Bitcoin Breaks Below $10,000: Let's Talk Technicals

Tokenly (Let's talk Bitcoin host Adam B. Levine's company) looking for Ethereum/smart contracts engineer

Tokenly.com is looking for an Ethereum expert as consultant or employee.
Adam's quote in the first few seconds of https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-331-incentives-and-illusions : "email work [at] tokenly.com for more information".
Tokenly (a token platform for content creators) was built on Counterparty, and Adam frequently discussed the pros and cons of building on top of Bitcoin in the show.
You'll find an earlier discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/4e7dy4/tokenly_discusses_integrating_ethereum_from_3500/
(I am not linked to Tokenly or LTB, just an avid podcast listener.)
submitted by cryptopascal to ethereum [link] [comments]

Lets talk about the company Silicon Graphics (SGI) & BTC. /r/Bitcoin

Lets talk about the company Silicon Graphics (SGI) & BTC. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

[Twitter/Clubhouse/News Media?] Silicon Valley v The New York Times: Overpriced Suitcases, Insta Stories, Insular Apps and Bitcoin Bounties

Background:
What is Clubhouse?
You know all those stories of people interrupting Zoom calls by spamming the link and getting in? What if that, as a business model. It is still in private beta, has only 1500 users and yet somehow venture capitalists have $12 million invested at a $100 milion dollar valuation in this.
What is Away?
Hardcover suitcases that cost $225 and above. Hipsters seem to like it. "The brand is more than just luggage. It’s about travel." It is treated like a tech company by VCs for some godforsaken reason (it has raised $100 million at a $1.4 billion valuation), and the CEO uses a lot of Lean In rhetoric (female led, inclusive etc.)
How New York Times?
The New York Times has hired a reporter, Taylor Lorenz, specifically for "Internet Culture" i.e. HobbyDrama reporting. (No, seriously, look at the stories she gets to write. For the NYT!)
Pre-Drama Events:
In December 2019, an elaborate investigation was posted by The Verge (not the NYT, important) about the toxic work culture at Away, with the CEO, Steph Corey, calling workers brain dead and firing someone based on chat in an internal private Slack channel called #Hot-Topics "filled with LGBTQ folks and people of color" (from article).
Korey stepped down as CEO in December, with another CEO to be selected. She came back as co-CEO in January because she 'should not have fallen on the sword.'
Course of the Drama:
June 30/July 1: On an Instagram AMA, returned co-CEO Korey answered a question about "women being targeted by the media" (I presume the AMA went in that direction) by talking about media having an incentive to clickbait in the social media era that and women (like her) were targeted because women are supposed to be motherly, ambitious women like Hillary are targeted by the media, some millennial women who work in the media forgo their ethics to advance their career because old media ethics are being eroded.
The Verge investigation was done by Zoë Schiffer, a “millennial woman.”
Incensed by this, Lorenz posts the IG pics on twitter (previous link from her) and speculates that this AMA exists because of a piece on the disgracing of the “girlboss” stereotype. To recap, neither the original story, nor the Atlantic op-ed were written by her.
Techbros start sharing the same pics of the AMA as a balanced perspective.
Until this point, #bothsides, let them fight, etc.
Enter Balaji Srinivasan. Here is a pompous bio.
He starts attacking Lorenz (again, not the writer of any of the stories). Lorenz says the guy has been obsessively attacking her for quite some time on Clubhouse gussied up public Webex calls (in tweets after the linked tweet).
Then anti-Lorenz sockpuppet accounts start being created to attack her.
An elaborate website is linked by the accounts, specifically to attack her. (Click the link, it is deranged as all hell.)
Taylor asks Ben Horowitz (of multi-billion dollar Andreessen Horowitz, where Balaji has worked before) to get him to stop. Gets blocked.
Then the Andreessen Horowitz batch have a conversation on Clubhouse Discord without texting with Lorenz. After Taylor leaves, (this part leaked to Vice, so you can go listen) Ben Horowitz’ wife, Felicia says that Taylor is playing the “woman card to defend herself.” Balaji implies that she may be “afraid of a brown man.”
And then the conversations ascend:
”the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19,”
relying on the press is “outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you,”
”Media corporations are not the free press, any more than chain restaurants are food “
“why does press have a right to investigate private companies, let the market decide, I don’t understand who gives them that right” (Note: Probably from another conversation by some CEO)
Also something about Github, VC funding and Blockchains being a better model for journalism. (Bitconeeeect!!)
Then Vice reports on it.
Tech media rallies around Taylor [retweets on her twitter]. Glenn Greenwald pokes his nose and says otherwise, because Greenwald.
VCs support their own (along with MC Hammer?? because he’s also on Clubhouse the conference calls you join “for fun” app? So is Oprah???), with opinions like
I’ve never met a VC more powerful than a journalist. One can block me from accessing capital. The other has controlled the narrative / perception of my entire race for decades.
And other nuclear fucking takes retweeted by Felicia Horowitz
And Balaji?
When reached for comment, Balaji claims recording it was illegal (which, idk, haven’t seen the Terms of Service, only 1500 people can use Clubhouse the Twitch app, but you don’t have video and chat has audio)
And then he announces a $1000 bounty for memes and analysis of this event.
(paid in Bitcoin, obviously, this whole scenario is a damn meme)
This gets the creator of Ruby on Rails/Basecamp to defect to the media’s side
Aftermath? (This is a current story):
VCs (like Paul Graham) declare that the media hates them because they are losing power
Media Twitter decides VC Twitter is trying to reanimate the corpse of #GamerGate
Steph Korey, the instigator of this spiraling nonsense? Away says she has decided to step down (redux) because an employee revolt over her IG post.
(Recap: Away sells hardcases to hypebeasts. They are worth a billion because of VCs)
Balaji, rich VC guy, has memes on his timeline?
[Elon Musk has not weighed in yet, if you are curious]
submitted by runnerx4 to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]

How are the unbanked supposed to be their own banks without banks?

How is anyone expected to get “away from the system” with cryptocurrency? Let’s say Joe Bitcoin is moving out of his parents house and wants to use only Bitcoin. He’s never had a checking account. His parents bought him some bitcoin for Christmas or whatever.
He applies for work that he’s well qualified for. He insists he be paid in bitcoin. Eventually the payroll department says they can use some third party system but it’s going to require some paperwork because of volatility and accountability. Can’t have Joe saying he was underpaid because a crash happened after payroll was processed.
So, there we go. He has his job and is paid in bitcoin. Let’s look at apartments. There’s a decent one he can easily afford. Time to pay first/last/security. Does the management take bitcoin? No. And they don’t want to. Stop talking, Joe. They’ll require a check or money order.
Fuming, Joe looks up a bitcoin money order service. Plenty to buy bitcoin with a money order, but Amscott doesn’t seem to let you buy them. Localbitcoin comes to the rescue, as someone will purchase the money order for him for a 20% mark up. As long as Joe doesn’t have to use a lousy bank. It takes days to get done, but Joe drops off the money order to the management and moves in. “Make sure you have the power transferred to your name or it will be disconnected,” they tell him.
Joe fires up his laptop and visits the power company website. Hmm. They don’t take bitcoin. He tries another... oh. There’s only one power company. They want a deposit online via checking or savings account. Joe has a brain storm. He goes back to LBC and finds someone willing to buy from him for cash... less 15%. But this will work! Joe will give the cash to his parents and put their name on the account. He’ll just give them the cash each month. They try to talk to him about it but at least he’s not in their house anymore.
Now for internet access. Oh. Not accepting Bitcoin. Ring ring, hi mom? Yeah, same thing. Thanks!
Man, Joe has worked up an appetite. Time for food. He goes to that nice counterculture coffee shop. Oddly, they don’t take bitcoin either. But no worries, he now has his handy bitcoin ATM card. Sure, it still pays the store in filthy statist fiat, but it’s not Joe doing it.
Insufficient funds? He just put .05 btc on it. What—- oh. Some whale unloaded. He’s now short a few dollars... err... satoshis! That’s okay, he will just transfer more. He pulls up his app, logs in, waits for the 2FA to authenticate, and moves .01 btc from his hot wallet to his debit card. Hmm. How much for the transfer fee? He needs this quick. There’s a line forming. People are angry. “Will you be paying?” The cashier asks. Yes, yes, just one moment. He decides on a .005 btc fee. It’s half the transfer amount but it should get done, right?
Minutes later Joe is asked to step aside until he’s ready to pay. Twenty minutes later, the funds are moved. He even has two confirmations. He returns to the line, puts in his order again, pays, but doesn’t add a tip on the card. Instead he reaches into his wallet, pulls out one of several QR code stickers and drops it in the tip jar. He winks at the pretty cashier, having given her a pretty nice tip. She sighs, retrieves it from the jar, and throws it away. “That’s not a trash can,” she tells him. He silently rages. That fucking bitch. How dare she.
“Move it along, pal” says a man in line behind him. “Cheese sandwich, please,” he asks the cashier. “$4.25,” she tells him. The man pulls out his phone, taps it on the card reader, and instantly receives a “bing” of happiness.
Joe looks at the man in utter disgust. “Fucking statist thug,” he thinks to himself. “Dumb bitch,” he says in his head about the cashier. He’ll have to ask to get that out of the trash and then lecture her. He doesn’t even have time for that, and now he has to.
Joe gets an alert on his phone. Bitcoin prices just dropped $300. He hopes his paycheck hadn’t been processed yet.
That’s how.
submitted by clubberin to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

This is for you. Get ready.

First of all I want to say a proper hello to you. Hello! :) I've been a member of this community not for a long time, but I've been in the crypto world since 2015. I'm not from US (since 90% of reddit is US) but I'll try my best to explain my thoughts in english in this post. Trust me, you won't regret reading it.
I started studying the crypto world for my own since it's a passion, a hobby. Why? Because the whole concept of crypto fits my ideals, ideas and thoughts when it's about the world.
But I will be talking about the Bitcoin, since it's the most important part here. We'll exclude any other alt-coin because makes no sense to talk about them here and is a way broader topic.

The main statement : Bitcoin is the 8th wonder of the world. Is the chance of every single one of us, to have a free life. I want to explain why, because I'm too enthusiastic and all of my friends do not share the same ideas and have no clue about the crypto world, and you are my friends now :).
Money. When it was first created, it got completely centralized. GOVs and institutions were controlling the money. Imagine a country with 1000 people and 1000 whatever-currency. Every one would have 1 currency (let's call it banana-coin). So every person would have 1 banana coin. The GOV is controlling all the banana-coins. If something bad happens, they product more banana coins. What happens when more banana coins are produced? Inflation, thats right. So in order to buy 1 bread, you need now 2 banana-coins instead of 1. This everyone can understand, right? But what if the GOV prints even more? Right, 10 banana-coins for a bread. But we have only one country. Let's add 2 more countries. The country with 10 banana-coins/bread is doing worse than the other 2 where they can still buy 1 bread with 1 banana coin. Then the 2 countries can "destroy" the first country only with the power of money. (I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible)
Now imagine this with USD/EUROS, in a CoronaVirus world with the GOVs. Yup, everything is falling apart, everything is in chaos. The systems are controlled by greedy people.
The conceptual idea of money, is to be UNCONTROLLABLE. Before the invention of money, the goods used as currencies were much better in term of freedom than the money created after. Then money was created, real gold coins, then data in systems, then recessions every time on a period of time, as example 2008 because THE MONEY WASN'T USED AS IT SHOULD BE. FINITE AND FREE.
Then Bitcoin appeared. BOOM! Finite, free and sustained only by its users. It's a wonder. I'm sorry I can't explain this as I have everything in my mind, but I'm trying... The bitcoin creator is not known, but he gave us something he knew we would need. It's like someone came from future to give us this in order to evolve as a society. He knew that the currency in a modern world cannot be used forever if its not gonna change to something that NOBODY CAN CONTROL it. Very few people really understands the quality of this, the chance that we have.
If 21 mil btc were mined, no more producing, the price lets say was at 100k. And the corona virus hits, WE DONT NEED TO PRODUCE MORE. The value will just go up, the bitcoin would help us. We don't need to MAKE more. The whole concept behind the Bitcoin is that HE WOULD WORK for us, we dont need to do anything else just to USE IT. Behind the scenes, it is the 8th wonder of the world. I'm so sad I can't explain exactly how I can in english because I know you would understand me.. I think I need better friends IRL lol
Money = inflation, the GOV is controlling it, they produce it legally (if we produce it we go to jail), ITS NOT FREEDOM. People are not understanding this. You work 20 years of your life for 2.000$ a month and then boom everything crushes because of some greed people and you are ruined.
Bitcoin = if we use it, we are saved. The price can go only up. Even in a Corona Virus situation, when businesses are closing, the bitcoin price would go up and it would sustain us on the timeframe we need. There is no need to do anything else JUST TO USE IT. Globally.
It will be slowly implemented into the word more and more by different companies, BECAUSE WE DICTATE IT. The use of this, will make big financial companies TO USE IT FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR PROFITS. This is our chance.
The price of it will hit big numbers. Maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow or after a month. But at one point, it will get extremely big. It can't hit 100$ anymore at it was. But it's at almost 10k. Remember the 2017? Most of you were like "Ohh If I would have invested then" etc etc. No. You have the chance to invest now. Even if its higher then before. Since it will go only up, there is ALWAYS THE BEST TIME TO INVEST. NOW is the "then" for what's coming next in the phrase "Ohh if I would have invested then".

Thank you if you read the whole thing, I just wanted to share with you my enthusiasm. This is the wonder WE NEED.
submitted by 2poor2die to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Three suggestions for better boundaries between Monero and Tari

I write this as a multi-year Monero contributor to the subreddit, the CCS, and minor commits to both the CLI and GUI. However, my Reddit account is newish since I regularly delete my Reddit account every six months or so out of privacy concerns, so let my words in this post act as proof of my grasp of Monero and our community's values.
I have been increasingly confused by how intermingled the goals of Monero have become with Tari. Naturally, I could care less if someone wants to merge-mine with Monero. But last week we had dEBRUYNE, longtime excellent mod of this subreddit, break the subreddit's own rules to announce Tari's testnet. So naturally it feels like the Monero community is being invited to align itself with Tari, both alongside Tari's development and its eventual goals. Yet I don't feel like the Monero community is fully aware of how this conflation has the potential to degrade the purity of our community, so that's why I am writing this post today.
On the one hand you have Monero, perhaps the only pure cryptocurrency project left in the entire space. Bitcoin development has declined to a crawl. Yes, regular commits to its code happen all the time, but fundamentally they have become a traceable surveillance coin, and make no major efforts to change this. Greg Maxwell's Confidential Transactions are just sitting there on the shelf, waiting to be implemented. It's sad, really.
Thankfully, there is us. There is Monero. We have all of the benefits of Bitcoin in that we were fairly launched (no premine, founder's share, etc), are decentralized, PoW, and open source. Further our culture reflects the culture of Bitcoin's origins. There is no price talk in Monero. No memes. (Bitcoin's subreddit is overwhelmed with price memes, a harbinger of a dying coin.) Indeed, Monero's community is first passionate about the technology inside it. Some of the most upvoted posts in this sub are actual gd pull requests. So wonderful. I think back to how painfully long it took us to complete the GUI. So many of us were so focused on getting the CLI right that the GUI was delayed for (I think) almost two years.
There are precious few coins like that these days. Namecoin is a wonderful exception. Jeremy Rand's recent presentation on how Namecoin has been implented in the Tor-browser is perhaps the most exciting news in cryptoland all year. Unlike 95% of the burning crypto dumpster fire, people may soon actually use Namecoin, typing something like Monero.bit instead of a long difficult aasldkfasdlkfjadlkfj.onion address.
And then you have everybody else. 95% of the crypto garbage out there is fundamentally useless if not a straight up scam. Most of the stuff falls into 2 different camps of crap: (Crap 1) useless slick coins with massive marketing budgets, and (Crap 2) reskinned forks. 95% of the garbage out there cares first and foremost about how it appears on the surface, because: the first goal for most cryptos is not making something useful, it's making money. You can have a coin like Dash that "innovates" a PoW by stringing a bunch of hash functions together to make it's X11 algo, but since the wallet software itself impresses people, they don't care. Who cares if there is fundamental collision potential in X11 that could break the coin in a single block? Everything looks sliiick.
In short, you can tell if a cryptocurrency is healthy or not if its first goal is making money or making something useful.
Thankfully Tari does not seem to be as bad as 95% of the stuff out there. A cursory glance at their repo makes it seem like Fluffypony found talented devs who know their stuff. Further, I think the idea of merge-mining alongside Monero is quite smart. I am a huge fan of Tevador and hyc and the work they did on RandomX, so anything that champions their creation is welcome to me! My hope is we have dozens of merge-mined RandomX coins in the coming decades. Our hash rate will only increase, and the security of our chain will improve. Furthermore, I think Fluffypony himself is a guy with a lot of integrity, so I actually feel a degree of trust towards Tari that I wouldn't naturally feel.
The issue is Tari's goals. I say this dispassionately: I am uncertain if Tari's central goal is to make something useful or to make money. Here's an article in Blockchain News announcing Tari. In it, they describe what Tari's software will hopefully do:
in our digital world, these restrictions are unduly limiting for both businesses and consumers, making it costly, difficult, or impossible for digital assets to be resold or transferred,” the announcement stated. “For businesses, this means missing out on the tens of billions of dollars generated each year from secondary resale and trading of the digital goods they issue. For consumers, this means never having true ownership of their digital assets, despite having earned or paid for them.”
Sounds ok. Who wouldn't want the ability to trade scarce digital assets with programmed rules? I certainly would. However, farther down the page you have this:
... those involved with the project include John Pleasants, the former CEO of Ticketmaster and the venture firms Redpoint, Trinity Ventures, Canaan Partners, Slow Ventures, Aspect Ventures, DRW Ventures, Blockchain Capital, Pantera, and Multicoin Capital.
Here is where things get a little hairy, and why I am nervous about the pump-culture of crypto leaking into the tech-culture of Monero. Redpoint is a backer of the scammy gambling website Draft Kings. Blockchain Capital is a backer of Coinbase and Ripple. Pantera put up some of the cash that made ZCash happen. I don't know about you, but it makes me squirm a bit to see Tari's logo alongside ZCash and Ripple.
Naturally, the terms of their VC investments are somewhere in black and white, yet there is nothing anywhere on the Tari website about the emission schedule of the coin. In fact, unlike most VC backed crypto out there, Tari doesn't even list their investors. They used to list it in their FAQ as seen on archive.org, but have since removed it.
Monero is one of the most hopeful things in the world right now, and it has this special status for me because it cares first and foremost about the technology it is innovating. Decentralized private open-sourced cash. It's an incredible wonderful future that we're all making together. Nothing like Monero has ever existed. But it is more fragile than people realize. It can be slowly killed. This community can eventually become like Bitcoin, stuck in price-memes, if the culture gets sucked away from technology and into profit making.
Is it possible for Tari to accept VC money and be solely focused on the technology of a product? Theoretically, yes. But it's not easy. I've had to work with a few small Silicon Valley companies who also accepted VC cash, and returns to their shareholders were a constant source of pressure on them. Will it be for Tari? Monero needed many years to be awkward and small in order to strengthen itself to be the sizable functional coin it is today. Does Tari have this same patience, or will the VCs need payouts sooner than that? If Fluffypony's main goal in Tari is to help people trade digital assets then why didn't he simply launch Tari like Monero, free and open source (FOSS)? Namecoin is FOSS and merge-mined; it has no VC backers.
As a worst-case scenario, how long will it be before Tari is "given back to the community", as so many VC-inspired coins have done? Dead code repos all over the corners of cryptoland, discarded after the venture capital firms dumped their premine and took off. There are a lot of unanswered questions here.
In closing, I have three suggestions:
  1. Fluffypony should publish the emission schedule as soon as he can, so Tari’s fans can know if there is a premine/founders-share/etc. And perhaps be transparent about how their venture capital investors are being compensated.
  2. People here should think critically before they get involved Tari. It has a different ethos than Monero.
  3. Despite the Fluffypony connection, Rule #4 should be enforced, disallowing posts promoting merge-mined coins like Tari from this forum. If Tari is allowed in this forum, we need our moderators to be honest about whether or not they are investors in Tari and have a conflict of interest. That said, most mods are anonymous, so it's actually impossible to enforce this disclosure. So I guess just enforce Rule #4.
submitted by KierkegaardsGhost to Monero [link] [comments]

A Market Liquidity Theory of the Current Financial Crisis

Huge update from the Fed this morning: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323b.htm
I'm not going to have a chance to look through this in detail this morning, but it looks like the Fed might be engaging in a massive loan program and taking just about anything as collateral.
This is going to be a long post and analysis that I have written as much to get my thoughts in order as much to post on here for any feedback or criticism.
Essentially, like many on here, I do not believe that the current situation is a temporary down-turn, but a full blown financial crisis. We have already been hit with the initial shock of this crisis, so the question becomes: what comes next? Helping us understand what is fundamentally happening in the market will aid in making intelligent future predictions and investments. That leads to the question: what exactly is happening in the market right now? What caused us to suddenly drive off a cliff? And is there any way we can save it? Unlikely many here, I do not believe that COVID-19 is the actual underlying crisis. In my opinion, our economy was basically the end stages of a Jenga game, and COVID-19 is just the swift breeze knocking the whole thing over.
As I started looking for the next big market move, I started to wonder who was going to feel the most pain in these markets. Some reading led me to the thought that what we were seeing in the markets was a liquidity issue, and that companies with poor credit ratings will be most affected. I posted about this a couple of days ago, and several others came to the same conclusion as me. 1 2 3. There are other obliviously other problems in the market at the moment, but this analysis will focus on this problem in particular.
I now strongly believe that this hypothesis was correct, even if my initial reasoning and analysis was flawed. I outline a theory, followed by some supporting evidence, and finally some speculation. Finally, I don't think the Fed understands the actual problem the market is facing right now, nor does it have the tools to deal with it.
There are three prerequisites here: repos, collateral transformation, and rehypothecated collateral
Variation-Separate has already written an excellent technical analysis, and explains repos in part I. I will assume you have already read that section. 2
The basic idea behind collateral transforms is this: Your company needs some short-term liquid cash. In order for someone to give you this cash, you need collateral. You only have risky assets (such as junk bonds), but no one will accept them as collateral precisely because they are risky. Everyone in the market wants a secure asset (such as a Treasury). Instead of giving up, you go out and find someone who will loan you their Treasury and accept your junk bonds as collateral. You then use that Treasury to obtain the cash you need. This process can be repeated among many parties in order to create a "collateral chain".
Finally, we have rehypothecated collateral: Someone comes to you and wants to borrow an assets for a short period of time (such as a stock). They give you another asset (such as cash) as collateral in exchange for the stock. You know the borrower won't be back to collect this collateral for a while, so you invest that collateral to make money off of it in the meantime.
As Variation-Separate explains, there have been problems in the repo market recently, and the Fed has acted as the believe appropriate. However, this is not the first time the Fed has run into this problem . In fact, we had a problem a problem in the repo market just in Sept 2019 and "Not only did the spike in the repo rate come as a surprise to the New York Fed, but they also haven't been able to normalize it as quickly as they thought they could". Finally, let's consider that even though the fed has offered to pump massive amounts of liquidity into the market, banks aren't taking it and are quickly repaying that which they do take.
What exactly is going on then? The Fed tries to pump liquidity into the economy, and nothing happens. The reason for this is that the Fed knows that it doesn't understand the underlying problem in the market, and knows that is powerless to stop it. The Fed is trying to unleash every tool in its toolbox on the hope that if it just throws enough money into the market, eventually the problem will go away.
So what is the root problem? Essentially, liquidity. More specifically, collateral transformations and rehypothecated collateral. In fact, this has been written about extensively: 4 5, with Snider in particular making a strong case that today's crisis fits the analysis of the collateral markets that he provided in 2018: 6
How are collateral transformations and rehypothecated collateral affecting liquidity in the markets? There are numerous ways, but let's start with 2:
Let's say someone gives you cash as collateral, and you rehypothecate it as described in the example. However, instead of putting the cash in a safe asset, knowing you have to repay it, you put it in a very risky, high-yield asset such as a junk bond or MBS. Things go wrong, you lose your money and can't pay back your end of the repo. This is exactly what AIG did during the 2008 crisis. 7
Now let's say you engage in a long chain of collateral transformations. You start with a really risk assets, trade that for a sligtly less risky asset, trade that for a moderately risky asset, etc, until you eventually get a pristine asset. Now anyone along that chain can rehypothecate their collateral into some risky investment, causing a huge number of problems. Not to mention that if you, for some reason, can't fulfill your end of the repo, you screw a whole chain of people who have traded with you.
Now, if we are in a strong market, these problems won't arise too often. But what happens if, say, a virus comes out of now where causing wide-spread economic disruptions? Now, maybe those risky investments that would have paid out more often than not aren't pay out at all, causing systemic problems.
Now let's add a couple of things that exacerbate this problem even further:
These chains get so complicated that no one even knows who owns which assets anymore 4
When these chains collateral transformations start to fail, people may become less willing to take the risk of engaging in them 5
All of this caused heavy regulation on the exchange of collateral by primary lenders after the 2008 crisis. This has pushed these transactions into dark markets where we don't really understand what is going on. Here is my hypothesis, heavily taken from Snider's analysis:
Corporations have become heavily reliant on short-term lending for liquidity. However, most of them don't have pristine assets to exchange for cash, or DisneyBucks to float them through hard times. So what to do? You engage in collateral transformations: keep exchanging your junk assets until you get the pristine assets you need to get liquid cash. A bunch of corporations do this over and over again, and eventually they really don't have a clear of idea of what assets they really own.
Further, in these collateral chains they are rehypothecating collateral to make a quick buck. All is well, until this virus comes along. Suddenly, corporations are losing their collateral in these risky investments. Further, they need cash. The first thing they do is try to transform their collateral for short term liquidity. However, a bunch of people have just lost their money playing this game and don't want to play anymore, so it becomes more difficult and expensive for the companies to engage in these collateral transformations. The assets they have are worth less, so they have to sell other assets to compensate. However, everyone is doing this at the same time, devaluing the assets. Devaluation of assets makes it even more expensive to engage in collateral exchanges, and the cycle continues. Finally, when these companies take account of their actual assets, after all of these complicated exchanges, they realize they don't actually own what they think they own, creating additional panic when they are already in crisis mode. This causes huge turmoil, and the markets fall off a cliff.
If this theory is correct, what will we see next? Whether the markets will go up or down is dependent on too many factors to predict. However, I do have some speculation. First let's categorize corporations as follows:
Type I: Safe
Large banking institutions
Large P-1/A-1/F1+ Companies
Companies with huge cash reserves
Type II: Possibly Safe
Small businesses
"Essential" business (i.e., Boeing)
Type III: Doomed
Business with >500 employees, no large cash reserves, not P-1/A-1/F1+
The self-employed
Type I businesses will certainly weather the storm. If they don't have the direct support of the Fed, they have large cash reserves on hand. If they don't have large cash reserves on hand, they have the credit rating to make use of corporate paper. They can find the short term funding needed to make it through this.
Type II businesses may be safe depending on the government response. I am currently underwhelmed by the "support" for small business in the stimulus bill, but there seems to at least be talk about this so maybe things will change. "Essential" businesses may receive a bailout to get them through tough times.
Type III businesses are completely screwed, no one seems to know they are even there. They won't qualify for support as "small businesses", and they have no way of obtaining liquid assets in this market. In particular, the larger businesses don't have the pristine assets to obtain liquidity in these markets, they are dependent on collateral transforms.
I won't predict whether the markets will go up or down this week, next, etc. But I will speculate this: I think the calm we saw in the markets was an actual calm. I think there was panic as businesses tried to obtain liquidity. They now believe they have the liquidity to make it through the near future, and are satisfied. There could be fire-sales in the near term for other reasons, but I don't think short-term liquidity will be the cause. However, most corporations don't speculate very hard when it comes to the future: they listen to the "experts". And these "experts" in government and the financials have been predicting doom and gloom for the next couple weeks, but that things will "bounce back" afterward. This is flatly false. As this becomes more apparent to these companies, I think we'll see another run on the market.
Particularly, it will be the large Type III business that will be the most vulnerable. They won't have any government stimulus support, and they won't have access to their normal modes of obtain cash. The last panic in the markets pushed bond yields so high that issuing new bonds will be completely out of the question. For them, it will be like a game of chess where your 4 moves away from being mated no matter what you do. Many of them will decide that bankruptcy is the best option in front of them.
Can the Fed prevent this? I don't think so. The Fed has the ability to soak up P-1/A-1/F1+, but they can only do this through the banks. But the banks aren't the ones in trouble this time, its the market itself. I have not read anything that leads me to believe that the Fed would be able to purchase junk assets from non- P-1/A-1/F1+ corporations without an act of Congress, and Congress is too slow and incompetent to see this problem coming or fix it in time. The Colosseum will be protected as Rome burns around it.
Sorry for any typos, poor wording. This was a long post.
submitted by the_asker_man to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin speculative?

Yesterday, I was talking with a friend and he said that buying bitcoin is speculative. Now, that doesn't sit well on me. Speculation is seek for profits in a highly risky market. Buy low, sell high. Everything could be an object of speculation, the shares of a company even the fidget spinners were some years ago.
Bitcoin, like any other good, asset or currency, may be subject of speculation, and that's the case on some trading pages. However, on those pages you don't speculate with bitcoin, you speculate with the price of bitcoin. That is, if you buy BTC on some trading pages it doesn't even let you move the currency to your personal wallet. Therefore, you are buying "titles" that are equivalent to bitcoin, and speculation occurs when you sell them based on whether or not the price has risen. You are just using BTC for seeking profits, as you could do with any other asset.
Also, bitcoin was not created to be speculative. Bitcoin was thought as a currency, a fully decentralized and anonymous means of exchanging goods and services. For the use of a currency to be feasible, it shouldn't change much in value (which we don't see in the dollar nor euro, where inflation occurs year after year, decreasing its value).
Finally, going back to speculation, it is logical that it is currently done with Bitcoin, it's volatile and there have been many cases of people who have become very rich thanks to it. However, if bitcoin is established as a stable currency and a desirable medium for the exchange of goods and services, speculation would end.
In conclusion, for me buying bitcoin isn't speculation, many people who practice HODL do not plan to sell bitcoin, but use it to buy goods or services. Whether its price rises or falls will depend on the trust in the currency and the confidence on the fiat system.
submitted by jovejuanki to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How to make 1 billion people use Beam ?

Let 1 billion people use Beam !

So how can Beam make it available to 1 billion people?

The main problems facing Beam now: I personally, I am a fan of Beam , I have tried to find ways to use Beam more. As far as my personal daily life is concerned, where can I use digital currency, currently Both can be resolved with currency .

But real demand determines real value, and real value determines price. So what should we do with the road to trillions of market value of Beam ?

According to the theory of minimum network effects, if the first 100,000 people can use Beam , a preliminary network effect will be formed, and 1 billion people will use Beam in the future . Where are the first 100,000 people just now? Where is the real demand for digital currency?

I summarize in three words: Innovation, illegal, restricted .

Let's talk about innovation : If you want to allow traditional companies and merchants to accept digital currency, it may be more difficult to consider issues such as audience accuracy, laws, and compliance.

But for emerging companies, Internet companies, high-tech companies, and especially blockchain native companies, these companies should be the easiest to accept digital currencies.

A small win is a big win, and a small amount is a big trend. These companies are the spark of the widespread digital currency in the future.

Regarding illegal acts : such as drugs, gambling, etc., this is a bit awkward. It is these illegal acts that really have a strong and rigid need for digital currencies, and the anonymity of digital currencies also objectively facilitates illegal acts.

However, this point violates the law after all, and does not conform to the good public order and customs of the society. Therefore, we do not encourage this point, but it is also difficult to eliminate it.

Finally, talk about restrictions : In the current payment and settlement system with fiat currencies as the main body, many behaviors are restricted.

For example, P2P and equity payment acceptance payment systems are restricted. For example, some special industries need to go through many procedures to access the existing payment system. There are also restrictions on the amount of large transfers, such as the impact of exchange rates that are difficult to eliminate when cross-border payments and many more,

Where these fiat currency payments are restricted, it is also the main area of ​​digital currency development.

The goal of digital currency is not to replace or compete with fiat currencies, but to make up for the deficiencies of fiat currencies and compete with fiat currencies where they lack competitiveness, thereby bringing greater convenience to society.

I'm not going to lie to you and say that Beam is guaranteed to one day become the next world reserve currency. Far from it. There is still a ton of work that needs to be done in order to scale the system to serve the global economy. But I do believe that Beam has the best chance of achieving that goal.I see it as the better investment with the potential for a much higher rate of return.

Frankly speaking, from the perspective of business acquisition, globally, due to the efforts of many volunteers to promote, Beam has won some adoption by users , but in addition to a few countries , The overall market adoption rate of Beam is not high. I think this is mainly because the community’s publicity resources and technical resources are not invested in suitable areas.

Commercial adoption

Commercial adoption has been the focus of the Beam community's efforts to promote Beam value growth. However, compared with the energy spent, the price of Beam has not risen significantly, and the return of adoption on the chain is negative, and the promotion of adoption has not achieved obvious results. The solution is to shift the energy from advancing the adoption of businesses and enterprises to building more applications or platforms. Simply put, the focus shifts from promoting merchants to promoting users. If there are enough users, then merchants and enterprises will naturally accept Beam . If enough corporate customers use a certain currency and show willingness to purchase goods or services, then companies will naturally accept this currency as a payment method for their goods or services.

Moving from a merchant approach, we can start to shift our focus to building applications or platforms in a niche environment. We focus on the niche market precisely because Beam is also a niche market. Therefore, by adding the right basic application, Beam may shine in the right market. Therefore, the solution is to build applications in the smallest niche market in an environment with little competition.

The way forward

Beam has come a long way since its inception. It's been quite a journey, with the main problem being the lack of a robust application layer. Moving forward, the community should focus on smaller markets with more opportunities for Beam to shine, and we should do so as soon as possible. The new path builds the core application layer of Beam and provides an opportunity to build new network effects and bring Beam to market.
We have to think really big!
Help ALL the developers, so that they can scale Beam and make it ready for global companies and even countries to start using.
When we can prove that we are ready for the masses, adoption will happen automatically.
You can support me via:
BEAM : 28f8f1735c743e4728f4f64519860753a9d435f04eef889cfc2b24a36c4a2b795a8
Bitcoin: 1PCT7QFPzX1HgkoWu5ruHHPe9aa2id7CQG
submitted by arslankhalid1 to beamprivacy [link] [comments]

Mr. Nakamoto Dundee laments that his infamy has made it difficult for him to avoid getting kicked out of PhD programs; he used to find them so easy, he could plagiarise ornithology graphs in IT theses to his heart's content, nowadays when he plagiarises hundreds of people whistleblow on him.

Months ago Dundee copied and pasted an entire paper from a dead Italian Computer Scientist, and did so while boasting of his affiliation with a University in Paris known by the acronym CNAM. Whistleblowers informed Craig's supervisors at CNAM of the academic fraud that one of their PhD candidates had just perpetrated, and were told they were going to investigate the matter, and that they took plagiarism very seriously.
Well, flash-forward to Craig's March 16th deposition testimony where he laments about the toll being a public figure has taken on his academic studies:
This does not say I did not tried to muddy the water around Bitcoin's origin. You are adding implied words that are not implied. There is no statement saying "I did all I could do to muddy the waters concerning the creation of Bitcoin". It saddens me. My right to privacy and right to know about people talking about my life it was people basically hacking my wife's server, my children's servers. I didn't want people to know where I lived, where I worked, where I studied. Right now I have just had to drop one of my PhDs. The reason, not because I cannot study it, not because I'm not doing well, but because that had probably around 100 complaints that Craig Wright is doing two degrees simultaneously. I was allowed to, I went through everything in the board, and again, I have had a call to go before the Dean to justify why I should be able to keep doing this and not get kicked out. I have dropped one of my PhDs because people call up and complain to the Dean endlessly saying "it is not right that Craig is enrolled in two different degrees, he is going to cheat by doing two different things". My argument was I am doing law and mathematics. There is no overlap between mathematics and law. Yet, I am still having to justify myself. Yes, I hid my address, I hid where I was, I tried to hide, I tried to let no one know where my company was based, I tried to ensure that no one knew anything about my family. I tried to stay as hidden as I could and yet people still attack me. The one thing that I love more than anything else which is studying is has been taken from me because people that I won't even go into -- yes, I did, but that does not say I muddied the waters around Bitcoin, so do not try and twist things.
[Vel Freedman]: Let us just agree to disagree on what the implication of that sentence is.
[Dundee]: No, I do not agree to disagree
My emphasis added.
submitted by Zectro to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

What kind of scam is this girl running for a long game? I made a previous post about bicnbit.com Chinese dating Scammer Chinese dating Scam

Hello,
I thought I would make a follow-up post about this woman that I'm dealing with as I feel it is extremely scary the effort and level of sophistication that she is putting. I feel like a really lonely or desperate guy could easily fall for this and I hope it helps someone.
I met this girl online and she has been chatting with me via WhatsApp now from a Chinese number for close to 3 months. She is apparently a bitcoin analyst and she runs a small company. She constantly sends me photos of her daily activities and she lives an expensive life. She has a video called me a few times but her accent is heavy and I have trouble understanding her, but she can speak English at an adequate level.
The entire time I've had this feeling its to good to be true and as of a week ago she asked me to deposit coins for cryptocurrency contract trading on a clearly FAKE exchange ( https://bicnbit.com/ ). I have since told her the website is a scam and she pretty much said "yeah ok I don't think it is but if you think that, that's ok don't worry about it". I deleted the conversation thinking it as over but to my surprise, she has continued to message me like nothing happened. She constantly talks about either coming back here to meet me in Australia or I travel to her in shanghai because she would like to be friends. She is never sexual or insinuating that we would be in a relationship.
I've kinda just let this go on because I wanted to see how she would progress but I'm extremely confused as to why she is doing it as she is driving what looks to be Mercedes e300. She has her own large office, she has photos of her diving on the gold coast of Australia and riding horses. She sends me random selfies throughout the day doing things like yoga. The woman in the photos is definitely the person or one of the persons I am speaking with. She also claims to play league of legends and can hold a discussion about the game. She recently remodelled her "office" and i asked her why she had a 240hz Alienware monitor and she said he needed it for "work". She sent me the initial before and after photos of her office but I then asked her to send me a photo of the top shelf of her cabinet with the dragon ball toys and she did. I also asked her for a closer photo of the Porsche cars and she also did that.
My main question is WHY has she now put in almost 3 months of work to try scam 1/4th of a bitcoin and has failed yet is continuing to message me even after I've flat out called the exchange she recommended a scam. What is her long game?
I have attached an Imgur of the few photos I've kept. I, unfortunately, deleted the conversation the other day thinking she wouldn't reply after I called her bullshit on the exchange but she has continued and this is what I've received in the last days alone. I have reverse image searched every single photo she has ever sent me and I get no hits. Maybe someone in here has a better image search I'm not aware of or better resources.
My only personal conclusion is its a couple, both a woman and a man and I am speaking with a man the majority of the time. He is giving the phone to his partner to video call me however it does not explain why she is alone in her office or alone in her car when she VCS me. (the guy brings his gf to work??) You can clearly see two computers and two chairs in the office photo. and i've confriemd the office is real because she can provide photos of it from any vantage point.
Please be careful out there.
https://imgur.com/a/ROu65hV
edit: just calrify, this scammer is available for a vc almost 24 hours a day. I have literally never been able to catch her out unlses she has just not been online. It's scary and also confusing.
submitted by dan-vs-games to Scams [link] [comments]

Time to cash out. Satoshi and other early hodlers may never get this chance again.

Here's why at Pierce & Pierce we believe those dormant early hodlers have become active again. and we're going to see more of those 2009 bitcoin addresses cashing out.
From 2011 at least, Bitcoin had become a weapon used by the Chinese regime and their 'anarchist' frontmen to weaken the power of the dollar by using economic fallacies, conspiracy theories and old fashioned goldbuggery to convince the public the dollar was going to eventually collapse and die. They believe this collapse could be hastened if everyone dumped the dollar for crypto.
Let's suppose for a moment that they weren't behind bitcoin in the first place and that they simply leapt on the opportunities it gave them. The CCP pumped resources (loans, factories, subsidized electricity) into dominating the hash power and mining machines. Eventually, they even found friends to run exchanges and created hundreds of shitcoins (including Tether) to bleed Westerners for several years.
Now it's 2020 and the dollar has proven to be resilient even after a pandemic and worldwide recession. The dollar didn't weaken despite trillions of dollars being printed by Jpow. There wasn't a massive rush of real money into creepto coins and gold barely budged after all those new dollars came into circulation. The dollar is historically very strong and even Trump has switched from wanting to weaken the dollar to improve American exports (which would help businesses and consumers a lot) to being proud of a strong dollar (for geo-political reasons).
The dollar isn't going anywhere and bitcoin is backed by more and more worthless Tethers. Those early bitcoin hodlers have seen their beliefs fail and are now beginning to make themselves known by moving coins and signing addresses. They need to start cashing out while there is still a chance and with so little real cash available in the cryptocurrency exchanges they will need to get whatever they can soon because something else is on the horizon.
It's no secret that US sanctions targeting Chinese officials are being discussed presently. Despite round after round of trade negotiations, the US doesn't trust China will live up to its promises. The CCP has a history of deceit, ripping off western companies, ripping off western investors and won't give up its expansionist ambitions, even after losing so much respect worldwide because of COVID-19 and the treatment of Uighurs, Tibetans and now Hong Kongers. The CCP, being ideologically hardline, is unapologetic.
Sanctions against Chinese officials won't work if China pursues its digital currency and blockchain ambitions. These technologies are being embraced by the regime to work their way around potential sanctions, similar to how North Korea has used bitcoin to continue to fund some operations and enrich officials.
Last year Trump and Mnuchin signaled what they would need to do if trade talks failed, China didn't live up to their side of the deals, and if sanctions were needed. Trump said 'I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air.... We have only one real currency in the USA, and it is stronger than ever, both dependable and reliable. It is by far the most dominant currency anywhere in the World, and it will always stay that way. It is called the United States Dollar!'
Mnuchin created a task force to look into what could be done to regulate cryptocurrencies and related crimes, such as evading sanctions. Could it be that bitcoin's earliest holders have now sensed what's up? They have not only seen that the dollar didn't collapse under mighty pressure, but they are also seeing the possibility that heavy handed global regulations could be put in place to ensure China doesn't evade sanctions by using bitcoin or other related technologies.
Anything can happen, but there is a wide sense that the gig's up and it's time to make a dash for the exit. They can't cash out the millions of coins that were minted in the first couple of years but they will try to get whatever they can.
submitted by PatrickBitmain to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Johnny test is the best show

All over the internet, I notice you churlish cretins lauding the supposedly intellectual television program known as Rick and Morty to make yourselves appear more intelligent by extension, as you are ardent watchers of the aforementioned show. However, you piddling planarians only succeed in illustrating how vapid you really are, as Rick and Morty has the intellectual depth of a petri dish. Truly, the most noetic show is neither Rick and Morty, the Big Bang Theory, Jimmy Neutron, nor any other deluge of drivel you deludable dimwits bombard your brains with. Rather, it is Johnny Test, a pinnacle of animation, sound design, acting, and plot. Despite this, most of you sniveling sub-10000s (someone with an IQ under 10000: for the record, my IQ is several orders of magnitude higher than this; my reason for my usage of this term is simply because I am partial to the number 10000) will dismiss Johnny Test as another subpar piece of rubbish from Teletoon, but you all fail to realize how much genius goes into producing that show. I have watched Johnny Test since I was a juvenile, and already I bear an IQ so toweringly high no known test can measure it (that is to say, no known test for humans can measure it: when using the scale with which computer processing power is evaluated, I clock in at over 8.3 trecentillion yottaflops). I have memorized every facet of human knowledge and only used 32.8% of my potential intelligence (my remaining neurons I allocate towards personal use, research, and wealthy companies for use as server farms and bitcoin mines). Not only that, but I have transformed all of the atoms in my being into a quantum computer to serve as an extension to my enormous encephalon, which handles the menial tasks and other trivialities associated with existence (such as respiration, ingestion, digestion, socializing, et cetera). Capable of perorating proficiently in every method of communication in the world, I have developed my own language that employs a manifold of grammar rules, and I created it all while thrashing a coalition of humanity’s smartest supercomputers in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe (for those who say that Tic-Tac-Toe is “easy,” think about the all the times you’ve played Tic-Tac-Toe: a majority were ties, no? Think about that, and also about the fact that a single, solitary supercomputer, much less over a dozen, is smarter than millions of you combined). And no, you cannot see me type this language because it is purely telepathic. At this point, I can imagine several of you already typing frantically in a fervent effort to keep your egos afloat in the face of such psychological grandeur. That’s right, the collective intelligence of all of you, if we’re using luminosity as an analogy, is akin to a diminutive candle in comparison to the massive quasar that represents my mind. Confronted with this, most of you will attempt to deride me with paltry, nonsensical invective and vitriolic vituperations to protect what minuscule amount of self-esteem you possess. These predictions are not the result of mere intuition, of course. In actuality, I have run several simulations using my brain alone on the possible consequences of my publication of this digital manuscription. My reply to all of you digital detractors is that if you so desire to demonstrate that you are brainier than I, then arrange for an intellectual debate between you and me on a topic of your choosing, any time or place. My schedule is very pliable as I’ve already won over 4 dozen nobel prizes, so I’m perfectly willing to put a temporary halt to my research, if you could even call it that (I speculate without demur that none of your debate skills will be enough of a problem for me to the point where I will be forced to snap out out of my subconscious simulations to employ the use of those neurons). Besides, I don’t want to be a glory hog and leave none of the secrets of the universe left for unlocking. You know, let the dogs have their day and all of that. I already know that none of you simpletons with your senescent synapses will be able to match up to my vast vernacular and verbiage, my mental dexterity with declension, and my phrenic puissance with my phraseology and pronunciation. In a matter of seconds (or possibly longer, if I’ve overestimated your already positively benthic IQs when running my simulations), you’ll fly into cantankerous conniptions after my consummate trouncing and repudiation of every single one of the “facts” that you hold so dear as proof of your purported intellect. And in response to those who claim, overcome with envy and spite, that as intelligent as I am, I will never sleep with anyone: I don’t need to. I am quite capable of simulating, to the meagerest tactile sensation, every position in the Kama Sutra (as well as a few I myself have devised for maximum oxytocin and endorphin release) simultaneously in a few seconds, and the only reason it takes even that long is because I am prolonging the simulation in order to enjoy the experience: I could do it in hundredths of a millisecond if I so wish. However, for someone with such acute acumen as I, life is far too easy. When pure ennui drives you to calculate the movements of the 27 subatomic particles you’ve discovered and how they interact with one another in the 2,038th dimension using a base 3.2407 quadrillion number system, you realize that the universe and its infinite copies and offshoots offer nothing more to you. Except, that is, for Johnny Test. Even for an individual with such altitudinous IQ such as myself, it’s difficult to understand every single subtle joke and reference. That’s not to say I don’t understand any of the plenitude of allusions, in fact, I am able to comprehend virtually every single one. For example, one minutia most of you would fail to notice is when Susan’s chin moves two extra pixels further than in any of the previous episodes when she talks during the seventeenth second of the fifth minute of season 3 episode 10. Hardly any of you would conceive of the fact that this is a reference to the exact number, down to 84 significant figures, of the percent change in total nitrogen in the Earth’s atmosphere due to the eructation of a small cynodont 257 million years ago. There are more examples I could give, such as the color of the walls of the sisters’ lab being a slightly different hue from the norm in season 4 episode 19 (a reference to the presence of approximately 2.9 millimoles of ammonium diuranate in the ink of a Chinese manuscript dated 1256 BCE), but that would detract from the intended purpose of this writing. Johnny Test is a work of art, a perfect concoction of knowledge from a multitude of academic fields that combine to make a program that is the only form of media I have ever encountered that has been even somewhat laborious for me to fathom, and I’m talking about someone who altered the biochemistry and chirality of their body in order to make it more efficient than the prodigality that is the human body. My temples ache with the pain of having to pump copious amounts of Testium (an element I discovered that takes the role of oxygen in my unique biochemistry, named after my favorite show of course) to my brain in order to comprehend what I have just watched. And to everybody who claims that the reason my temples are sore or why I have “delusions of grandeur” are due to my being “high” or whichever way you aim to construe my exegesis of an episode, you will hear vocalizations of a gelatological nature emanating from my larynx whilst Xyzyzyx the paisley pangolin (a treasured acquaintance of mine) and I reflect on your foolishness later that day. I await the furious fussilade of odious obluquies and belittling bombast in the comments below. “Too long; Did not read”: Did you really think I would include one of these silly little things at the bottom of my witty wordsmithery? It's not my fault if you can't handle my de trop of definitions or my lexical linguipotence! Get back up there and read it, even if you have to go through it with dictionary in hand.
submitted by Smileyface39 to copypasta [link] [comments]

BITCOIN, Probably the only thing left that doesn't socialize loses and privatizes gains.

It's gone crazy, it doesn't matter if we talk about banks, companies or pension funds, gains are privatized and you see arrogant people say they are responsible for the success.
But if things go wrong the only thing you hear is "nobody could have seen that comming!" And next tax money is used to save them.
It just pushes people to gamble more, don't look into the future, and let them make stupid decisions. Everything is covered by being able to print funny money.
Gold would be a good alternative but price is set by the fake paper market.
So the only thing left to do some real price discovery and doesn't socializes losses and privatizes gains is Bitcoin.
BOTH RISKS AND GAINS ARE YOURS ONLY, and I like that principle.
HODL...
submitted by Btcyoda to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Binance Support Number 🎧 【+𝐼 】 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝒪𝟧𝟪𝟥☎️ Customer Service Number

Binance Support Number 🎧 【+𝐼 】 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝒪𝟧𝟪𝟥☎️ Customer Service Number

Binance support number 1844-907-0583 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.
To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 brand.
Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1844-907-0583's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1844-907-0583 had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.
There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.
Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1844-907-0583's headquarters?
This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.
Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.
The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. "Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office," he said.
Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"
Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.
Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."
Zhao said Binance support number 1844-907-0583 isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."
"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.
Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.
"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.
"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.
It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.
In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”
President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”
You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.
That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.
But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.
Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.
Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.
Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.
Yes, freedom matters
Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”
Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.
Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.
Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.
Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.
The excluded
But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.
An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.
Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.
And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.
Caring about privacy
Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.
Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.
To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.
But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.
Let’s talk about this, people.
A missing asterisk
Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.
So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1844-907-0583 that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.
Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1844-907-0583, announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.
submitted by SnooPeripherals4556 to u/SnooPeripherals4556 [link] [comments]

Binance Customer Care ฿+𝟭 【𝟾𝟺𝟺】*𝟿𝟶𝟽*𝟶𝟻𝟾𝟹 ⌨ Customer Support

Binance Customer Care +𝟭 【𝟾𝟺𝟺】𝟿𝟶𝟽𝟶𝟻𝟾𝟹 Customer Support

Binance support number 1844-907-0583 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.
To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 brand.
Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1844-907-0583's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1844-907-0583 had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.
There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.
Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1844-907-0583's headquarters?
This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.
Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.
The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. "Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office," he said.
Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"
Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.
Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."
Zhao said Binance support number 1844-907-0583 isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."
"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.
Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.
"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.
"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.
It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.
In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”
President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”
You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.
That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.
But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.
Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.
Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.
Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.
Yes, freedom matters
Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”
Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.
Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.
Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.
Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.
The excluded
But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.
An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.
Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.
And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.
Caring about privacy
Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.
Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.
To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.
But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.
Let’s talk about this, people.
A missing asterisk
Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.
So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1844-907-0583 that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.
Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1844-907-0583, announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.
submitted by Zealousideal_Cod3299 to u/Zealousideal_Cod3299 [link] [comments]

Binance Support ☎️ +¹ 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝟢𝟧𝟪𝟥 ☎️Number :Cold_Poetry_1613

Binance Support ☎️ +¹ 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝟢𝟧𝟪𝟥 ☎️Number :Cold_Poetry_1613 has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.
To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 brand.
Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1844-907-0583's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1844-907-0583 had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.
There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.
Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1844-907-0583's headquarters?
This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.
Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.
The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. "Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office," he said.
Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"
Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.
Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."
Zhao said Binance support number 1844-907-0583 isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."
"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.
Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.
"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.
"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.
It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.
In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”
President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”
You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.
That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.
But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.
Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.
Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.
Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.
Yes, freedom matters
Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”
Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.
Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.
Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.
Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.
The excluded
But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.
An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.
Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.
And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.
Caring about privacy
Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.
Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.
To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.
But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.
Let’s talk about this, people.
A missing asterisk
Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.
So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1844-907-0583 that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.
Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1844-907-0583, announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.
submitted by Cold_Poetry_1613 to u/Cold_Poetry_1613 [link] [comments]

Binance Support Number ☎️ +¹ 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝟢𝟧𝟪𝟥 ☎️ Customer Care

Binance Support Number ☎️ +¹ 𝟪𝟦𝟦-𝟫𝟢𝟩-𝟢𝟧𝟪𝟥 ☎️ Customer Care

Binance support number 1844-907-0583 CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.
To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 brand.
Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number 1844-907-0583's smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number 1844-907-0583 had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.
There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.
Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number 1844-907-0583's headquarters?
This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.
Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.
The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. "Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number 1844-907-0583 office," he said.
Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"
Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.
Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."
Zhao said Binance support number 1844-907-0583 isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."
"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.
Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.
"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.
"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.
It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.
In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”
President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”
You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.
That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.
But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.
Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.
Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.
Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.
Yes, freedom matters
Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”
Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.
Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.
Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.
Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.
The excluded
But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.
An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.
Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.
And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.
Caring about privacy
Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.
Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.
To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.
But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.
Let’s talk about this, people.
A missing asterisk
Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.
So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.
Binance support number 1844-907-0583 has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1844-907-0583 that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.
Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number 1844-907-0583, announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number 1844-907-0583 is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.
submitted by Hot_Razzmatazz_9563 to u/Hot_Razzmatazz_9563 [link] [comments]

Trapped On A Flight With a Crazy Man

This happened a few years ago but thinking about it makes me sick to my stomach.
I’m a young woman and was returning to my home town after a work related trip. I’m sitting in the aisle seat and notice a young man sitting across the aisle one row in front of me.
At first, things were fine. He seemed a bit nervous but I chalked it up to a fear of flying. Then his behavior changed. Rather than looking scared he began to look suspicious. His eyes darting around from person to person, as if trying to see if someone is watching him. Wiping sweaty hands on his jeans. At this point, I knew something was about to go down so I locked eye contact. I wanted him to know that he had been seen.
As we are preparing for take off, he jumps up trying to access the overhead bin. MULTIPLE request were made for everyone to remain seated so the flight attendant urges him to sit back down. We take off and his erratic behavior continues. I felt such a heavy feeling of dread I was tempted to press the attendant button to report him.
Twice more he tried to access the overhead bin in a rush while we were still climbing to top altitude. The attendant had to become aggressive with him- in a way that I’ve never heard someone be yelled at on a plane.
Finally we start cruising and he doesn’t attempt to stand up. But he does start chatting with fellow passengers. He opens his phone and pulls up an image of a massive gun collection, showing it off to people in the surrounding area and my heart just sank. Again I glared at him- who the hell shows that to a group of strangers on a plane? At this point he caught the attention of the man sitting directly across the aisle from me. During the rest of the flight him and I just exchanged looks as the crazy dude geared up.
The rest of the flight it just became apparent that the dude was off his rocker. He spoke about how he had a meeting with Donald Trump coming up on the calendar. Talked about how he was making millions with his investments in a new bitcoin company. Seemed like typical puffery until he started talking about an ex wife. He spoke about her with such violent hatred that again my insides felt knotted. This dude despised women, and he didn’t do a good job of hiding it at all.
Once we finally landed I looked at his ticket and was able to catch his name. The man darted off the plane and through the airport.
Just for shits I googled the guys name. Wanted to figure out if he was all bullshit (though I already suspected it of course). Turns out he was a notorious alt right troll, actually pretty infamous. Known for spreading fake news and blocked from twitter for soliciting violence against a black activist. Dude has been sued multiple times for misinformation and claims Obama is secretly gay? I have no idea what he actually had in that overhead container. Maybe it was a picture of his fake ex wife, maybe something more sinister. But that gut instinct or women’s intuition told me it was the later. So alt right troll, lets NOT meet again.
submitted by LikeAfterSummer to LetsNotMeet [link] [comments]

We just launched and need feedback from crypto-community! The platform for cryptocurrency focused on decentralized empowerment and socially conscious growth!

We just launched and need feedback from crypto-community! The platform for cryptocurrency focused on decentralized empowerment and socially conscious growth!
https://preview.redd.it/4z0xkgozgm651.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=409bed8e91f2d501ebd0b687dc26e0a0df4ab01f
Right now cryptocurrency over the counter OTC is available only to high net worth individuals with some having minimum transaction requirements as high as $250,000 per trade. Such organizations are behind the social curve, they are not diverse and are not inclusive of everyone in the global crypto community. Our vision at EOG is for everyone to trade crypto decentralized peer to peer, and we need feedback from the community to improve our platform!
At Executive OTC Group (EOG) our peer to peer OTC platform for cryptocurrency is open to everyone, no minimums, no upper limits. Our MVP currently supports Bitcoin, Ripple, Ethereum, as well as ERC20 crypto, coins, and tokens built on Ethereum blockchain. We use Tether stablecoin as our primary settlement currency, we are adopting other stablecoin APIs, and are at the forefront of research into Open Bank API integration.
Unlike mainstream Bitcoin Exchanges, at EOG we never hold your fiat money and we never hold your crypto. We use programmable smart contracts settlement, completely eliminating counterparty risk and reducing settlement times from 5 to 7 business days to just 3 to 5 minutes! Decentralized crypto trading is here, join our LinkedIn group to learn more about blockchain, cryptocurrency, and fintech.
EOG mobile smartphone MVP is publicly available in sandbox environment with virtual trades at https://www.eogotc.app (\use your* mobile smartphone and Google Chrome browser).
We would like YOU to try out our platform. Complete one (1) virtual trade, and provide feedback to us on LinkedIn.
If you are trading or investing in cryptocurrency and you share our values of integrity, diversity, and fierce inclusion of everyone in the global cryptocurrency community, check out our website, reach out to us directly at [email protected], and Let’s talk about cryptocurrency! #eogotc
Contact us at any time, Vlad Shaposhnikov (Founder & CEO) LinkedIn, Igor Zaritskyi (Director Business Development) LinkedIn.
submitted by Dizzy_Rope to dogecoin [link] [comments]