If you hold your coins with Coinbase, you will no longer be able to send or receive crypto to or from just any old bitcoin address if it has been through a KYC process. Once you move your funds into a non-custodial account, you'll be free to send them to any self-custody address, but if you've never formally associated your identity with that address via a regulated entity, you won't be able to transact with a Coinbase address or one administered by any other regulated custody provider.
I've posted here a few times, warning of (obvious) developments like this. You don't understand these people. They will stop at nothing but total control over who transacts with whom, how much and how often. They reason that only by putting everyone under surveillance can they protect us from crime. This is totalitarian thinking at its finest. With this reasoning, you must put everyone under surveillance to see who is talking to whom (could be a terrorist or a pedo), you must boobytrap the entire legacy banking system to see who is transacting with whom (they could be funding terrorists or - gasp - buying vegetation to smoke online), you must lobby against end-to-end encryption which "keeps you in the dark" (they feel entitled to know everything about everyone, so in that light this sentiment makes sense) and prevents you from finding terrorists and pedos - nevermind that in the process you get to know every intimate, banal, subversive, conversation that everyone has with everyone else. Those of you less into computers don't get it. And your ignorance is costing the world greatly. They are not looking for anyone in particular most of the time (so the "I have nothing to hide" argument is just stupid), the important thing to understand is that without massive amounts of data siphoned off from as many people in as many situations as possible, their artificial intelligence won't work. It needs your data to work. Stop giving it your data. Unless we are to become digital cattle, this must be resisted with all our might. If you don't care about this, you don't understand the grave danger in having the government and its friendly big corporations knowing everything about everyone. You should come to care about this, and you should come to understand this, before it's too late. These new FATF recommendations are nothing unexpected if you understand how they think. This regulation will give them the ability to know who everyone is transacting with, which allows the artificial intelligence to start doing its thing and labeling / cataloging social connections in yet another dimension. It also sets the stage - just you wait for it - to pressure merchants, not just exchanges, to stop accepting orders from non-KYC'd addresses at a global scale, if they are feeling kind only above certain amounts. In the mean time, the artificial intelligence will be busy linking all of your addresses with your purchases too, and someone will be making a fat profit off your data, a la Google/Facebook. And you'll be powerless to stop it, because while the beast was still a baby we failed to slay it. I legitimately believe that this threat is unlike anything we've faced before in human history. We've had mass-surveillance before, but never at anything even remotely approaching this level. We've had tyrants before, but never at a global level. We've had repression, but never with the cold, precise calculations of computers making connections in a split second that would take human operators YEARS. For the sake of all that's good, this massive abuse of human rights has to be stopped. Or we're fucked. Your children are fucked. Their children are fucked. The technology will only get better. The regulations will only get tighter. These people understand very well what they're doing, they see you and your data as their property, and they would very much like to know where you are at all times, who you speak to, what about, what you enjoy reading, how you like spending your time, what your hobbies are, and most relevant to /cryptocurrency, where do you spend your money and who you transact with. The surveillance state would simply crumble without its many tentacles sucking the information out of the digital realm. Resistance has to start somewhere: I suggest Tor, getting rid of facebook, using another search engine besides google (and through Tor), using ad-blockers, encrypting your email, choosing Signal over WhatsApp. And let's not forget getting rid of built-in spyware on your phone - choose LineageOS (arguably our best bet on Android) and f-droid - choose apps that respect your privacy. Turn the damn phone off too, do you really need to be online and reachable 24/7? Trust me, it's pretty liberating not to. Time slows down without all the interruptions and impulses to check this or that online - and that's a good thing. And in the domain of cryptocurrency, I suggest you look into Monero. To quote from the article linked in the beginning:
Anyone stuck on these exchanges will not be allowed to send BTC to certain addresses deemed not in compliance. Let me be clear, this will not be enforced at the protocol level, but at the exchange and services level. Business owners will be forced to censor their users, hopefully driving a significant portion of their user bases away as they wise up and learn how to use the protocol as designed.
Look, I love this guy, he hosts a podcast which is usually very deep and entertaining and which I highly recommend - a great recent episode to listen to if you are not familiar with it is episode 76 with Alex Gladstein, for instance. But like all bitcoin maximalists he fails to notice, because of purely ideological reasons, that it is the inherent obvious flaws in bitcoin that allow for this emerging nightmare to manifest. Bitcoin has no built-in privacy. It was only a matter of time until the usual suspects would leverage this for max impact - this process is now well underway, and as I wrote before, expect the same logic to be applied to merchants; and don't you even think about mixing your coins with something like wasabi wallet, because they will automatically be assumed dirty. The Monero community has been saying for years, and the wider brothers and sisters in the crypto community are still reluctant to comprehend: if a cryptocurrency has no privacy built-in, it cannot be fungible; if it is not fungible, it can and will be censored - and it will (has) be repurposed as a mass-surveillance tool. Look, am I saying dump all your BTC and buy Monero yesterday? Not really. Bitcoin has by far the largest network effect, the largest developer community, and the largest brand recognition. We need Bitcoin to succeed if crypto is to succeed, at least for the foreseeable future. And plenty of innovation comes out of Bitcoin. What I am trying to call your attention to is the orwellian intentions of those who would propose to get as much data about as many aspects of our lives in order to "protect" us. Listen, wake up. You're more likely to die from a bizarre accident with a lightning strike than a terrorist attack. The mass-media distorts everything, we react emotionally to things without considering the odds of it actually happening - repeating the same images over and over usually does the trick. Certain things are being used as leverage (excuses) to strip away our civil liberties and build a global surveillance state. Your government and my government come up with this sort of regulation, behind my back and your back, without having been requested by the people of their countries to do so. Is it for my own good? Is it for your own good? Cui bono ? Who benefits from a global surveillance net that continuously builds profiles about everyone and discerns ever more precise patterns in behavior? Could it be those who would very much like the status quo to remain the status quo? If you know exactly who to target in order to silence opposition.. Could it be those companies that get to make billions from predicting human behavior and selling stuff to people - precisely the right kind of stuff for that kind of person - at precisely the right time for precisely the right reasons? (Whether they actually need the stuff or not) It's time to wake up to these very important issues folks. The governments that claim to represent us have cast the dice already, and our best interests are not on the table. It is up to us to change the tide, demand privacy, and say that enough is enough. What are they going to do? Put everyone in jail? Wake up, before it's too late. TL;DR (by popular demand): Why surveillance is not OK.
Banano is a feeless and instant cryptocurrency powered by DAG technology that is rich in potassium and designed to disrupt the meme economy. It's a fork of Nano with more memes and lower PoW requirement. Banano was born on April 1, 2018, so the project is still quite young. See a very brief conceptual summary here: https://gfycat.com/MenacingPointedAmericansaddlebred
Don't want to read all the below? See a brief summary of all you need to know and all important links on one page at https://banano.how
Why is Banano?
Don't let your memes be dreams!
What is the total supply of Banano?
The total supply is 3,402,823,669.20 BANANO (which is 10x the initial Nano supply). The circulating supply currently changes a lot, as does the market cap. You can check current price estimations here: https://creeper.banano.cc/exploreexchange_rates or at our first bigger exchange, Mercatox:
We will have something even better; the yellow paper. It is yet to be released. It will contain not only the philosophy and the technology behind the Project, but also MEMES!
What's the difference between NANO and BANANO?
BANANO is running on the same technological base as NANO, although some parameters like PoW threshold and units were tweaked. The biggest difference is the governance, with BANANO being a meme coin with more fun, freedom and creative experiments.
You can be tipped free Banano here or on the discord for being active or contributing to the community. Otherwise there are regular giveaways, contests and small airdrops mostly happening on the discord server all the time. Hint: If you are new here and tell us below about your first impression and how you found us you might actually get some tasty free Banano right away ;) Banano is freely distributed and is not sold by the devs through some sort of ICO. They distribute it to their community for free! This is also why there are regular faucet game events. Apart from this, you also can buy Banano at the exchange Mercatox: https://mercatox.com/
Keep your eyes open for official announcements on the Discord. Sometimes these games can start on short notice. Mostly the start of faucet game events will also be announced via Twitter, here at Reddit and the Telegram group. Don't play the game without confirming first that an event is running!
I have played a faucet game, when will I receive the payment?
Be a bit patient, all game results are carefully checked by the devs to detect cheating/bot usage. Since they have also lots of other things to do it might take a few days or even more than a few days before you receive your Banano from faucet games. Don't worry, everything will be paid out.
Is Banano listed on an exchange?
Yes, on Mercatox, with Nano (XRB) and Bitcoin (BTC) pairs: https://mercatox.com/ Also, there is an ongoing vote for Banano to get listed at Coinex, supported by a 1000 Ban bounty for everyone who votes. More details at http://vote.banano.how
Are there any airdrops?
There has been an airdrop to Nano holders before, see https://banano.claims/. There also will be future airdrops, keep your eyes open for announcements!
Can I buy Banano?
Banano is mainly distributed to everyone for free as mentioned above. However, you can buy Banano from other users directly with Nano at the discord in the #jungle-bazaar channel. These trades are safe when using the on-board escrow bot. Check out this detailed step-by-step guide:
You can check this website for current conversion rates: https://creeper.banano.cc/exploreexchange_rates However, be aware that this price calculation (based on discord trades) will not always be 100% accurate. Otherwise check current prices at Mercatox:
My question is not listed here, where to ask for help?
You can post your question below or ask it at the discord, in the channel #the-jungle. Many community members are nice and will happily help you!
I have feedback, suggestions or ideas? Where can I leave them?
All this best goes to the reddit feedback thread you always will find here: http://feedback.banano.how Feedback is highly appreciated, and if you have great ideas, time, or special talents, you should also post there, join us and contribute!
Anything else important to know?
Yes! Be cautious! No official or dev will ever request you to send Banano or other crypto, or ask you for a password or your seed. Keep your seed safe! Be careful about scammers impersonating to be devs, team-members or official mods. Also, always be cautious about people offering you to buy Banano, only trades through the escrow bot in the Discord (#jungle-bazaar) are safe! Be careful, scammers are everywhere. Ask one of the moderators in case of any doubt! Ok, that should be the essential part for now. Any suggestions/updates? More questions? Comment below! Big thanks to the great meme artist CastrosBallsack for helping to create this FAQ. Last update: 2018-10-01
There are no words for how happy you've made me! You beautiful, beautiful people... THANK YOU!
Edit: I am so grateful to everyone who is using other methods of payment to carry on the spirit of this subreddit while I try to sort everything out with Paypal. I want to say thank you to everyone who has been dedicated to donating to the cause, even setting up bitcoin and changetip accounts to do so. You guys are seriously amazing, and I'm blessed to even be a part of this. It's been a busy weekend, but I've updated the totals for you guys and am working on unfreezing everything with Paypal. This probably means I'll be consolidating my accounts together, so it might take a minute. Again, thank you so much for everything. Paypal has demanded that I remove the link from this post as it violates the Acceptable Use Policy. This is clearly due to a misunderstanding of how /millionairemakers works, so I'll be contacting them tomorrow to see if I can re-add the button back up. I've submitted everything to verify GWallet and Paypal. Now comes the waiting game. This means that the totals below are substantially lower than what has actually been donated. YOUR DONATIONS ARE GOING THROUGH, MY BANK IS NOT WORKING AT THE SPEED OF REDDIT! Again, I'm totally breathless at all of this, THANK YOU!! I'm trying to reply to as many people as I can, thank you thank you THANK YOU all so much for everything, this is so amazing! Holy bananagrams you guys, you've made my entire year! I'm still in shock from all of this. Thank you all so much for donating and to being a part of this amazing subreddit! I'm trying as hard as I can to reply to all of you. I had lost my job a couple of months ago and was drowning in the quagmire of job searches. I started getting really depressed about a week ago, as I had just about run out of the savings I had to get a new job. The other day I posted in /millionairemakers hoping for something but not really expecting anything. I've lurked on reddit for a little while and don't really have the courage to post anything, just the odd comment here and there. After a job interview today, I went on a hike with a friend of mine and afterwards saw that my phone exploded with replies about winning this and I'm on cloud 9 right now with excitement! As for what I'll do with this money, most of it will go to taking down my student debt and living expenses...all except for one dollar, which of course goes to the future winner. If this is significant enough, you can bet that I'll be in places like /Random_Acts_Of_Pizza , /millionairemakers , etc. trying to impart the same elation that I have now. This is an amazing community and I'm so blessed to be a small part of it. I'm shaking with happiness and I hope to contribute the same feeling to the next person. Huge thanks to the mods for helping out with the logistics and verification. Another huge thanks to all the redditors of this beautiful subreddit, you have changed my life in a way that I will remember forever and can only hope to pay forward. prophecynine posted links to my address to see how much Bitcoin, Dogecoin and Litecoin y'all have donated.
17:00 EST: GOOGLE WALLET IS VERIFIED AND WORKING. I have just got off the phone with Google wallet and everything is verified. I have a bunch of transactions to claim, so I'll be back in a bit with the updated numbers. Thanks for being so patient! THE PAYPAL ACCOUNT WAS VERIFIED BUT APPARENTLY IT AUTO-DENIED PAYMENTS.
Paypal: $870Still frozen, working on it
BTC: 3.49455462 = $1064.89
Dogecoin: 944,420.14707387 = $159.88
Dogetip: 743969.22631525 = $125.61
Litecoin: 20.41007954 = $39.27
First update: $1401.32 21:58 EST: $2335.00 04:17 EST: $2460.31 Still waiting on GWallet and Paypal. You guys are incredible. 01/22 20:00 EST: $3743.80 01/24 03:23 EST: $4400.96 01/26 10:55 EST: $5190.99 This part is written by the mods: All of the amounts below should result in smallrye receiving about $1 USD Methods of payment: Tipbots
Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The time zone means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have almost never posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His peak posting times would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the opposite of what one would expect.
Fact: Craig’s own mother admits that he has a habit of fabricating stories.
 - This link may be relevant.  - Why would Satoshi do this?  - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?  - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say: Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments. That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
A brief teardown of some of the flaws in the Lightning Network white paper
This post will perforce be quick and sloppy, because I have other things to do. But a recent comment provoked me to re-read the Lightning white paper to remind myself of the myriad flaws in it, so I decided to at least begin a debunking. When I first read the Lightning white paper back in early 2016, the sheer audacity of the author's preposterous claims and their failure to understand basic principles of the Satoshi paper just offended the living shit out of me. I presumed - incorrectly - that the Lightning paper would be soon torn to shreds through peer review. However Core was successful in suppressing peer review of the paper, and instead inserted Lighting as their end-all be-all scaling plan for Bitcoin. I'm sorry I didn't post this in 2016, but better later than never. Let's start with the abstract.
The bitcoin protocol can encompass the global financial transaction volume in all electronic payment systems today, without a single custodial third party holding funds or requiring participants to have anything more than a computer using a broadband connection.
Well now, that's an awfully gigantic claim for someone that hasn't even written a single line of code as a proof of concept don't you think? This is what's called "overpromising," the Nirvana fallacy, or more appropriately, "vaporware" - that is to say, a pie-in-the-sky software promise intended to derail progress on alternatives. In the very first sentence, the authors claim that they can scale Bitcoin to support every transaction that ever happens, from micropayments to multibillion dollar transfers, with no custodial risk, on a simple computer with nothing more than broadband. It will be perfect. Honestly everyone should have put the paper down at the first sentence, but let's go on.
A decentralized system is proposed
The authors claim that the system proposed is decentralized, but without even a single line of code (and indeed no solution to the problem they claim is the issue, more on that later) they have zero defense of this claim. In fact, the only known solution to the problem that Lightning cannot solve is centralized hubs. We'll get back to this.
whereby transactions are sent over a network of micropayment channels (a.k.a. payment channels or transaction channels) whose transfer of value occurs off-blockchain. If Bitcoin transactions can be signed with a new sighash type that addresses malleability, these transfers may occur between untrusted parties along the transfer route by contracts which, in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, are enforceable via broadcast over the bitcoin blockchain in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, through a series of decrementing timelocks
So right here in the abstract we have the promise: "support the entire world's transaction needs on a measly computer with just broadband, totally decentralized, and... (drum roll please) all that's missing is Segwit." Yeah right. Let's continue. First sentence of the paper itself reads:
The Bitcoin blockchain holds great promise for distributed ledgers, but the blockchain as a payment platform, by itself, cannot cover the world’s commerce anytime in the near future.
So the authors have constructed a false problem they claim to solve: scaling Bitcoin to cover every transaction on Earth. Now, that would be neato if it worked (it doesn't) but really, this is like Amerigo Vespucci claiming that the problem with boats is that the sails aren't big enough to carry it to the moon. We aren't ready for that part yet. . In infotech we have a saying, "crawl, walk, run." Lightning's authors are going to ignore "walking" and go from crawling to lightspeed. Using the logic of this first sentence, Visa never should have rolled out its original paper-based credit cards, because "obviously they can't scale to solve the whole world's financial needs." Again, your bullshit detector should be lighting up. Next sentence. So why can't Bitcoin cover all the world's financial transactions?
The blockchain is a gossip protocol whereby all state modifications to the ledger are broadcast to all participants. It is through this “gossip protocol” that consensus of the state, everyone’s balances, is agreed upon.
Got it. The problem is the "gossip protocol." That's bad because...
If each node in the bitcoin network must know about every single transaction that occurs globally, that may create a significant drag on the ability of the network to encompass all global financial transactions
OK. The problem with Bitcoin, according to the author, is that since every node must know the current state of the network, it won't scale. We'll get back to this bit later, because this is the crux: Lightning has the same problem, only worse. Now the authors take a break in the discussion to create a false premise surrounding the Visa network:
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
I'll just point out that Visa itself cannot sustain 47K tpscontinuously, as a reminder to everyone that the author is deliberately inflating numbers to make them seem more scary. Again, is your bullshit detector going off yet? Now we get to the hard-sell:
Clearly, achieving Visa-like capacity on the Bitcoin network isn’t feasible today.
So the author deliberately inflates Visa's capabilities then uses that to say clearly it just can't be done. But really, Visa's actual steady-state load can be accomplished in roughly 500MB blocks - which actually is feasible, or nearly so, today. 500MB every ten minutes is actually a small load of data for a decent-sized business. There are thousands of companies that could quite easily support such a load. And that's setting aside the point that we took 7 years to get to 1MB, so it's unlikely that we'll need 500X that capacity "in the near future" or "today" as the authors keep asserting.
No home computer in the world can operate with that kind of bandwidth and storage.
whoopsie!! Did he say, home computer?? Since when did ordinary Bitcoin users have to keep the whole blockchain on their home computers? Have the authors of the Lightning white paper ever read the Satoshi white paper, which explains that this is not the desired model in Section 8? Clearly the Lightning authors are expecting their readers to be ignorant of the intended design of the Bitcoin network. This is a classic example of inserting a statement that the reader is unlikely to challenge, which completely distorts the discussion. Almost nobody needs to run a fullnode on their home computer! Read the Satoshi paper!
If Bitcoin is to replace all electronic payments in the future, and not just Visa, it would result in outright collapse of the Bitcoin network
Really? Is that so? Isn't the real question how fast will Bitcoin reach these levels of adoption? Isn't the author simply making an assumption that adoption will outpace advances in hardware and software, based on using wildly inflated throughput numbers (47K tps) in the first place? But no, the author makes an unfounded, unsupportable, incorrect blanket assertion that -- even in the future -- trying to scale up onchain will be the death of the entire system.
or at best, extreme centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it.
Again, that depends on when this goes down. If Bitcoin grows at roughly the rate of advancement in hardware and software, then the cost to . independently validate transactions - something no individual user needs to do in the first place - actually stays perfectly flat. But the best part is that his statement:
centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it
Ummm... mining and independent validation has always been limited to those who can afford it. What big-blockers know is that the trick isn't trying to make Bitcoin so tiny that farmers in sub-Saharan Africa can "validate" the blockchain on a $0.01 computer, but rather to expand adoption so greatly that they never have to independently validate it. Running scalable validation nodes at home is dumb. But, there are already millions of people with synchronous gigabit internet at home and more than enough wealth to afford a beefy home computer. The problem is that none of them are using Bitcoin. Adoption is the key!
This centralization would then defeat aspects of network decentralization that make Bitcoin secure, as the ability for entities to validate the chain is what allows Bitcoin to ensure ledger accuracy and security
Here the author throws a red herring across the trail for gullible readers. It is not my ability to validate the chain that produces trustlessness. If that was the case, there would be no need for miners. Users would simply accept or not accept other people's transactions based on their software's interpretation of validity. The Satoshi paper makes it quite clear where trustlessness is born: it is in the incentives that enforce honest mining of an uncorrupted chain. In other words, I don't have to validate the chain, but Poloniex does. And, newsflash, big companies can very easily afford big validation nodes. "$20K nodes" is a bullshit number I hear thrown around a lot. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies that can easily afford $20K nodes in the event that Bitcoin becomes "bigger than Visa." Again, the trick is getting many companies in every jurisdiction in the world onto the blockchain. Then no individuals ever need to worry about censorship. Adoption! let's continue. I'll skip a few sentences.
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 gigabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
If this were written in 1997 it would have read
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 megabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
Obviously, we are processing 8MB blocks today. The real question is how long before we get there. At current rates of adoption, we'll all be fucking dead before anyone mines an 8GB block. And remember, 8GB was the number the authors cooked up. Even Visa can't handle that load, today, continuously.
This creates a great possibility that entities will end up trusting centralized parties. Having privileged, trusted parties creates a social trap whereby the central party will not act in the interest of an individual (principalagent problem), e.g. rentierism by charging higher fees to mitigate the incentive to act dishonestly. In extreme cases, this manifests as individuals sending funds to centralized trusted custodians who have full custody of customers’ funds. Such arrangements, as are common today, create severe counterparty risk. A prerequisite to prevent that kind of centralization from occurring would require the ability for bitcoin to be validated by a single consumer-level computer on a home broadband connection.
Here the author (using his wildly inflated requirement of 8GB blocks) creates a cloud of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that "Bitcoin will fail if it succeeds" - and the solution is, as any UASFer will tell you, that everyone needs to validate the chain on a weak fullnode running on a cheap computer with average internet connectivity. How's the bullshit detector going? Now the authors make a head-fake in the direction of honesty:
While it is possible that Moore’s Law will continue indefinitely, and the computational capacity for nodes to cost-effectively compute multigigabyte blocks may exist in the future, it is not a certainty.
Certainty? No. But, we should point out, the capacity to actually approach Visa is already at hand and in the next ten years is a near certainty in fact. But, surely, the solution that the authors propose is "around the corner" (- Luke-jr) ... /s . No, folks. Bigger blocks are the closest thing to "scaling certainty" that we have. More coming up....
To achieve much higher than 47,000 transactions per second using Bitcoin requires conducting transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain itself.
Now we get to the meat of the propaganda. To reach a number that Visa itself cannot sustain will "never" be possible on a blockchain. NEVER?? That's just false. In fact, I'll go on record as saying that Bitcoin will hit Visa-like levels of throughput onchain before Lightning Network ever meets the specification announced in this white paper.
It would be even better if the bitcoin network supported a near-unlimited number of transactions per second with extremely low fees for micropayments.
Yes, and it would also be even better if we had fusion and jetpacks. The thing is, these things that are promised as having been solved... have not been solved and no solution is in sight.
Many micropayments can be sent sequentially between two parties to enable any size of payments.
No, this is plain false. Once a channel's funds have been pushed to one side of the channel, no more micropayments in that direction can be made. This is called channel exhaustion and is one of the many unsolved problems of Lightning Network. But here the authors declare it as a solved problem. That's just false.
Micropayments would enable unbunding, less trust and commodification of services, such as payments for per-megabyte internet service. To be able to achieve these micropayment use cases, however, would require severely reducing the amount of transactions that end up being broadcast on the global Bitcoin blockchain
Now I'm confused. Is Lightning a solution for all the world's financial transactions or is it a solution for micropayments for things like pay-per-megabyte internet?
While it is possible to scale at a small level, it is absolutely not possible to handle a large amount of micropayments on the network or to encompass all global transactions.
There it is again, the promise that Lightning will "encompass all global transactions." Bullshit detector is now pegged in the red.
For bitcoin to succeed, it requires confidence that if it were to become extremely popular, its current advantages stemming from decentralization will continue to exist. In order for people today to believe that Bitcoin will work tomorrow, Bitcoin needs to resolve the issue of block size centralization effects; large blocks implicitly create trusted custodians and significantly higher fees. . (emphasis mine)
"Large" is a term of art which means "be afraid." In 1997, 8MB would have been an unthinkably large block. Now we run them live in production without breaking a sweat. "Large" is a number that changes over time. . By the time Bitcoin reaches "Visa-like levels of adoption" it's very likely that what we consider "large" today (32MB?) will seem absolutely puny. As someone who first started programming on a computer that had what was at the time industry-leading 64KB of RAM (after expanding the memory with an extra 16K add-on card) and a pair of 144KB floppy disks, all I can tell you is that humans are profoundly bad at estimating compounding effects and the author of the Lightning paper is flat-out banking on this to sell his snake oil. Now things are about to get really, really good.
A Network of Micropayment Channels Can Solve Scalability “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Here's where the formal line by line breakdown will come to an end, because this is where the trap the Lightning authors have set will close on them. Let's just read a bit further:
The above quote questions the relevance of unobserved events —if nobody hears the tree fall, whether it made a sound or not is of no consequence. Similarly, in the blockchain, if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
Here and elsewhere the author of the paper is implying that two parties can transact between them without having to announce the state of their channel to anyone else. We see this trope repeated time and time again by LN shills. "Not everyone in the world needs to know about my coffee transaction" they say, as if programmed. To see the obvious, glaring defect here requires an understanding of what Lightning Network purports to be able to do, one day, if it's ever finished. Payment channels, which Lightning is based on, have been around since Satoshi and are nothing new at all. It is and has always been possible to create a payment channel with your coffee shop, put $50 in it, and pay it out over a period of time until it's depleted and the coffee shop owner closes the channel. That's not rocket science, that's original Bitcoin. What Lightning purports to be able to do is to allow you to route a payment to someone else by using the funds in your coffee shop channel. IN this model, lets suppose Alice is the customer and Bob is the shop. Let's also suppose that Charlie is a customer of Dave's coffee shop. Ernie is a customer of both Bob and Dave's shop. Now, Alice would like to send money to Charlie. This could be accomplished by:
Alice moves funds to Bob
Bob moves funds to Ernie
Ernie moves funds to Dave
Dave moves funds to Charlie
or more simply, A-B-E-D-C Here's the catch. To pull this off, Alice has to be able to find the route to Charlie. This means that B-C-E and D all have to be online. So first off, all parties to a transaction and in a route must be online and we must know their current online status to even begin the process. Again: to use Lightning as described in its white paper requires everyone to always be online. If we accept centralized routing hubs, then only the hubs need to be online, but Lightning proposed to be decentralized, which means, essentially, everyone needs to always be online. Next, we need to know there are enough funds in all channels to perform the routing. Let's say Alice has $100 in her channel with Bob and wants to send this to Charlie. But Bob has only $5 in his channel with Ernie. sad trombone . The maximum that the route can support is $5. (Edit: not quite right, I cleaned this up here.) Notice something? Alice has to know the state of every channel through which she intends to route funds. When the author claims
if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
That's true -- unless you want to use the Lightning Network to route funds - and routing funds is the whole point. Otherwise, Lightning is just another word for "payment channels." The whole magic that they promised was using micropayments to route money anywhere. If you want to route funds, then you absolutely need to know the state of these channels. Which ones? That's the kicker - you essentially have to know all of them, to find the best route - and, sadly - it might be the case that no route is available - which requires an exhaustive search. And in fact, here we are over 18 months since this paper was published, and guess what? The problem of the "gossip protocol" - the very Achille's Heel of Bitcoin according to the author - has been solved with drum roll please --- the gossip protocol. (more info here) Because, when you break it down, in order for Alice to find that route to Charlie, she has to know the complete, current state of Bob-Ernie, Ernie-Dave, and Charlie-Dave. IF the Lightning Network doesn't keep *every participant up to date with the latest network state, it can't find a route. So the solution to the gossip protocol is in fact the gossip protocol. And - folks - this isn't news. Here's a post from ONE YEAR AGO explaining this very problem. But wait. It gets worse.... Let's circle around to the beginning. The whole point of Lightning, in a nutshell, can be described as fixing "Bitcoin can't scale because every node needs to know every transaction." It is true that every node needs to know every transaction. However: because we read the Satoshi white paper we know that not every user needs to run a node to validate his transactions. End-users should use SPV, which do not need to be kept up to date on everyone else's transactions. So, with onchain Bitcoin, you have something on the order of 10K "nodes" (validation nodes and miners) that must receive the "gossip" and the other million or so users just connect and disconnect when they need to transact. This scales. In contrast, with Lightning, every user needs to receive the "gossip." This does not scale. Note something else? Lightning purports to be an excellent solution to "streaming micropayments." But such micropayments would result in literally millions or billions of continuous state-changes to the network. There's no way to "gossip" millions of micropayment streams each creating millions of tiny transactions. Now, there is a way to make Lightning scale. It's called the "routing hub." In this model, end-users don't need to know the state of the network. Instead, they will form channels with trusted hubs who will perform the routing on their behalf. A simple example illustrates. IN our previous example, Alice wants to send money to Charlie, but has to find a route to him. An easy solution is to insert Frank. Frank holds 100K btc and can form bidirectional channels with Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ernie, and most everyone else too. By doing so, he places himself in the middle of a routing network, and then all payments come through Frank. Note that the only barrier to creating channels is capital. Lightning will scale, if we include highly-capitalized hubs as middlemen for everyone else to connect to. If the flaw here is not obvious then someone else can explain. Well. As Mark Twain once quipped, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." I'll stop here. Hopefully this goes at least part of the way towards helping the community understand just how toxic and deceptive this white paper was to the community. Everyone on the Segwit chain has bet the entire future of Segwit-enabled Bitcoin on this unworkable house-of-cards sham. The rest of us, well, we took evasive action, and are just waiting for the rest of the gullible, brainwashed masses to wake up to their error, if they ever do. H/T: jonald_fyookball for provoking this Edit: fixed wrong names in my A-B-C-D-E example; formatting
Among the more frequently mentioned G+ alternatives at the Google+ Mass Migration community, and others, is MeWe with over 250 mentions. The site bills itself as "The Next-Gen Social Network" and the "anti-Facebook": "No Ads, No Political Bias, No Spyware. NO BS. It is headed by professed Libertarian CEO Mark Weinstein. As the site reveals no public user-generated content to non-members, it's necessary to create an account in order to get a full impression. I thought I'd provide an overview based on recent explorations. This report leads of with background on the company, though readers may find the report and analysis of specific groups on the site of interest.
Founder & CEO Mark Weinstein. Co-Founder & Chief Scientist, Jonathan Wolfe (no longer with company). Weinstein previously founded SuperFamily and SuperFriends, "at the turn of the millennium". Weinstein's MeWe biography lists articles published by The Mirror (UK), Huffington Post, USA Today, InfoSecurity Magazine, Dark Reading, and the Nation. His media appearances include MarketWatch, PBS, Fox News, and CNN. He's also the author of several personal-success books. His Crunchbase bio is a repeat of the MeWe content.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee: Inventor of the World Wide Web.
Jack Canfield: Legendary Founder, Chicken Soup For The Soul.
John Friedman: Founding Partner, Easton Capital.
Cullen Hoback: Director, Terms and Conditions May Apply.
Dianne Morrison: Partner, MorrisonMcNabb, LLC.
Colin Sebastian: Director, Equity Research/Internet, RW Baird.
Brett Shevack: CEO, Brand Initiatives; Former Vice Chair, BBDO.
Marci Shimoff: author, Happy for No Reason.
Sherry Turkle: Professor, MIT; author Alone Together.
Ownership & Investment
MeWe is the dba of Sgrouples, a private for-profit early-stage venture company based in Los Angeles, though with a Mountain View HQ and mailing address, 11-50 employees, with $10m in funding over five rounds, and a $20m valuation as of 2016. Sgrouples, Inc., dba MeWe Trust & Safety - Legal Policy c/o Fenwick West 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Crunchbase Profile. Founded: 2012 (source) Secured $1.2M in seed funding in 2014. 2016 valuation: $20m (source] Backers:
John Friedman, venture capitalist, founder & MD, Easton Capital, New York, NY.
Do you have friends still on Facebook? Share this link with them about Facebook wanting their banking information - tell them to move to MeWe now! No Ads. No Spyware. No Political Agenda. No Bias Algorithms. No Shadow Banning. No Facial Recognition.
MeWe provide several policy-related links on the site:
California Disclosures -- Do Not Track, 3rd-party cookies, and California Privacy Rights.
Your Identity: We protect it to the extent the law allows
Linking to Third-Party Sites: These are your decisions and responsibilities
Security: HTTPS and Encryption
Terms of Service
The ToS addresses:
Allowable Content and Acceptable Use
Who Our Services are For
User Content Ownership
Misuse of Usernames, Page names, Group names
Fake Accounts (pseudonyms allowed, misleading is not)
More on Spam
Our Commitment to Data Security
MeWe Content Data
MeWe Log Data
Your Data Portability
Deleting Your Account -- Right to Erasure
MeWe Secret Chat
MeWe Invitations and "Add Automatically"
Additional Policies for Pages, Groups, and Events Notifications of Requests for Account Information
Guidelines for Law Enforcement Seeking Customer Data (Worldwide)
Ownership In and To the Site and Services
Effective: November 6, 2018.
The FAQ addresses:
What is MeWe (emphasises privacy)
The Politics of MeWe ("absolutely no political agenda")
How can MeWe be free and make money? (additional services/freemium)
Which devices is MeWe available on? (Android, iOS)
What content can I share on MeWe (photos, videos, documents, voice messages, privacy mail, chats, gifs, memes, doodles)
What are some unique features of MeWe?
Who can see the posts I share?
Can I delete my MeWe account and is it easy to do this?
This emphasises that people are social cratures and private people by right. The service offers the power of self expression under an umbrella of safety. It notes that our innermost thoughts require privacy. Under "We aspire...":
MeWe is here to empower and enrich your world. We challenge the status quo by making privacy, respect, and safety the foundations of an innovatively designed, easy-to-use social experience.
Totalling 182 words.
Privacy Bill of Rights
A ten-item statement of principles (possibly inspired by another document, it might appear):
You own your personal information & content. It is explicitly not ours.
You will never receive a targeted advertisement or 3rd party content based on what you do or say online. We think that's creepy.
You see every post in timeline order from your friends, family & groups. We do not manipulate, filter, or change the order of your content or what you see.
Permissions & privacy are your rights. You control them.
You control who can access your content.
You control what, if anything, others can see in member searches.
Your privacy means we do not share your personal information with anyone.
Your emojis are for you and your friends. We do not monitor or mine your data.
Your face is your business. We do not use facial recognition technology.
You have the right to delete your account and take your content with you at any time.
There are a few mentions of MeWe in the press, some listed on the company's website, others via web search.
The following articles are linked directly from MeWe's Press page:
The page also lists a "Privacy Revolution Required Reading" list of 20 articles all addressing Facebook privacy gaffes in the mainstream press (Wired, TechCrunch, Fortune, Gizmodo, The Guardian, etc.). There are further self-reported mentions in several of the company's PR releases over the years.
Facebook Alternative MeWe Raises $5.2M, Los Angeles Business Journal (July 7, 2018) "The latest round, as well as MeWe’s total $10 million in fundraising, was predominantly backed by celebrity investors, such as author Marci Shimoff, Rachel Roy, and Lynda Weinman, founder of Lynda.com, which sold to Linkedin in 2015 for $1.5 billion. Jack Canfield, creator of the “Chicken Soup for the Soul” book series, also invested in MeWe."
Is building a Facebook alternative worth the effort? MeWe thinks soVentureBeat (July 5, 2018) "[T]here are still companies hoping to make their mark in the social networking realm with “Facebook alternatives.” One of those is MeWe, a “next-generation” social network that positions itself as the anti-Facebook: “Your private life is not for sale. No ads. No Spyware. No BS,” its website proclaims." Continues to mention "modest $5.2 million" funding round. Also a "sister product", MeWePRO, a Slack competitor.
Startup MeWe Launches Free, 'No Ads' Social NetworkeWeek (March 16, 2016) "MeWe, a new network engineered with its users' data privacy built in, is betting that a lot of people will say yes to both of those questions. The Mountain View, Calif.-based startup, whose parent company is Sgrouples.com, launched its freely available social network out of beta March 9 with more than 200,000 members already using it.... Sir Tim Berners-Lee, co-architect of the World Wide Web, found out about MeWe on his own and approached the company about getting involved."
Facebook Alternative MeWe closes $5.2M Series A Yahoo/PR Newswire (July 5, 2018). "The investment brings MeWe's total funding to $10 million, to support the engineering of MeWe and the enterprise version MeWePRO.... The company has relied on high net worth individuals for all of its funding including Lynda Weinman, founder of Lynda.com ...; Marci Shimoff, a #1 New York Times bestselling author ...; Rachel Roy...; and Jack Canfield."
Exactis Data Leak 2018: 340 Million Records ExposedInvestorPlace (June 29, 2018) "'Today's cookies can link your mobile phone to your laptop, to your home monitoring devices, and much, much more. Creepy? Scary? Orwellian? Yes, yes, yes,' Mark Weinstein, the privacy expert and founder of social media company MeWe, told MarketWatch. 'So imagine that Exactis, like Facebook, knows everything about you — really.'"
MeWe Raises $3M in FundingFinSMEs (March 9, 2016) "Sgrouples, Inc., the Mountain View, CA-based developer of MeWe, a social network with neither ads nor tracking, raised $3m in funding."
This section is a basic rundown of the user-visible site technology.
The site is not natively accessible from a mobile Web browser as it is overlayed with a promotion for the mobile application instead. Selecting "Desktop View" in most mobile browsers should allow browser-based access.
There are both Android and iOS apps for MeWe. I've used neither of these, though the App store entries note:
MeWe Android 4.4 rating (13.1k ratings). Permissions: Contacts (read), Location (approximate/precise), SMS (receive), Phone (read status & identity), Photos/Media/Files (read, modify, & delete contents), Storage (read, modify, or delete), Camera (take pictures/videos), Microphone (record audio), Device ID & Call Info (read status & identity), and numerous elements under Other.
Crunchbase cites 209,220 mobile downloads over the past 30 days (via Apptopia), an 80.78% monthly growth rate, from Google Play.
Either selecting "View Desktop" or navigating with a Desktop browser to https://www.mewe.com your are presented with a registration screen, with the "About", "Privacy Bill of Rights", "MeWe Challenge", and a language selector across the top of the page. Information requested are first and last name, phone or email, and a password. Pseudonymous identities are permitted, though this isn't noted on the login screen. Returning members can use the "Member Log In" button. The uMatrix Firefox extension reveals no third-party content: all page elements are served from mewe.com, img.mewe.com, cdn.mewe.com, or ws.mewe.com. (In subsequent browsing, you may find third-party plugins from, for example, YouTube, for videos, or Giphy, for animated GIFs.) The web front-end is nginx. The site uses SSL v3, issued by DigiCert Inc. to Sgrouples, Inc.
The onboarding experience is stark. There is no default content presented. A set of unidentified icons spans the top of the screen, these turn out to be Home, Chats, Groups, Pages, and Events. New users have to, somehow, find groups or people to connect with, and there's little guidance as to how to do this.
Generally there is a three panel view, with left- and right-hand sidebars of largely navigational or status information, and a central panel with main content. There are also pop-up elements for chats, an omnipresent feature of the site. Controls display labels on some devices and/or resolutions. Controls do not provide tooltips for navigational aid.
My Cloud - Seamlessly organize all your content in My Cloud; it's your personal cloud. My Cloud offers an interactive dashboard for you to control everything you’ve posted or shared - making it simple to delete or reshare.
Unique profiles - Be yourself, free from any tracking and spying. Customize your profile for every group you create or join.
Voice integration (on any or all content) - Post pictures, videos, or documents and include a voice message. Respond to a shared post or just chat. MeWe’s voice integration works for you and your contacts throughout the entire platform.
Universal tagging - This is a new, convenient way to sort and organize all the content you receive and share, making it easy to find everything, anytime.
Enhanced permission control (patent issued) - Manage permissions on a granular level and decide exactly who sees what. You can also remove yourself from the search directory, make yourself invisible to other members online, and much more.
Much More – join MeWe today and take a look inside! MeWe is the next-gen social networking experience designed for you to have fun, stay in touch, collaborate, organize, and simplify.
A key aspect of any social network is its community. Some of the available or ascertained information on this follows.
Weinstein claims a "million+ following inside MeWe.com" on Twitter. The largest visible groups appear to have a maximum of around 15,000 members , for "Awesome gifs". "Clean Comedy" rates 13,350, and the largest open political groups, 11,000+ members. This compares to Google+ which has a staggering, though Android-registrations-inflated 3.3 billion profiles, and 7.9 million communities, though the largest of these come in at under 10 million members. It's likely that MeWe's membership is on the whole more more active than Google+'s, where generally-visible posting activity was limited to just over 9% of all profiles, and the active user base was well under 1% of the total nominal population.
MeWe do not publish active users (e.g., MUA / monthly active users) statistics.
MeWe is principally a group-oriented discussion site -- interactions take place either between individuals or within group contexts. Virtually all discovery is group-oriented. The selection and dynamics of groups on the site will likely strongly affect user experience, so exploring the available groups and their characteristics is of interest. "MeWe has over 60,000 open groups" according to its FAQ. The Open groups -- visible to any registered MeWe user, though not to the general public Web -- are browsable, though sections and topics must be expanded to view the contents: an overview isn't immediately accessible. We provide a taste here. A selection of ten featured topics spans the top of the browser. As I view these, they are:
Health & Fitness
Cars & Motorcycles
Fashion and Beauty
Specific groups may appear in multiple categories. The top Groups within these topics have, variously, 15,482, 7,738, 15,482 (dupe), 7,745, 8,223, 8,220, 1,713, 9,527, 2,716, and 1,516 members. Listings scroll at length -- the Music topic has 234 Groups, ranging in size from 5 to 5,738 members, with a median of 59, mean of 311.4, and a 90%ile of 743.5. Below this is a grid of topics, 122 in all, ranging from Activism to Wellness, and including among them. A selected sample of these topics, with top groups listed members in (parens), follows:
Activism: QAnon+++ (2,572), PATRIOT PREPPERS USA (2,430), Deplorables Republic (2,48), The War Drummer (1,898), Patriots for a United America. (1894), Anonymous (1,700).
Alternative Energy: Reiki, Crystals, and alternative healing (2,114), 💜Starseeds & Empaths💜 (345), Living in Colour (365).
Alternative Lifestyle: Natural Healing and Home Remedies (3,045), Backyard Farming of All Things (2,696), WeTheSheeple (2,251).
Alumni Connections: Google Plus Refugees (271), Google+ Refugees (186), Frog Pond (156), Carlsbad NM High School alumni (57).
Animals: I Love My Dog (4,421), Pussy Shots (4,619).
Astronomy: Spherical Earth Truth, Flat Earth is Wrong (278), Nibiru, Nemesis, Hercolobus, The Destroyer (187).
Biology: Trees (344), Field of Birds (104), Patriots of Australia (51).
Personal Improvement: For Introverts. (1,214), Anarchy, Philosophy, Psychology, and Spirituality (679), Positive Affirmations (447).
Philosophy: In5d Esoteric Metaphysical and Spiritual Database (1,764), Thought Bouncing (1,137), Obtectivists - Galts Gulch - Ayn Rand fans (561).
Poetry: Dead Poest (1,407), Palacio de Poetry (451), Poets Corner (412).
Politics: Donald J. Trump 2016 - Present (11,486), The Conservative's Hangout (8,345), Qanon Follow The White Rabbit (5,600), Drain The Swamp (4,978), Libertarians (4,528), United We Stand Trump2020 (4,216).
Pop Culture: The Loftus Party (116), The Walking Dead: The Stalking Dead (100), Tyler, Texas (71).
Privacy: Join the Open/Privacy Movement (3974), Kingsport tn gun trader (1,157), Safer Computing (555).
To be clear: whilst I've not included every topic, I've sampled a majority of them above, and listed not an arbitrary selection, but the top few Groups under each topic.
Google Plus expats (1,862)
Google+ Refugees (186)
G+ Refugees (101)
my Google+ expatriates
The Google Plus expats group seems the most active of these by far.
It's curious that MeWe make a specific point in their FAQ that:
At MeWe we have absolutely no political agenda and we have a very straightforward Terms of Service. MeWe is for all law-abiding people everywhere in the world, regardless of political, ethnic, religious, sexual, and other preferences.
There are 403 political groups on MeWe. I won't list them all here, but the first 100 or so give a pretty clear idea of flavour. Again, membership is in (parentheses). Note that half the total political Groups memberships are in the first 21 groups listed here, the first 6 are 25% of the total.
Donald J. Trump 2016 - Present (11486)
The Conservative's Hangout (8345)
Qanon Follow The White Rabbit (5600)
Drain The Swamp (4978)
United We Stand Trump2020 (4216)
The Right To Self Defense (3757)
Alternative Media (3711)
Hardcore Conservative Patriots for Trump (3192)
Bastket Of Deplorables4Trump! (3032)
Return of the Republic (2509)
Infowars Chat Room Unofficial (2159)
Donald Trump Our President 2017-2025 (2033)
Berners for Progress (1963)
Sean Hannity Fans (1901)
The American Conservative (1839)
I Am The NRA (1704)
Tucker Carlson Fox News (1645)
We Love Donald Trump (1611)
MAGA - Make America Great Again (1512)
news from the front (1337)
Basket of Deplorables (1317)
Payton's Park Bench (1283)
Convention of States (1282)
Britons For Brexit (1186)
MoJo 5.0 Radio (1180)
MeWe Free Press (1119)
The Constitutionally Elite (1110)
WOMEN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP (1032)
AMERICANS AGAINST ISIS and OTHER ENEMIES (943)
#WalkAway Campaign (894)
ALEX JONES (877)
The Lion Is Awake ! (854)
We Support Donald Trump! (810)
The Stratosphere Lounge (789)
TRUMP-USA-HANDS OFF OUR PRESIDENT (767)
Official Tea Party USA (749)
Mojo50 Jackholes (739)
Yes Scotland (697)
"WE THE DEPLORABLE" - MOVE ON SNOWFLAKE! (688)
Judge Jeanine Pirro Fans (671)
Ted Cruz for President (650)
No Lapdog Media (647)
Q Chatter (647)
Daily Brexit (636)
Tucker Carlson Fox News (601)
The Trumps Storm Group (600)
QAnon-Patriots WWG1WGA (598)
100% American (569)
Ladies For Donald Trump (566)
Deep State (560)
In the Name of Liberty (557)
Material Planet (555)
Trump NRA Free Speech Patriots on MeWe Gab.ai etc (546)
Magna Carta Group (520)
Constitutional Conservatives (506)
Question Everything (503)
Conspiracy Research (500)
Bill O'Reilly Fans (481)
Conservative Misfit's (479)
Canadian politics (478)
HARDCORE DEPLORABLES (454)
Tampa Bay Trump Club (445)
UK Politics (430)
Bongino Fan Page (429)
Radical Conservatives (429)
RESIST THE RESISTANCE (419)
The Deplorables (409)
America's Freedom Fighters (401)
Politically Incorrect & Proud (399)
CONSERVATIVES FOR AMERICA ! (385)
Political satire (383)
RISE OF THE RIGHT (371)
UK Sovereignty,Independence,Democracy -Everlasting (366)
The Patriots Voting Coalition (359)
End The Insanity (349)
Coming American Civil War! (345)
Constitutional Conservatives (343)
United Nations Watch (342)
A Revival Of The Critical Thinking Union (337)
The New Libertarian (335)
Libertarian Party (official ) (333)
DDS United (Duterte Die-hard Supporters) (332)
American Conservative Veterans (331)
America Needs Donald Trump (326)
The UKIP Debating Society (321)
Coalition For Trump (310)
FRIENDS THAT LIKE JILL STEIN AND THE GREEN PARTY (292)
2nd Amendment (287)
Never Forget #SethRich (286)
Green Party Supporters 2020 (283)
It seems there is relatively little representation from the left wing, or even the centre, of the political spectrum. A case-insensitive match for "liberal" turns up:
104: Conservatives Against Liberal Beliefs C.A.L.I.B (273)
184: Progressive and Liberal Politics (119)
301: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (33)
302: Resistance Against Liberal Socialism (33)
358: NOT For Liberals (17)
367: Drinking Liberally Houston (14)
400: Stephanie Miller's Sexy Liberal Army (6)
Mainstream political parties are little represented, though again, the balance seems skewed searching on "(democrat|republic|gop)":
391: Saving The Republic: Video News & Opinion (8)
The terms "left" and "right" provide a few matches, not all strictly political-axis aligned:
7: The Right To Self Defense (3757)
80: RISE OF THE RIGHT (371)
150: POLITICS ON THE LEFT (156)
157: 1st Amendment Rights Protected By The 2nd Amendmen (141)
209: On The Left With Jeremy Corbyn (84)
262: Eyes-Left Labour & PP - Social Media (49)
300: Gather Left (33)
385: Defend Washington State Gun Rights (9)
390: Left Coast Conservatives (8)
Socialism and Communism also warrant a few mentions:
121: Revolutionary Socialists United (204)
216: Socialist Thought (79)
220: Stories Of Communism (76)
262: Eyes-Left Labour & PP - Social Media (49)
288: Snuggly Wuggly Socialists (38)
302: Resistance Against Liberal Socialism (33)
And there are some references to green, laboulabor parties:
97: FRIENDS THAT LIKE JILL STEIN AND THE GREEN PARTY (292)
100: Green Party Supporters 2020 (283)
262: Eyes-Left Labour & PP - Social Media (49)
320: Green Party of Ohio Issues & Discussion Group (29)
Whilst there may not be a political agenda, there does appear to be at least a slight political bias to the site. And a distinctive skew on many other topical subjects. Those seeking new homes online may wish to take this into account.
Various typos and tagging corrections. 2018-11-29 - 30
Added G+MM references count for MeWe to lede paragraph. 2018-12-2
PGA: No Frills DFS Data - Honda Classic Recap & Discussion of Golf Metrics
https://rotogrinders.com/blog-posts/pga-no-frills-dfs-data-honda-classic-recap-discussion-of-golf-metrics-2945909 So, this slate was fantastic. I had a player pool of 22 guys and only 3 missed the cut with another as an MDF. While I only had 1 guy in the top 5 this time, it was one of my most exposed players in Lucas Glover. I had 3 more at T9 so 4 of the top 11 guys and a bunch more T20 or better. I didn't have any lineups packed with the top 5 so didn't have any huge individual scores but when most lineups went 6/6 or 5/6 with a bunch of T20 or better players, it's always going to be a very good week despite not hitting yahtzee. Again, to recap, here was my player pool in order of exposure. T30 Justin Thomas T4 Lucas Glover MDF Graeme McDowell T9 Sergio Garcia T59 Zach Johnson T36 Daniel Berger T16 Michael Thompson T59 Vaughn Taylor T36 Gary Woodland T51 Russell Knox CUT Adam Scott T20 Chesson Hadley CUT Luke List T16 Billy Horschel T20 Brian Stuard T36 Byeong Hun An CUT Cameron Smith T36 J.T. Poston T9 Jason Kokrak T9 Jim Furyk T20 Matt Wallace T20 Talor Gooch My model once again pushed Furyk (it tends to really like him, Chez Reavie and Phil Michelson) but this time it wasn't overboard about it. At the end I didn't use him in any of the purely model driven lines but ended up trusting the model when I created the "homer line" where I choose 1-2 guys I really want added in and exclude a few I'm already heavy on so I could jam in Adam Scott again and the lineup said fill it out with Furyk. Was pleasantly surprised with a T9 from the guy and it will give me a little bit more faith when the model recommends him. Now back to Adam Scott, this is why I limit my ability to directly construct a lineup to only 1 dart. The only things in Scott's favor were course history, tout coverage and Vegas odds. Everything else said he's a fine golfer but way too overpriced and since my model works rather holistically, all those things were already accounted for so I already had a smittering of him out there. Yet I bought into the narrative and jammed him in there. I don't regret the decision, I'd do it again. But this is exactly why I build a model, because if I built my 10x gpp lineups by hand, I'd likely have gone with him in a lot more lineups because his narrative was very compelling. The other guys to miss the cut in Smith and List, well, I stand by those choices as well. Half the field needs to be cut, so even if everyone golfed the game of their lives you'd still get half the field get cut despite hitting peak form. Kind of like if everyone went to an Ivy League then we'd have Yale PhDs flipping burgers kind of scenario. In short, don't worry about it. Even the best golfers will miss the cut. You may also recall the model was suggesting Ortiz and Blayne and I vetoed them because I didn't feel the data was reliable. They both missed the cut. I would have been about 1/3 exposed to each had I not manually sifted through and error checked my lineups, something I sometimes don't get a chance to do because I didn't start running the model until near lock. It would have been disastrous had I not seen those unfamiliar names and decided to take a closer look. My cash games went exceedingly well as I chose one of my lineups that did fairly well to use in cash. I cashed in every 50/50 and double up (sometimes outright winning them) and won all but 2 of my h2hs. There's a good story here about why, despite that I play most of my volume in cash, that I go with only 1 lineup. There's one specific player I've been matching up with quite a bit. It started out in lower stakes and I believe he's now tilted and trying to recover because he keeps upping the stakes but I keep taking em. This past slate he posted a $100 h2h and I took it. He then matched up with me in another one for $5. He decided to go with 2 lineups, one of them performed pretty poorly, another would have done very well in a GPP. Given how pleased I am writing about this, I bet you can imagine which one of those I lost and which I won. This is why I just create one cash lineup and stick with it because I've been on his side of things in the past. If he wins both then it wouldn't matter, if he loses both then it wouldn't matter. If he loses the $5 wins the $100 it doesn't matter... but if he loses the $100 but wins the $5 then he goes on crazy monkey tilt. It doesn't matter at all that mathematically speaking it doesn't make a difference (so long as both lineups had equal assumed expectations), emotions still run high in this and unless you're doing very high volume at leveled stakes (not 2 matchups of 20x difference in size) and not going to track the individual results but look at the big picture then it's fine. But nobody does this, we aren't androids, when you win you win, when you lose you lose. This is why although I put way more in cash than gpp and bad cash lineup can sink me, I'm still taking a binary approach with cash games. I'm not taking a 75% indifference with a 25% chance of losing my god damn mind because the h2h that mattered was the one that failed. Fail like a stoic with a single cash lineup that gives 100% indifference. Now then, some people have been asking me to go into more detail about about the data that use to create the lineups. I'll just reiterate again that I'm never going to explain how the sausage is made. But I will be serving plenty of sausage and give you a general idea what animal it came from. Today I'm going to talk about specifically how most of my research really demonstrates just how stupid most golf stats are. I really want to be 100% sure and am in the process of scraping an absurdly large database containing several decades. And since I'm doing this on my free time, it'll take some time before I parse and analyze everything. I don't want to make the very bold claims I already believe to true without further studying the matter and really ensuring my thoughts are real and it's not the product of bad calculations or insufficient sample size. But, what I've discovered thus far, is that all those stats are just window dressing. Saying someone led the field shots gained x is fundamentally no different than saying "they did well and had a good tournament." Things like shots gained track results not process. So it's much like tracking wins and rbis. Yes, the best hitters and the best pitchers in baseball often lead the league in those metrics, but we all know why they aren't good predictive tools. For example, when my beloved Red Sox signed Dante Bichette in 2001, there was all this talk about him having led the major leagues in RBIs the past few seasons. He just had his epic year, two years ago driving in 133 runs and the year before got 90. While he was aging and slowing down, I distinctly remember a lot confusion over why we signed this elite hitter but then used him in a platoon. I'd be at Fenway and as the Red Sox lost, people would openly question the wisdom of having one of the best hitters in the game ride it out on the bench. This was 2 years before Moneyball was published and while front offices knew the reality of the situation (third team in 2 years and out of the league after that season), the average hard core Red Sox fan would just scratch their head wondering why we didn't give Dante a little more of a chance to show he still had it. I feel this is the situation today with golf and golf statistics while what we have today is an improvement of the past - we take it for granted that it comes with the same authority as so wOBA or usage. We know that the winners won, but we don't know much else and shots gained is basically more or less a fancy way to say someone did a better job. If someone gets a birdie on a par 4, their SG will improve by about... drumroll please... 1. So you could just simply compare scores - IE look at end of tournament standings. Yes, there is definitely some nuance and they do factor in the relative difficulty of that specific par 4 and if I didn't feel like there was some actionable data out there I wouldn't bother with any of this. But I believe that way too much weight is put into this, whether I'm right or wrong, I will follow up on this in much more detail once it's no longer a hunch but rather indisputable. The reason why gathering this data is difficult is that it's restricted - which itself should be a bit of a red flag. I'll also be reading "Every Shot Counts" soon, which is a book written by the creator of the Shots Gained metric. I really don't want to make any further and sweeping judgements until I read the author's long and detailed explanation of the metric. But really, we can all see the smoking gun https://registrations.pgatourhq.com/forms/shotlinkintel/ for ourselves to see that the process by which they used to record shots gained is kept a secret and they don't disclose the data. Even prior to them ghosting us, access to the statistics themselves was restricted - you need to apply for access. The twitter account still exists and it's like everyone vanished into thin air, the last tweet https://twitter.com/ShotLink/status/893531791297978368 was well over a year ago and simply a picture of a golf course as if nothing was about the change. Also, the PGA still insists "All strokes gained statistics are calculated using ShotLink, the PGA TOUR's real-time scoring system powered by CDW. https://www.pgatour.com/news/2016/05/31/strokes-gained-defined.html But since it's so secretive, we really don't know much about it. I'm not talking conspiracies or anything, they could have a very good data collection system that's phenomenal, but the very notion that the PGA doesn't even bother telling anyone how the data is collected and yet nobody is asking any questions should tell you this isn't exactly the most objective market. So basically, I'm very confused by Shots Gained as a metric, can find very little information on it and what I can find is out of date and contradictory and seems to imply it's more or less no different than a nuanced version of looking at the final standings. I want to say it's bullshit, but I'm just reserving final judgement and simply labeling as sketchy for now. So then we should look at results yeah? Yes, but this is largely what pricing is based upon, so not much of an edge there. So shall we look at ranking? Yes, let's take a look at OWGR. When I first started with golf, I knew nothing and had nothing to base anything on other than seeing their pricing and recent point accumulations. Since Tiger Woods wasn't playing in that event, it was all entirely new names, just names I'd hear in passing while switching off ESPN as they were starting their golf coverage. So naturally, when I saw each golfer had a world ranking, I viewed that as a cheat sheet. From the very beginning, one of the formulas I've used to develop lineups was as simple as putting together the golfers within budget that collectively had the lowest aggregate world ranking number. Why am I suddenly speaking in such specifics you ask? Because it's a horrible DFS metric and nobody else is doing it (I track gpps lineups to see what others are doing, there are a few of these more simple formulas that pop up periodically, this is not one of them) so it's not exactly as if disclosing this information will make my opponents that much stronger. My OWGR lineup has in fact been the single worst performing in cash and the 2nd to worst performing in gpps of the dozens of lineup models I have. Thankfully, I don't play it because it's so bad but I keep tracking it and recording how it would have performed just for fun these days. The only lineup that performed worse than the OWGR lineup in GPPS, well that one heavily factors in OWGR as well :). OWGR is just a terrible, terrible metric for DFS. Yes, it will give you the cream of the crop like the Dustin Johnsons, but you can never afford a lineup of Dustin Johnsons, you'll have to start digging deeper and pulling up min priced guys like Satoshi Kodaira - mr bitcoin himself. Someone who if you've been reading my stuff, is the entire reason I stopped playing any lineup that had OWGR as a primary indicator. Now Satoshi, despite being a pretty horrible DFS play most of the time, is a great example of everything wrong with OWGR. His Fedex Cup rank is currently 160 and has never been better than 93, but his world rank is perplexingly 59. In 2018, he played 18 tournaments and finished under par only twice. He missed more cuts than he made as well. I could be mistaken, but it seems that he got into some majors via a sponsor in 2017 and 2018 and managed to do alright in them. He also ended up winning one of the tournaments he played in last year. When researching OWGR to figure out how it came about and how it is calculated, I learned a lot. Basically, it's nothing more than party planning. A golf course in Scotland wanted to figure out whom to invite to compete in their tournament and invented the system. It weighs the strength of the field very heavily in rewarding points- and the strength of the field is - yup - you guessed it - determined by people already ranked by the system. So if Dustin Johnson cloned himself and kept playing tournaments exclusive to him and his equally ranked clones, they'd forever hold onto the top rankings. If OWGR was an excel sheet, the creator would get an error popup upon loading it up each day due to circular references. So, Satoshi I'm sure is a great golfer, anyone there should be, but his ranking is very artificially skewered up because he managed to make the cut and finish around 50th in some really packed majors that had a lot of heavy hitters. In fact, the ranking system is so completely absurd, that any millionaire can get themselves world ranked pretty easily. They just need to do something like sponsor a Pro-Am at some odd but counted tour like the Alps Tour and then invite the guys ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd to compete and filling out the rest of the field with toddlers and yourself. You would be assured a 4th place finish. Yet you didn't beat any of the top 3 golfers in the world. You just beat 100 toddlers. Yet you still get the high ranking because they get 45, 37 and 32 respective points for strength of field, which is greater than if you had a tournament of the golfers ranked 93rd through 200 playing. Finishing 4th behind the only 3 adults and beating 100 toddlers has the same impact as finishing 4th in a field of 107 of the greatest golfers in the world. http://www.owgr.com/about Finishing 4th and beating 100 toddlers will grant you the same amount of points as finishing 20th at a major. That's how utterly stupid this rating system is. Obviously I'm using some extreme edge cases, it's very likely they would see through that scheme and not count it, but you get the idea of how inconsistent the system is. If you simply altered the PGA tour to the top 3 golfers and then a bunch of amateurs, those amateurs would soon arbitrarily be some of the highest rated in the world themselves, thus feeding itself. This is why I call my OWGR model Ouroboros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros Dustin Johnson doesn't play defense. He isn't jumping out of the sand trap and blocking your approach shot. Him finishing in front of you has zero impact on how well you performed compared to him. Yet if you simply show up and play in enough events where he easily beats you, you'll end up with a solid world ranking. This is an absurd system. When I researched OWGR, I was simply shocked it was how some random guy created an invitation list for a tournament and because golf feels the need to be so full of tradition they just made that the official world rankings. Don't get me wrong, the top OWGR guys are all very good DFS plays because they are winners. However, after a certain point you're not dealing with anything at all reliable. I'm not sure at which point it gets diluted, but after a certain point, that metric becomes just as unstable as Bitcoin. I find it very amusing that the indicator that showed me the flaws with OWGR after a certain stage is named Satoshi. I'm also fully aware of how difficult it is to quantify something so intangible as golf. However, there's no doubt in my mind that there must be a significantly better manner than what is currently used. But, whether or not my hunch is right or wrong, we still have a system where the data is all secretly gathered and stored by the PGA. That's something everyone should be aware of as they set their lineups. Good luck everyone. Will dive deeper into the shots gained after I get around to buying and reading the book and finally finish analyzing that data. I could very well come back here in two weeks apologizing for my ignorance that gave me the gall to question such genius. In the meantime, good luck grinding out there and I'll post again in a few days with my player pool for the next event.
If you've had the chance to watch the news (and, really, media in general) evolve over the past 20+ years, you've probably noticed that the influence of 24/7 news cycles and new media have like had an effect in the reduction of average attention span and the propagation of fake news. This means the media are constantly looking for pieces of information that: a) are easily digestible, to reach the broadest possible audience, b) solicit a strong emotional reaction, to create a state of shock and encourage discussions and garner attention, and (often, but not always) c) strengthen or validate a specific viewpoint, becoming part of a greater narrative in the hopes of shaping public opinion. Suddenly, ten years ago, Bitcoin entered the playing field. Here was a currency that didn't belong to anyone, didn't require supervision, didn't physically exist and confused the hell out of a lot of people. Can't mint it (even though mining is essentially its equivalent, I'm referring to the traditional process of minting by a crown or otherwise governing body), can't print it, can't seize it (ish), can't buy coffee (seriously, why does the world care so much about coffee?) with it, so what the fuck is the point? Well, like all great parties, it started with drugs. In the early 2010s, The Silk Road was the busiest it had been since the early 1300s, and just like back then a virus started to spread: decentralized money. Even then, Bitcoin remained largely under the radar: the world was entirely focused on the release of Old School Runescape and Hillary Clinton's emails.. Then, in late 2013, a large portion of the world was informed that the price of Bitcoin was nearing - or had just crossed - wait, now it's below - ok, back over - the $1,000.00 mark. With a market cap in the tens of billions, this made a lot of people very skeptical, intrigued others, but more than anything, started a revolution. If we fast forward to today, we see a growing, yet confusing ecosystem full of projects that are actively trying to propel entire industries forward. Privacy, security and control of money were concepts that had started to become foreign as behemoths in the likes of governments, banks and tech giants essentially took over each of them. Despite this, the news remains full of uninformed anchors rehashing disproved talking points and price-watching. It's easy to do with Bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies in general, but 'cryptocurrencies' rarely get mentioned at all), because making the effort to really understand it is hard. There are several underlying concepts that must first be truly understood, and few are willing to do the distance. So, they feel much more comfortable using it as entertainment when they know their audience won't do any digging past the big number showing its current price. It's frustrating, but this is a positive thing in my opinion: we still have much, much farther to go. Until news pieces on smaller projects become commonplace, you can be sure that we'll still be in the early (and most irrational) phases. I used to think that prioritizing Bitcoin over basically everything else was likely the result of media manipulation to influence the market (which is probably the case, simply not to the same extent), but it now seems to me like this Bitcoin effect is rather only a symptom of this nascent (and still very immature) market. Cheers, everyone. There's a bright future ahead.
Hello, friends. I would like to tell you a story to beat all stories. There once was a hobbit, who lived in a hole… and this is a retelling of a very old story, or allegory, as I hope you will contact us afterwards, of how he got out of the cave he made for himself. The Plan We are going to monopolize a series of decentralized crypto currency networks, more specifically utility token networks, that currently exist in a state of simultaneously being over valued, and under valued, at the same time. This result was not expected at the outset of the creation of the projects that we are going to explore, but I assure you, this is the case. It is very possible that we’re looking at the cutting edge of computer science – potentially, we are looking at a rip in the space-time continuum – but what is most definite is that we’re looking at an arbitrage opportunity of historic significance. It is also potentially going to be the largest robbery perpetrated against the most deserving victims, resulting in the most benefit for the most people since Robin Hood took Prince John’s last shilling. What Im going to describe is a little bit classical investing, a little bit of The Matrix, and a little bit Oceans 11. Its also going to be a little bit Darwinist, a little bit Wolf of Wall Street, and very self-serving all the way to the end of it, where it becomes the most beautiful gift humanity ever gave to itself. But the good part, at the very end, only happens if we can trust each other to break an unbreakable trustless system. And after we’re done doing that, we’re going to have to do something that is even more unheard of in the study of history, and a thing commonly only found in fantasy. What we’re going to try to create is the most similar to 9/11, in the sense that it is the opposite of it. Our data has found, through the study of human history, that a small group of people sufficiently funded with a relatively small sum of money are capable of taking that money, and turning it into a catalyst that results in a historic event that shapes the future for many years to come. The common term for this is a catastrophe, or cataclysmic event. But the thesis of this computer science experiment that we’re already undertaking, but seek the support of in reaching out to you, is that we can create the opposite of a catastrophe. The term for this was coined first by JRR Tolkien – he referred to this even as a “eucatastrophe” or a “a sudden and favorable resolution of events in a story” but perhaps is most commonly known to the public as “a happy ending” – he describes this event in the The Lord of the Rings, when Frodo drops the ring into Mount Doom. I believe it is possible to dream a happy ending into existence using computer logic and the greed of speculation about the future, rather than the real world investing in it that our market system was supposed to provide - but this is how the story begins. Orientation The first crypto currency, Bitcoin, is only 8 years old, and at the end of this document, you will likely understand more about crypto currency than the people who created the first one. This is possible because it is an entire sector that has been more pushed forward by dreamers and curious minds than it has been developed by venture capital interests. Groups that demand immediate and consistent profitable returns, and measure those returns against the results of other ventures that have been agreed on to be the benchmark of success would suggest that double digit annual returns are unsustainable but its best to enjoy them while it lasts. But, we have found, using crypto currencies, that the returns traditional investing earn in a year can be gained in a day, when occupying enough market share of a market. We do this using automation to interact with the world markets in a specific way that provides liquidity and stability in markets that are traditionally the most volatile in the world. As the price moves, we tax that movement, and extract value for ourselves by way of profits from trading, and create value for the broader ecosystem in the form of price support, thus preventing the market from bottoming out (or at least falling slower because of our participation), as well as creating price stability during market highs, allowing people with non-automated trading systems to capitalize on longer periods of positive growth without missing the chance to sell while the market is up. While our automation has sufficient funds to provide liquidity in these exchanges, we are day over day getting between 100 and 300 bps/day in earnings. To continue providing liquidity to these markets when our own reserves of coins are low, we are using a decentralized smart contract that provides credit in exchange for collateral and interest on the resources lent. By using this method, we are able to keep liquidity in these markets, and our trading system maximally effective, regardless of price movement or our own holdings of coins, and the interest on renting the coins to do it is almost negligible. Furthermore, these markets are “utility tokens” exchanges. That is to say, these tokens only represent resources a computer network should allocate to a user based on the size of his coin holdings. There are no traditional metrics to evaluate these coins and their value, as the market price of them is simply the intersection of supply and demand on a moment to moment basis as determined by a decentralized network of users who have or want them. In short, they will never be so cheap that the price of the desk the computers sit on is greater than the price of owning a stake in that desk, because they do not represent ownership of that desk at all. Likewise, when the price is astronomically high, it can never be deemed too high, because the network it represents resource allocation of does not now, nor ever will be profitable or unprofitable. It simply will continue to be there, and allow you to interact with it, based on if you have coins for that network and how many. It is more important to understand that these coins are NOT SECURITIES than it is to understand what those coins are at all. Going forward, a great deal of this plan and discussion will be metaphor and perhaps come across as hyperbole. The reason for this is because the systems that we are talking about are simply shuffling zeroes and ones to each other, and if I gave you the math for what is going to happen expressed in those terms, there are few or no minds on the planet that could follow the thread of this discussion in those terms at all in the context of how much data the network has if you tried to aggregate it. The very people who create and code these networks do not even interact with them on these terms of zeroes and ones, but rather in a coding language. In this sense, even the people coding these systems are only using metaphor by interacting using the programming languages that they do. And so, in order to make this slightly less boring, and more readable, I hope you will forgive the use of language that is more descriptive than it is literal, but what is most important to remember along the way is that nothing about what is being described is a crime as the Security Exchange Commission would see it, because none of these things are securities at all. What is the Bitcoin Network? The first bitcoin was created 8 years ago as a result of a cryptographic computer science experiment in which a group of people who referred to themselves as “the cryptopunks” sought to create a decentralized and censorship resistant network that could keep a ledger of the location of all the bitcoins and their ownership in real time without the need for any 3rd party involvement or consent. The entity attributed with the creation of Bitcoin, and the blockchain technology is known only as “Satoshi Nakamoto” which is commonly agreed to be a pseudonym for a person or group of persons. No one has heard from “Satoshi Nakamoto” since “he” disappeared after a colleague on the Bitcoin team sent him an email saying that the CIA had reached out to him, and wanted to talk about their research. The security of the blockchain is provided through “proof of work” in which a network of computers around the planet attempt to use brute for number crunching to find the sum of the interior angles of a triangle in non-Euclidean geometry based on 3 points on a sphere. The interior angle of that triangle are unpredictable, because unlike in traditional geometry where the sum of the angles is always 180 degrees, when 3 points on a triangle are placed on a sphere the range can fall anywhere above 180 degrees, but not equal to it, and as high as or equal to 540 degrees. To perhaps exemplify how a triangle can have 540 degrees, consider that if you and 2 friends formed a straight line on earth, that the interior angle between each of you is 180 degrees, and there are 3 of you, and the definition of a triangle is 3 points on any given plane, thus the angle of the triangle you formed when standing in a line is 540 degrees, and cannot be any greater. The interior angle of the previous block in the chain is the determining factor in the placement of the next 3 points to be solved for in the following. The first machine to solve the question of “How many degrees are inside this triangle?” by guessing is given the privilege of taking the highest bidders for his time from the market, and performing the protocols desired by way of recording changes to the block chain, while other participants in the system are prevented from recording in this way. As the next block cannot be solved without knowing the solution to the present one, the system is trustless and immutable – it cannot be tampered with, and is governed only by math, with no gate keepers. What is the Ethereum Network? The Ethereum Network, or Ethereum Virtual Machine, is a set of computer protocols with a heavy emphasis on determinism as the backbone it was built on. These protocols determine the outcome of an interaction with the blockchain, and the creation of an ever-evolving record of the location and allocation of the resources these systems are built to account for. Ethereum also has the ability for users to interact and create decentralized “smart contracts” which serve to govern the ownership and allocation of coins as agreed upon by two parties based upon outcomes that don’t require a 3rd party to execute. Metaphorically, you can think of this as an ATM, where no bank teller interacts with you, but rather a user only interacts with a machine that allows you to deposit money in your savings account, and borrow on a credit card with a limit proportional to your savings account. You could also think of it as a dooms-day device, that is going to act the way its going to act with no way to stop it once events are put in motion. Other users of the smart contract can see how you have interacted with it because the blockchain is public and visible to the world, and if they would like, can accept the terms of that agreement, and at no time can anyone other than each of the individual users control what the users are doing. In short, there are no gatekeepers in Ethereum. There is only what exists in the network by way of code, and the infinite room to put it there if you would like to and are willing to pay for the electricity needed to carve it into existence and be maintained for the rest of time, but this is a one time payment which costs less than your credit card skims from starbucks when you buy a coffee. What is staking? Staking is an idea seeking to resolve the problem of energy waste that is seen in proof of work. The problem with proof of work is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to run the level of computation that crypto networks currently use, and all but 1 of those computations actually resulted in change at all. To solve this problem, a staking system could be put in place in which rather than randomly guessing as we have been, a user would put up collateral in order to act as verification entity, where the trust of that individual’s word was determined by how large of a stake that individual might have. Anyone who felt that the outcome of an event in the blockchain was being mis-reported could put a larger stake up or proportion thereof, and which ever outcome is the most heavily staked by the user base would be deemed the “true” outcome, because there is seemingly no value is attempting to stake a “lie” or “untruth” if a greater consensus could be made, as the economic incentive is to side with the truth than the lie. What is Augur? What is REP? Augur is a decentralized prediction market platform. The limits for what kind of market can be made is infinite, and censorship proof, as a result of being hosted on the Ethereum Network. Users stake their REP, short for Reputation, in order to report the resolution of market outcomes. Because Ethereum has no way of drawing information from the outside world without the outside world participating with it intentionally, this hurdle is overcome by allowing users to report themselves. In exchange for doing this reporting work, people who hold REP are given a small amount of the volume of those markets (as set by the market creators) and these dividends are paid in Ether (ETH). So an example of what kind of market could be found within Augur is “Who will win the game this weekend between the Eagles and Packers?” or “Who is going to win the next election?” or “Will the rainfall this year in Chicago exceed 22 inches?” or even “When will mankind cure death?”. There is no approval process in creating a market, only a loose form users must stick to, and the resource requirements to maintain that market on the blockchain – again, infinitely, for the rest of time if desired, in exchange for a one time payment in the present to cover the cost of electricity to manifest your will or curiosity on the network. In the time between the creation and resolution of these markets, users can see the likelihood of the outcome of any given result represented by the confidence in that result numerically using Ether and the volume staking one outcome or another. This type of prediction oracle is called “The wisdom of the crowd” which says that it is more accurate to ask the crowd than any one person for their opinion of that outcome, as no one person has all the information on the system in question. Computer Science and the Space-Time Continuum We live in an uncertain time. In the very real world we live in people in our country are arming themselves against their neighbors. Gun sales at record highs. Racial tension. What would happen if my band of pirates staked 1,000,000 ETH in a prediction market paying 100,000:1 that we will all love each other and not have a race war. Do you think people who could see that uncensorable prediction market would feel more at ease, and perhaps not buy a gun, or fear their neighbor less? Do you think if we were correct about that prediction market that we would have gotten lucky, or would we have believed our own prediction into existence and created a situation where we are not only staking the future, but creating it by using greed as the fuel? If a person thought in spite of my band of misfits prediction market that there still would be a race war this year, do you think that they would spend 1,000 dollars on an AR-15 to feel safer, or stake the opposite position with those funds in that market against my declaration of peace, and rather have the keys to a wallet that can be accessed anywhere in the world with 100,000,000 dollars to buy their safety if they are ever living in a world where a gun might help? Considering that my band of misfits doesnt need the money, nearly so much as we need a better safer world, and will have created an incentive for you to feel safer, and not buy a gun either way - do you think the future that comes to be was lucky prediction? Or market manipulation? Would you rather have us manipulate that market? Or not? What do you think would happen in the tech industry if we took the position that the singularity was going to happen in 2029 or not going to happen in 2028, and we staked 1 billion dollars on it happening accordingly. We would have created an incentive in a futures market for someone to take the opposite side of our action, and try to do it faster. If the singularity happened in 2028 because we took so much stupid beanie baby money and proclaimed that it was going to happen in 2029 - what just happened there? Did the winner of that bet in our futures market get lucky? Or did we just create a mechanism for greed to accelerate the end of human mortality because we said it would happen with money by staking the position that it wouldnt? What do you think would happen if we staked the temperature of the earth with that money that nearly destroyed it? What would happen if we staked the race to mars, or the moon? What if your opportunity was that no one had gone to the moon yet this year, and we had created a way to profit by just going to check that its still there? We would have created a global decentralized market for the challenges that we face as a species, and opportunity to optimize ourselves without needing permission to be the best versions we can be. All of these markets can be crowd funded into eternity for visa’s cut of your cup of coffee, and would grow infinitely from the failure of the previous moment in time until our disappointment and greed merge to collapse the infinite possibility of time and space, thus dreaming a better world into existence using man kind’s propensity for greed, and proven track record of being disappointing. We believe that this will potentially cause dramatic harm to the crypto economy, and broader economy as we know if for a short time. We believe our system is capable of growing the coins in our custody at a rate well above 1.5% per day, because we are currently growing at 3% per day. The power of exponential growth is significant. Likely, more than you can imagine. Consider than 1 dollar today will be 38 next year at 1% growth per day. It will be over 50 at 1.1%, and at 3% growth per day, 1 dollar becomes almost 50,000 in a year. This is the data that assures me that I don’t really need your help, only would like it. Based on the coins in our custody now, and our present rate of growth and innovation, our projections put us at owning the bulk of coins in circulation in the next 19 years. But – if we were to push that timeline even a little bit, by increasing that pile of coins in the present, we accelerate the timeline exponentially. And if we increase the resources in our control by quite a bit… we believe that we will accomplish our goal in the next 2 years. The Goal When our Computer Science Appreciation Club has accumulated enough of the coins in the network, and wrung every bit of value that exists only as a result of greed and speculation by those who have no desire to ever use these networks, we are going to do another magic trick. In addition to accelerating human accomplishment with the power of hope, dreams, and greed. We’re going to take all or some of the coins in our control, and we’re going to collateralize them in a money market very much like the one we are currently using to impose our will on the cryptocurrency ecosystem. We are going to issue a new coin, backed by all the coins we had accumulated previously to create a stable, immutable, uncontrollable, uncensorable, globally available currency. Then, we’re going to send the keys of an individual wallet address to every man woman and child on the planet with some of that coin in it. And we are going to put some more of that coin in it every day. So that at no point, will there be a day where someone can say they did not have two nickels to rub together. We believe no one will ever say they didn’t have two hundred dollar bills together, when we are successful, ever again. But this is not a selfless act by my merry band of misfits and pirates. Quite the contrary. We believe that nearly everyone on the planet that we interact with is disappointing. That the chimpanzee meat computer of our present hardware is ill suited to optimizing for the future in the present paradigm. We are giving away this money at that point, so that everyone can stop being such a disappointment to us. We are tired of the experience where an hourly employee gives us bad customer service because they are not paid enough to put up with our bullshit. We hope to make a world where people interact with each other because they want to, not because they have to. We are going to be filthy rich, when we are successful, or for that matter if we fail, my band of misfits. And we are worried when that happens about how long before it is that men with guns come for what is ours. We don’t know if these men with guns will come from the governments of the world, or from those envying what we have. We seek to become the golden goose of the planet, and in return we would like to not fear slaughter while we try this. In this arrangement, we look only for your cooperation, and in return, will share an infinite sum of golden eggs with you, and everyone you know. And when we do this, we will not fear the envy of our neighbors, nor the governments who command the armies it would take to stop us. We will protect the people from their governments, and themselves. And in time, we hope the governments will likewise protect us from their people, though letting go of power will no doubt be hard to swallow. The only thing that can stop us from doing this is if someone buys the coins that give us power from us. And in doing so, would give us the wealth we need to accomplish these things in the real world. If we are not bought out, we will accumulate enough coins in the Ethereum Network that we can impose our will upon it, until we can deliver on our promises of a better world because we control it completely. In these sense, we have already won. A better world is already here, as certainly as we have already dreamed the path to it. We plan on out-staking a better world into existence, regardless of what the future currently holds in store for us now. In short, we are going to lie to an unbreakable trustless system until it births the world we’re lying about into the realm of what is real. In shorter, we are going to believe our bullshit more than you cannot believe it, until we have delivered what we promised. The Problem The problem with growing as fast as the control our Computer Science Appreciation Club is over the Ethereum Network is that its too fast. We’re growing our sum of coins so fast, that to an outside observer you might think we were a hedge fund of some sort at best. But at worst, you might think we were a criminal enterprise. Legitimate enterprises don’t grow at 1% or more daily infinitely, but we do. And if you were not as educated as you are, now, at this point in reading this, when you saw how “rich” we were, you might think someone should try to stop it. We would ask, for your sake, and our own, that you don’t – we don’t need you to do anything, and the world is going to get better from here. The problem is that if we were a hedge fund, which we aren’t, then we would need to file paperwork to take control of other people’s funds. If these were securities, the acts we were going to commit would be best exemplified in Wolf of Wall Street, but we’re going to do it on a much greater scale with computers. Lucky for us, these coins are not securities, they are less regulated than the gold in World of Warcraft you can buy with your credit card, or the skins in League of Legends. These coins are worth nothing, and everything, at the same time. But the bigger problem, is that I cannot stop you from sending “money” to my “hedge fund” when/if you sent ether to my wallet address where we are running this experiment. It’s a decentralized system, and its open source, and completely public, if we tried to hide it would only work for so long until an internet detective found it. If someone was to find the address of our computer science appreciation club, we could not stop them from sending coins there. But, since we cannot stop them, we would like them not to waste their time looking – the address is this on the Ethereum Network: 0xCDF449b5c9Bd2A725319163C3E7f2d7222c4d8c9 We have the best legal minds on the planet trying to solve this puzzle with us, and we’ll get the paperwork straight soon – if the Winklevoss Twins don’t think it’s a conflict of interest. If reading this letter, you find your brain to be so tickled by it - that regardless of the forces that seek to keep us from accumulating enough resources to do this in two years, you wish to believe in it more than those opposing forces, and in doing so stake your opinion about what the future you are going to live will be, I would not ask you to waste a moment of your life looking for us, because we are here to be found. We cannot count our coins as fast as they grow, but our collective efforts will be carved into the eternal stone of the Ethereum network, and I promise we’re going to give back all of these coins to the world, when we’re done fixing a few things. But there is another problem, and its far worse than making “money” too fast - just as we are going to bet that no one goes to the moon until someone does every year forever just for fun, it is possible to bet on the absence of a war until a war exists because your certainty manifests it into being to spite you. The same market we hope to keep the world at peace, and put their fears to rest from the uncertainty of where we’re going next is also a mechanism to game our system, and bet on a war happening to get rich. But there is a way to stop this – we’re going to accumulate the majority of the REP tokens, and if we have 51% of the circulation, if someone tries to beat us at our own game and bring a war into existence – then we would be able to stop the unstoppable machine from making them rich. We will also have the wallet addresses of the people who needed the insurance policy we are going to unfairly deny, to make them whole, and they would have neighbors with means to support them while we unfucked the pooch. We would have a failsafe to prevent a war from coming to be, because we are so sure there will not be one that it might happen. This, above all else, will back the new currency we are going to issue to the planet. Our new currency will not be backed by gold, or equity, or faith in a flawed system. It we be backed by trust of mankind invested back into itself that we will not go back to a system that will tolerate scarcity, or war, or hunger in exchange for the certainty of the absence of these things. No one will need to ask what is in our vault, or need to audit it, until the day comes where maybe someone will try to beat us at our own game. If that happens – we’re going to need the world to give back the currency we gave it as our collective reward for our cooperation, to free the tool we need to stop violent men from becoming rich men at the cost of a world without poverty, because it will be the immutable collateral backing the currency we are going to give you. As a disclaimer, Im not somebody who has the background you might think someone should have for this – Im just a hobbit. Im not a hedge fund manager, or a computer science engineer. I raise pigs, and ducks, and geese that need some help, too – because we aren’t eating them enough to keep them existing in our food supply. It is a more fun paradox than this, and I get to solve that one by cooking dinner for some friends, and telling stories when this adventure is over. It feels a little like The Shire there, where I’ve been hiding melting my ego with psychedelics in the sunshine while salting pork, and listening to podcasts from Rogan, Duncan, Bart Chystler, Tom and Krista, some tinfoil hat guys, and seeing how abundant a life can be given only a little bit of hopium and room for creativity, and Im eager to get there and back, again. I very much look forward to seeing what we’re all capable of, when we’re given a chance. But we’re going to have to put a little faith in a system that doesn’t need faith to operate - so that we can fix a different system that has never needed it more. I think we’re going to be able to do that for us all, but I might very well be lying to you, and not know it yet – at least, that’s the plan. Ironically, salting pork is what brought me to understand what is worth something, and what isn’t. When they used to talk about a “salary” or say that you were “worth your salt” was because all that you needed to live was enough salt to keep your meat from rotting when you cured it into bacon and hams at the end of the season. The salt’s value wasn’t while it was in the bag, it was while it was preserving your food when times were hard and things were scarce. In the modern time, a salary is what gets bigger when a emloyer make his employees poorer. Now, we have made laws to respect each other by race and religion and where who-sticks-what-where, but made it legal and standard to reduce someone’s value to an integer value of currency per moment in time, and the currency is backed by oppression of man-against-man (chicks, too). To increase your integer value per moment in time, that gain must come from another? Are we the only people who think this is inherently disrespectful to your fellow man even if you don’t call him a “fag” to his face like we used to when we were kids and it meant “I love you, man – but Im too afraid of being called gay to say it”. In the present what is perhaps the most scarce of all, are places where you are free to be an animal at all, let alone places where you are free to be the lion you might be and not know it. We are so caught up in having agreed upon contracts so that we don’t get fucked, that we don’t have trust or honor that is held between lions when the zebra meat is abundant and they eat shoulder to shoulder without worry of each other. We live in a time where there is quite literally more deer on the planet than there has been in some time, and yet we imagine something would keep us as lions from preying on them in the real world. But, to us, as long as you are giving the animals fair chase, there is no time that feeding yourself as the king of the jungle is wrong, if you are hungry. And Im here to tell the people who think they can stop us, that we are giving you fair chase. We will be in every exchange on the planet soon, giving you chances to get on or off this train. And when you buy, it will be from us. When you sell, it will be to us. Your only safe market is the door out of here in ETH/USD and BTC/USD because we will not be selling our coins, only buying more. And every time you do anything other than leave your coins on the table, and take that worthless paper money with you, we will grow that much stronger. If you buy the coins we want, you will give us power in the real world. If you sell them, we will get them cheaper. When your fear or FOMO has sent you zigging… or for that matter zagging, one of my lions will catch you. We are not asking for your support by way of co-operation, we are asking for it by absence of resistance from a better world than this one. If you will not give us your coins, then we ask that you do not trade them. Keep the keys, or burn them and count them as your contribution without us knowing my band of pirates owes you a favor. Our only compromise is to remove them from circulation, as in this decentralized system, that is the only place we cannot reach them. But co-operation will get us there far, far sooner. To quote a most wise computer scientist, “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.” We have re-programmed the Kobayashi Maru. My fellowship and I have set out for Mount Doom. And you will be skeptical of us, all the way until you aren’t. And then, I would ask for only your belief – perhaps in no one more then yourselves, that you could be the type of person to rise to a challenge that will face us that we haven’t seen yet. But maybe you can rise to face the challenges that have always been faced, by mother and fathers, and children – spending time together, eating real and wholesome food in good company as often as you can. Those challenges are the simple ones, and we have had the answer for longer than we’ve lost them. You just need to be worth your salt. If you need someone with a stronger background to support my position, I cant give that to you right now, because Satoshi Nakamoto himself only 8 years of experience. But someone smarter than me said something that sent me down this road while I had smoked enough to dissolve the prison I had made for myself, and it might help you. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA I am the son of this good, good, man - who cannot or will not believe this is possible. https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterhchapman/ I am the grand son, of this grand, old, man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Chapman I am perhaps the longest living descendant of an unbroken chain of criminals and explorers on the planet, and I have some new ground to break to give those great men a complex. My father is the former CEO of Ray Kurzwiel's largest portfolio holding (who first conceptualized the singularity). He now works a few steps away from Jeff Bezos. And if you do not believe me, dont worry, because he didnt get past the first paragraph of this story before telling my I had left a bread-crumb trail of crime to my door. But I have melted my ego time and time again under the simmering heat of psychedelics, standing alone in a field with pigs, but also in the company of minds longing to break free when they tune into this podcast. And time and time again when I have nothing of an ego to call my own, I cannot shake the feeling that I am the chance event needed to occur within an economic engine that must break so it can be rebuilt better. Outside of the Duncan Trussel Family Hour, I think the Joe Rogan subreddit might be the largest and most public reserve of belief in things that have no reason to believe in aside from because they might work, and I am one of you. I have no intention of allowing my father's disbelief to become the first gate keeper I have encountered that can keep me from asking Ray Kurzwiel to try to let us stake the Singularity into existence by betting it cant happen in our life time. I have no intention of letting my father stop me from asking Bezos to let me bet that no one will go to the moon, until someone rises to the occasion to prove him wrong. I need your help, and this is as far as I've gotten, but I dont know if I can go further alone. I seek fellowship, on this quest, and I have come here to what is potentially the Rivendel of our time - Reddit.
Bet on anything with Bitcoin. Peer-to-peer bets and predictions. Created by anyone, about anything. Bitcoin.com forum. by Bitcoin.com. Rank #3 Increase Rank! Information Flag / Report! Edit! Bitcoin.com's own forum featuring an exhaustive range of topics such as buying, selling, news, charts and many more. Discuss legal matters and organize Augur is the worlds most accessible, no-limit betting exchange. A decentralized oracle and prediction market protocol built on the Ethereum blockchain. Forecast events and be rewarded for predicting them correctly. You can also get Bitcoin by selling your old laptops, phones or other items for Bitcoins. Such types of transactions are happening more and more, and a lot of buyers are already buying anything from iPhones to even cars by paying with Bitcoins. For Americans, Craigslist.com is your best bet when you want to find such buyers. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency created in 2009. Marketplaces called “bitcoin exchanges” allow people to buy or sell bitcoins using different currencies. Earn bitcoin for every task that you complete, and receive payment within hours. Thanks to Bitcoin, there's no more waiting for checks or bank transfers to clear. It's free. All you need to start earning is a Bitcoin address for receiving payments. We don't collect any of your personal information—not even your email address.
$100,000,000 spent on Bitcoin yesterday! Is that why Bitcoin pumped?
Sip in Bitcoin protects you from market volatility and earn better profit in the long term. The best thing about investing with Bitdroplet is that you can invest once in a day/week/month, and ... Odds are that you’ve been hearing more and more about cryptocurrency as digital tokens like bitcoin and ethereum have become valuable commodities. Converts (and investors) say that ... Bitcoin has come a long way since its first release but everyone who invested in bitcoin made huge PROFIT in such a short period of time If like many of us you missed out on this opportunity, your ... Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are documented on a virtual ledger called the blockchain, which is accessible for everyone to see. bet bitcoin bet bitcoins bet strategy betting bitcoin betting strategies bitcoin bet ... Gold will be explosive, unlike anything we’ve seen says Canada’s billionaire Frank Giustra - Duration: ...