se debe dar la dirección de Bitcoin a otras personas cuando se quiera recibir BTC. La clave privada es otra secuencia de letras y números. Sin embargo, las claves privadas, como las contraseñas de correo electrónico u otras cuentas, deben mantenerse en secreto. Todas las transacciones de Bitcoin deben ser verificadas por mineros en la cadena de bloques. Los mineros no extraen transacciones; extraen bloques que son colecciones de transacciones. A veces, la transacción se deja fuera del bloque actual y se pone en espera hasta que se ensambla la siguiente. El protocolo Bitcoin ajusta dinámicamente los requisitos para que cada bloque tarde aproximadamente 10 minutos en extraerse. Otra razón para los tiempos de confirmación prolongados es que los bloques están limitados a 1 MB por el protocolo Bitcoin actual. Este límite arbitrario puede incrementarse pero por el momento limita la cantidad de transacciones que pueden ingresar a un bloque, lo que ralentiza efectivamente los tiempos de confirmación y, por extensión, toda la red Bitcoin. La principal ventaja de usar Bitcoin es que es tanto dinero digital como red de pago. El block chain de Bitcoin no puede funcionar sin BTC y viceversa. Tal sistema puede operar sin intermediarios, funcionarios gubernamentales, economistas monetarios y otros intermediarios o reguladores. Básicamente, Bitcoin es la primera implementación exitosa de efectivo global peer-to-peer que permite a todos almacenar e intercambiar valor con otros, sin importar quién o dónde se encuentren. Sin embargo, Bitcoin sí tiene supervisión regulatoria y la conveniencia de los instrumentos financieros tradicionales. El precio de Bitcoin es bastante volátil y es poco probable que cambie en el corto plazo. Además, la red aún se está desarrollando y no coincide con la eficiencia y facilidad de uso que ofrecen los bancos y los servicios financieros relacionados. La banca y el acceso a ella Por siglos, la banca ha servido como una herramienta económica poderosa para poder avanzar como sociedad, la cual servia y sirve para proveer servicios financieros. La herramienta que sirvió historicamente como avance de la sociedad se puede percibir como cada vez menos útil, con el avance de tecnologías y al mismo tiempo con el cambio de perspectiva por los dueños y líderes a nivel mundial. Según la Reserva Federal de los Estados Unidos, la mayoría de personas con las que no cuentan con servicios bancarios son más fácilmente encontrados en los grupos de menor ingresos, menor educación o que son de un grupo racial o étnico minoritario. En países como Camerún, para abrir una cuenta bancaria son requeridos más de 700 dólares, una cifra mucho mayor al PIB per cápita de ese país. En contraste, en paises como Sudáfrica o Suazilandia no tienen montos mínimos para abrir una cuenta. La tecnología de la información cambia rápidamente día a día. Ha llevado al desarrollo de servicios más flexibles para el cliente. El rápido crecimiento de usuarios y la cobertura más amplia de las redes de telefonía móvil han convertido a este canal en una plataforma importante para extender los servicios bancarios a los clientes. Con el rápido crecimiento en el número de suscriptores de teléfonos móviles, los bancos han estado explorando la viabilidad de utilizar teléfonos móviles como un canal alternativo de prestación de servicios bancarios. El surgimiento de nuevas tecnologías, además del alza de monedas como Bitcoin, dan lugar a un mayor acceso a servicios financieros por parte de sectores que han sido vistos de menos históricamente. Para crear una billetera (wallet) Bitcoin, no tiene coste alguno y la minería hace posible el aprovechamiento de los recursos tecnológicos con el cual alguna persona pueda contar, aunque posiblemente con el auge de la minería no se llege a generar mucho. Privacidad en la red BTC “¿Qué pasaría si cada vez que gasta o recibe efectivo, todos los detalles de la transacción se publican en su cuenta de Twitter o Facebook para que todos sus amigos los vean? Probablemente ya no desee utilizar efectivo.” Bitcoin no es completamente anónimo ni completamente transparente. El enigma de la privacidad de Bitcoin existe en un área gris donde el desenmascaramiento de la actividad financiera de un usuario depende en última instancia de las capacidades de la persona que quiera obtener dicha información y la sofisticación del usuario y su elección de herramientas. No existe una solución de privacidad perfecta para ninguna actividad en Internet y, en muchos casos, las opciones conscientes de la privacidad conllevan compensaciones tanto en el costo como en la facilidad de uso cuando no existe una solución única para todos. Además, la privacidad nunca es algo estático, sino que evoluciona continuamente y en respuesta a la batalla entre quienes crean herramientas para proteger la privacidad y quienes crean herramientas para destruirla. El protocolo de Bitcoin en sí mismo evoluciona con el tiempo, lo que puede provocar cambios drásticos en sus propiedades de privacidad. Los cambios en el protocolo central rara vez son opciones simples entre la privacidad y la transparencia por sí solas, pero a menudo vienen acompañadas de cambios en la seguridad, escalabilidad y compatibilidad con versiones anteriores del software. Históricamente, la tendencia y el espíritu dentro de la comunidad de Bitcoin siempre ha favorecido la privacidad sobre la transparencia, pero de manera más conservadora en comparación con otras criptomonedas donde la privacidad es el enfoque principal. Como resultado, los activistas o periodistas que están considerando usar bitcoin para escapar de las miradas indiscretas de un gobierno autoritario o una corporación deben comprender qué tipo de rastros dejan cuando lo usan y si la naturaleza de privacidad de bitcoin es suficiente para su necesidades. Sin embargo, lograr esta comprensión requiere cierto esfuerzo. Conclusiones En el avance de la sociedad se puede observar también el avance de los mecanismos para poder mantener un control de los recursos, ya sea en forma de un cambio directo (trueque) o con la entrada de dinero que puede representar cantidades de algún recurso necesario. El dinero no es nada más que números, es una abstracción y es como un juego de confianza a gran escala. Hoy en día sigue avanzando gracias a la contribución de criptomonedas y de un mayor acceso a servicios financieros por parte de personas que antes se les negaba dicho acceso, o más bien, no entraban en los requisitos. Bitcoin ha llegado a romper el esquema antiguo de banca y a revolucionar la forma como hacemos negocios.
[FULL ANALYSIS] Bitcoin exchanges and payment processors in Canada are now regulated as Money Service Businesses
Hello Bitcoiners! Many of you saw my tweet yesterday about the Bitcoin regulations in Canada. As usual, some journalists decided to write articles about my tweets without asking me for the full context :P Which means there has been a lot of misunderstanding. Particuarly, these regulations mean that we can lower the KYC requirements and no longer require ID documents or bank account connections! We can also increase the daily transaction limit from $3,000 per day to $10,000 per day for unverified accounts. The main difference is that we now have a $1,000 per-transaction limit (instead of per day) and we must report suspicious transactions. It's important to read about our reporting requirements, as it is the main difference since pretty much every exchange was doing KYC anyway. Hopefully you appreciate the transparency, and I'm available for questions! Cheers, Francis ********************************************* Text below is copied from: https://medium.com/bull-bitcoin/bitcoin-exchanges-and-payment-processors-in-canada-are-now-regulated-as-money-service-businesses-1ca820575511
Bitcoin is money, regulated like money
Notice to Canadian Bitcoin users
If you are the user of a Canadian Bitcoin company, be assured that:
These regulations only target virtual currency exchanges and virtual currency transmitters (e.g. payment processors, custodial wallets).
No action on your part is currently required. It is businesses that have to comply, not users.
You may notice that the exchange service you are using has change its transactions limits or is now requiring more information from you. You can stop reading this email now without any consequence! Otherwise, keep regarding if you are interested in my unique insights into this important topic!
Background on regulation
Today marks an important chapter for Bitcoin’s history in Canada: Bitcoin is officially regulated as money (virtual currency) under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act of Canada (PCMLTFA), under the jurisdiction of the Financial Transaction and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). This is the culmination of 5 years of effort by numerous Bitcoin Canadian advocates collaborating with the Ministry of Finance, Fintrac and other Canadian government agencies. It is important to note that there is no new Bitcoin law in Canada. In June of 2014, the Governor General of Canada (representing Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) gave royal asset to Bill C-31, voted by parliament under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which included amendments to the PCMLTFA to included Bitcoin companies (named “dealers in virtual currency”) as a category of Money Service Businesses. Thereafter, FINTRAC engaged in the process of defining what exactly is meant by “dealing in virtual currency” and what particular rules would apply to the businesses in this category. Much of our work was centred around excluding things like non-custodial wallets, nodes, mining and other activities that were not related exchange or payments processing. To give an idea, the other categories that apply to traditional fiat currency businesses are:
Foreign exchange dealing
Remitting or transmitting funds
Issuing or deeming money order or similar negotiable instruments
When we say that Bitcoin is now regulated, what we mean is that these questions have been settled, officially published, and that they are now legally binding. Businesses that are deemed to be “dealing in virtual currency” must register with FINTRAC as a money service business, just like they would if they were doing traditional currency exchange or payment processing. There is no “license” required, which means that you do not need the government’s approval before you can operate a Bitcoin exchange business. However, when you operate a Money Service Business, you must register and comply with the laws… otherwise you risk jail time and large fines.
What activities are regulated as Money Service Business activity?
A virtual currency exchange transaction is defined as: “an exchange, at the request of another person or entity, of virtual currency for funds, funds for virtual currency or one virtual currency for another.” This includes, but is not limited to:
Bitcoin trading platforms (orderbooks)
Bitcoin exchange platforms (fixed-rate)
Selling or buying Bitcoin OTC professionally
Crypto-to-crypto trading (orderbook, fixed-rate or OTC)
Notice to foreign Bitcoin companies with clients in Canada
Regardless of whether or not your business is based in Canada, you must register with FINTRAC as a Foreign Money Service Business, if:
You direct your MSB services at persons or entities in Canada
The regulation of Bitcoin exchange and payment services has always been inevitable. If we want Bitcoin to be considered as money, we must accept that it will be regulated like other monies. Our stance on the regulation issue has always been that Bitcoin exchanges and payment processors should be regulated like fiat currency exchanges and payment processors, no more, no less. This is the outcome we obtained. To comply with these regulations, we are implementing a few changes to our Know-Your-Customer requirement and transaction limits which may paradoxically make your experience using Bull Bitcoin and Bylls even more private and convenient!
The bad news
We are adding per-transaction limits in addition to daily volume limits.
The per-transaction limit for accounts with limited verification is $1,000 (previously $3000). To conduct transactions over $1,000 you must get your account verified.
We require users to provide their Date of Birth as a requirement to change their verification status to “Verified”.
We require users to provide their Occupation as a requirement to change their verification status to “Verified”.
The good news
We are increasing the daily volume limit from $3,000 to $10,000 for users that have the “limited” account verification status. Users with limited account verification can do multiple transactions as long as they are each below the $1,000 threshold and as long as they don’t exhibit suspicious behavior (see details below).
Identity documents will no longer be required for users that can be identified using their credit files. They will only be required where identification using credit file lookup was inconclusive. This change will take effect later this summer.
Connecting bank accounts to Bull Bitcoin using the flinks bank verification software will no longer be required for users that can be identified using their credit files. This will only be required where identification using credit file lookup was inconclusive. This change will take effect later this summer
The user’s KYC info (name, address, date of birth and occupation)
Suspicious transaction reporting
Satoshi Portal is required to make suspicious transactions report to FINTRAC after we have detected a fact that amounts to reasonable grounds to suspect that one of your transactions is related to the commission or attempted commission of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence. Failure by Satoshi Portal Inc. to report a suspicious transaction could lead to up to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,000,000, or both, for its executives. We are not allowed to share with anyone other than FINTRAC, including our clients, the contents of a suspicious transaction report as well as the fact that a suspicious transaction report has been filed.
What is suspicious activity?
Note forbitcoinca: this section applies ONLY to Bull Bitcoin. Most exchanges have much stricter interpretation of what is suspicious. You should operate under the assumption that using Coinjoin or TOR will get you flagged at some other exchanges even though it's okay for Bull Bitcoin. That is simply because we have a more sophisticated understanding of privacy best practices. Identifying suspicious behavior is heavily dependent on the context of each transaction. We understand and take into account that for many of our customers, privacy and libertarian beliefs are of the utmost importance, and that some users may not know that the behavior they are engaging in is suspicious. When we are concerned or confused about the behaviors of our users, we endeavour to discuss it with them before jumping to conclusions. In general, here are a few tips:
Don’t provide false of misleading information. We will know right away if your date of birth, address and name don’t match.
Don’t try to exploit loopholes in the KYC process.
Don’t transact on behalf of someone else without telling us.
Be cooperative with customer support.
Here are some examples of behavior that we do not consider suspicious:
Coinjoin or other Bitcoin privacy techniques.
Using VPNs, TOR or VOIP phones.
Asking questions about, or criticizing, our privacy policies.
Talking negatively about banks or government.
Here are some example indicators of behavior that would lead us to investigate whether or not a transaction is suspicious:
Making statements about being involved with criminal activity.
Saying you don’t want the government to know about your transactions.
Asking advice about concealing source of funds or tax avoidance.
Funding your account from a bank account that is not in your name.
Conducting transactions on behalf of someone else without telling us.
Trying to falsify your identity or impersonating someone else.
Making multiple bill payments to the same recipient, or multiple Bitcoin purchases, in a way which seems structured specifically to avoid the $1,000 transaction amount KYC threshold.
Continuing to perform transactions that are unnecessarily complex, inefficient and not cost-effective after having been advised otherwise by our staff.
What does this mean for Bitcoin?
It was always standard practice for Bitcoin companies to operate under the assumption they would eventually be regulated and adopt policies and procedures as if they were already regulated. The same practices used for legal KYC were already commonplace to mitigate fraud (chargebacks). In addition, law enforcement and other government agencies in Canada were already issuing subpoenas and information requests to Bitcoin companies to obtain the information of users that were under investigation. We suspect that cash-based Bitcoin exchanges, whether Bitcoin ATMs, physical Bitcoin exchanges or Peer-to-Peer trading, will be the most affected since they will no longer be able to operate without KYC and the absence of KYC was the primary feature that allowed them to justify charging such high fees and exchange rate premiums. One thing is certain, as of today, there is no ambiguity whatsoever that Bitcoin is 100% legal and regulated in Canada!
SODL. It's been swell, but the swelling's gone down.
Those familiar with this username already know that I've been involved with Bitcoin since 2012. I purchased my first satoshi before $1k/BTC had ever been seen. I spent years creating developer solutions and electronic products designed to leverage Bitcoin's capability to facilitate frictionless Internet payments and that same time explaining Bitcoin to family, friends, internet buddies, fellow gamers, and anyone else that would listen. Over time, that capability for frictionless payment dried up. First lack of space in blocks rendered the primary consumer solution I'd been developing as totally useless. There is no point in developing a risk assessment system when the thing being assessed is too risky to justify instant commerce. I feared Bitcoin had met an untimely end at the hands of self-important developers and lazy entitled miners, but was relieved to know that the BTCFORK project was alive and ready to continue the Bitcoin experiment in the form of what would later be called Bitcoin Cash (BCH). When the fork hit, I was all in from day one. I traded out everything, forked my coins and recovered every satoshi of BCH I could muster. At one lofty point in my life, I had the rare claim to have actually possessed 21 BCH in the same wallet at the same time. I continued developing and introducing people to BCH. I explained to my family and friends the schism and the thought processes that lead me to use BCH instead of BTC. I spent countless hours justifying its existence to a general public that is uninterested in technical details or freedom from potential government seizures and simply want money that works. Unfortunately, no crypto has never seemed to hold this goal in high esteem. As time has marched onward and progress has continued to be stymied by drama between more self-important developers and lazy entitled miners, I have finally realized why the Bitcoin experiment failed, and how we got here. Bitcoin's design relies on one very important aspect: that miners behave as rational, long-term-invested economic actors. This would infer that over time, mining organizations will dedicate resources to developing in-house mining solutions and manage them with the same level of interest as a big box store manages their inventory. In short, it would make sense for miners to invest in their own closed-source development, based on the open-source reference client. This would create competition between compatible implementations maintained by groups that are self-invested in their interoperability and suitability for consumer use. This did not happen, of course. Miners took the lazy, short-term-interested approach of "just run the software, don't care how it works or how well" and left the actual work of looking out for and maintaining the security of the chain to the unpaid open-source developers. This was a recipe for failure years ago and is the same recipe BCH has chosen to follow today. The IFP is simply a physical manifestation of this problem: since devs are not miners, Amaury et. al. are now expecting pay for their work in keeping those miners afloat, and rightly so. But they never should have been doing it in the first place; that was the miners' responsibility the whole time. If you're in an emergent industry running emergent software, you kind of have a responsibility to maintain that software out of pocket. This applies double for high-security software such as financial software. Lazy miners that can't even invest in their own software infrastructure are not trustworthy enough to be relied upon for the security of my funds. Bitcoin has already failed; and with that clearly observable failure I have sold the remainder of my cryptocurrency, unsubscribed from this and other subreddits, removed various forum accounts, and ceased usage of any remaining services built to work with Bitcoin-style digital signatures. It's been a wild ride. I even made a nice chunk of money along the way. It was fun and fascinating and eye-opening and educational and profitable; but for me, it's over. The success of global peer-to-peer digital cash has already been thwarted, and that's all I ever came for. Greg Maxwell didn't do this. Amaury Sechet didn't do this. Jihan Wu didn't do this. Roger Ver didn't do this. Theymos didn't do this. All those miners, all those mining pools, all those people that have been actively profiting off the system by running freely provided software and giving back only blocks in return: they are at fault for this failure. It is too late to turn back; the IFP is effectively a cork in a crumbling dam, a half-assed solution to a double-donkey problem. The dream is over, at least for me, and so I'll be moving on now. The transition to crypto was troublesome and full of problems. I was on a 100% crypto budget for years and even found myself paying a premium for the "convenience". Funnily enough, the transition back to fiat was amazingly smooth and I actually made money on the way back. Sorry, guys - at the end of the day, fiat does what crypto doesn't. I see the writing on the wall - and now I add my final scrawl. Goodbye, everyone.
As promised in our previous article, we wanted to provide some extra clarity on Bitcoin Unlimited financial choices. We wanted to do this as there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation within the community as to the reasons behind these choices. It has been claimed by a small number of influential people in the ecosystem that Bitcoin Unlimited does not support BCH (see the previous article debunking this claim) and that BU’s holdings are supposedly evidence of this. Background Bitcoin Unlimited was founded in 2015, and was set up as a response to the Bitcoin block size debate. More specifically, it was created to provide software that allowed on-chain scaling as originally proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto. As we all know, on-chain scaling is a vital component required for peer-to-peer electronic cash to serve the world’s population. Without it Bitcoin would be limited to serving only a small number of people willing and able to pay exorbitantly high fees. Our organisation was created to make Bitcoin unlimited. This prediction of high fees and limited capacity was played out in the BTC we know today as we predicted. Bitcoin Unlimited received a large anonymous donation in BTC in 2016 from supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. This donation allowed our organisation to remain independent and focussed on building software that allows on-chain scaling. As you all know, in August of 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created after an unsuccessful multi-year effort to allow Bitcoin (BTC) to scale on-chain. Bitcoin Cash was created with the goal of on-chain scaling to support the world’s population right at its heart and BU has been supporting it since the idea was originally formulated. Once Bitcoin Cash was created it also meant that all funds Bitcoin Unlimited held (BTC) were forked into two equal sets of coins, BTC and BCH. This put BU into a position where we had to make an important decision on how to handle these funds in a way that was in the interest of both BCH and BU.
Any organisation that wants to be effective in its goals must aim to always be financially sustainable. Without money, achieving anything becomes significantly more difficult. Cryptocurrencies only magnify this issue even further. Highly volatile asset values, opaque and dynamic tax and regulatory environments, and the unique properties of cryptocurrencies all contribute towards making the financial operations of an organisation an extreme challenge to say the least. Navigating this challenging landscape is a necessary requirement for the success of any organisation within our industry though. While Bitcoin Unlimited’s primary goal is to make sure peer-to-peer electronic cash (as set out in the Bitcoin white-paper) becomes a reality, a secondary goal must be to make sure that it has the resources required to make its primary goal achievable, and an important part of these resources are its funds. After Bitcoin forked into BTC and BCH, Bitcoin Unlimited then held an equal number of both. Although a BUIP was passed to authorize some extra conversion, significant practical obstacles to doing so exist (although this is still being worked on). However, since the overarching reason to convert a significant number of BTC to BCH is to maintain financial prudence based on the reasons outlined below and the poor BCH price performance has heavily skewed our holdings, we do anticipate some rebalancing when these obstacles are resolved. We will further expand on these reasons below. Historic Volatility It is a fact that BCH has historically been more volatile than BTC. An organisation that wishes to maintain a lower level of risk must aim to hold a majority of funds in assets which will maintain their value over time, i.e. be less volatile in their price. It is unfortunately true that BCH has been a more volatile asset than BCH since its creation. While there has been lots of progress and maturation of the BCH ecosystem, this price volatility is likely due to BCH still being a smaller and less developed ecosystem than BTC. The graphs below show levels of volatility in the two coins compared. BTC BCH This higher volatility in BCH has meant that to significantly increase BU’s holdings of BCH would expose the organisation to a higher level of risk for ideological reasons. BTC is already a high-volatility asset and to expose the organisation funds to even higher volatility and further risk is a decision that should not be taken based on simplistic ideology, but rather with the strategy of maximising the ability for the organisation to achieve its primary goals. This meant making the decision to not take on a higher exposure to price volatility, and instead maintain a more conservative risk profile.
Lack Of Say In The Protocol
One argument that has been put forward to suggest that this decision does not make sense because it is analogous to a CEO of a company holding more shares in their competitor’s company. This analogy does not accurately reflect the current scenario for BU or BCH. In this analogy BU is the CEO and BCH is the company. Ignoring the shareholders, A CEO is able to have the largest impact on a company compared to any other stakeholder. Their actions have a direct impact on operations of the company and therefore its value and the value of the shares. Unfortunately, Bitcoin Unlimited currently has little to no input on the BCH protocol. It has no way to directly influence the direction or success of BCH. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, BCH has a mining software homogeneity that is as centralised as BTC (i.e. essentially all miners and pools run a single client, BitcoinABC). This means that, all though BU has a slight majority in non-mining and in-consensus nodes, BU has no say in protocol decisions unless a collaborative and decentralised development model were to be used by BitcoinABC. This is an unfortunate situation considering the fact that the community split from BTC for this very reason and is strongly in support of decentralised development. Secondly, BitcoinABC does not take a collaborative approach to development. All decisions and features are dictated by BitcoinABC. In fact the situation is unfortunately even worse than this. BitcoinABC has decided to take an actively hostile position against Bitcoin Unlimited (and many other valuable participants in the ecosystem) and would rather that it did not exist at all.
Game Theory: The Strategy of Betting Against Yourself
Counter intuitively, a strategy where you bet against yourself can provide a beneficial low-risk profile. When you bet against yourself, if you lose you win and if you win you win. With BU’s current asset holdings of BCH and BTC the organisation is financially hedged in a way that it wins if BCH wins, and if BTC wins then BU lives to fight another day for worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash. If BTC goes down and BCH goes up then it means BCH is succeeding, and our funds in BCH will sustain us for longer. Not only that, but there would likely be more funds available for BCH development in this scenario. If BTC goes up and BCH goes down then BU will be sustained for longer to continue the fight for BCH and peer-to-peer electronic cash. This is very similar to the strategy of BCH-supporting miners mining on BTC and then converting the BTC block rewards into BCH in an effort to use BTC gains to support BCH price. BU is similarly using its gains in BTC and converting them to efforts and initiatives in support of BCH. In doing so Bitcoin Unlimited is able to turn any BTC win into a positive for BCH.
It has been suggested that the situation created by holding a larger portion of funds in BTC than in BCH creates negative incentives that push BU towards supporting BTC. It is important to keep in mind that Bitcoin Unlimited is not a profit driven organisation. While an increase in value of its assets is of course beneficial to the organisation, our primary goal is to accelerate the global adoption of peer-to-peer electronic cash as described in the Bitcoin white-paper, and the officials, membership and founding articles of Bitcoin Unlimited are the driving force for this. It is also important to point out that there is no evidence to support the claim that BU is in support of BTC (or BSV). In fact the voting record clearly shows the opposite of this. BU has continually worked in support of peer-to-peer electronic cash, and specifically in support of BCH since it was created. This is thanks to the strong commitment by the BU officials and members, all of whom are long time Bitcoiners and supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. The only members who receive any payment from the organisation are those who provide significant value in the form of various skilled services, and all of these are voted on by the membership. The BUIP record also shows that compensated individuals are often compensated at far under market rates for developers of their caliber. Should the price of BTC increase, no member receives any direct benefit from this beyond any appreciation in value of any BTC they privately hold. Therefore there are no strong incentives for BU to drive the price of BTC up and push the price of BCH down as this would be counter to our primary goal.
Has This Strategy Been Successful?
Bitcoin Unlimited and its members, all being long-time Bitcoiners, are acutely aware of the need to play the long game to make sure a globally adopted peer-to-peer electronic cash becomes a reality. BU is the oldest entity within the BCH ecosystem and with good reason. The financial strategy of BU to date has been highly effective in sustaining the organisation over a long period of time, and allowing it to independently support BCH development initiatives. This is made clear by the fact that BU continues to have enough funding to provide value to the BCH ecosystem for the foreseeable future. Had BU converted all funds to BCH at, or at almost any point after, the time of the BCH/BTC fork in August 2017, then for much of the time since it would have been forced to either scale back operations or shut down support for BCH developers completely. We now see development teams such as BitcoinABC facing the prospect of being unable to fund their development of BCH, and their financial strategy may have contributed to this reality. This is despite the fact that nearly all the funds donated in the recent community funding drive sponsored by bitcoin.com were directed towards BitcoinABC. Lack of a sustainable funding model also seems to have been a major factor in pushing BitcoinABC to make the highly controversial decision to support a change to the BCH protocol that would divert 12.5% of the block reward to themselves. Being financially prudent and sticking to its principles (as defined in the founding Articles of Federation has allowed Bitcoin Unlimited to steer clear of any conflicts of interest such as this.
Through its financial strategy Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to maintain its independence and financial sustainability and has therefore remained in a strong position to support Bitcoin Cash. BU’s officials and membership have continually made good decisions that have allowed BU to provide long-term support for the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem.
Satoshi in Bitcoin. Der Satoshi ist die kleinste Einheit des Bitcoin. Daraus ergibt sich, dass der Wert eines Satoshi in Euro immer vom gerade aktuellen Bitcoin-Kurs abhängig ist. Braiins OS is part of Satoshi Labs and is the creation of the original inventor of mining pools, Marek “Slush” Palatinus. You may also know Marek for his invention of the Trezor, the world’s first hardware wallet.. Unlike many other mining software and operating systems, Braiins is completely free. Satoshi Nakamoto soll sich nach der Entwicklung der Bitcoin-Software (Client) Ende 2010 bei seinen Entwickler-Kollegen mit der Information verabschiedet haben, dass es nun an der Zeit sie sich neuen Projekten zu widmen. Das Projekt wird von einigen Entwicklern unter der Leitung von Gavin Andresen fortgeführt. Das Softwareprojekt ist in der Open-Source-Community verankert. Das Bitcoin-Netzwerk ... Download Bitcoin for free. A software-based online payment system. Bitcoin is a decentralized P2P electronic cash system without a central server or trusted parties. Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending. Overview. The Satoshi bitcoin client creates a thread to manage making connections to other nodes. The code for that thread is in a function called ThreadOpenConnections2 in net.cpp.. The client also handles accepting new inbound connections and disconnecting nodes when appropriate in a a thread called ThreadSocketHandler2, which is also in net.cpp.. The thread making connections does not ...
Bitcoin from Satoshi Nakamoto. What is the purpose of this? (French subtitles)
Bitcoin contribution https://ibb.co/gzdvrL General information Creation date 3 January 2009 Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Stock symbol BTC, XBT Sub-unit 11⁄100000... The original Bitcoin software by Satoshi Nakamoto was released under the MIT license. Most client software, derived or "from scratch", also use open source licensing. Bitcoin is one of the first ... On May 20, reports indicated that Satoshi Nakmato may have reactivated himself in order to move 50 Bitcoins ( BTC ) first mined back in February 2009. Upon further research, it was discovered that ... A couple of months afterwards, Satoshi published the original Bitcoin client software that implemented the ideas in the paper. Ten years later, a lot has happened both about cryptocurrency, and a ... Satoshi Nakamoto appeared seemingly out of nowhere in 2008 when he released a research paper on the Cryptography Mailing List, which laid the foundation for the Bitcoin protocol. He claimed to ...