The audacity of bitcoin SpmasterTrading

God, Proctortrack is invasive

It's another goddamn level of data collection. I bet they're selling this data.
I did 4 face scans, 4 knuckle scans, and 2 full room scans today.
What the actual fuck. Why do you need to see my whole room? I'm sitting in this tiny ass corner so it doesn't seem like I'm cheating and now they wanna see the whole goddamn room?
The audacity of these a-holes is incredible. It says "show under the desk". Yeah, cuz I got eyes on my feet right?
Isn't my face and hands and constant proctoring and FULL MOTHERFUCKIN DISK ACCESS, and access to control any and all apps on my laptop at any time in any way enough?
This is the exact access a virus needs to use your laptop for bitcoin mining.

Oh, and not to mention they made me download a chrome extension with full access to all data, control over the whole browser, and ability to open and close tabs without my permission

I don't even feel like this is my laptop anymore.

Why can't we use lockdown browser? It's THE SAME SHIT. Just have us join zoom or some shit and lockdown browser.
At this point they might as well make us naked and take a full body scan to make sure we didn't tattoo the fuckin syllabus on us or some shit

Dear Proctortrack, lmk if you need to scan the inside of my eyeballs too, you know, to make sure i have "aCaDeMiC iNtEgRiTy". Who knows? Maybe I tattooed the inside of my goddamn retinas?
submitted by Dave30954 to rutgers [link] [comments]

[For Hire] Need audio denoised. Someone experienced with ML/DNN/CNN/RNN, etc. OR a *very* experienced audio engineer $100 per hour of audio processed + speed bonus.

EDIT 3: The original post was way to complicated with the bonus stuff and I left out some basic information so let's try this again. Each file is 1 hour long so the minimum payout is $100 unless completely unsuccessful (you likely won't be because even *I* as an amateur could recover a respectable amount. We'll do a straight $40 bonus for completion within the first 12 hours and I'll allow up to 48 hours for completion before needing to find someone else. If the result is good then we'll move forward with the next file. Sorry for all the confusion. I hope this clears it up.

Hi,
This is a *very* important job I need done promptly. I have several hours of audio that have conversations hidden deep within. I've been able to get it to the point where I can understand about 10 percent of the conversation using Audacity's Noise removal tool and while I'm able to hear very well that the conversation is actually occurring, I'm afraid that just isn't enough to make out whats being said, as artifacts from the noise removal tool provides too many tinky bells. I'm willing to concede I'm only intermediate level when it comes to working with audacity in general. I think a machine learning expert will be required to actually get it to the ~85% understand-ability level I really need. There are several machine learning models (specifically "looking for listening" looks very promising, but there are several others) out there. This likely isn't going to be a simple task, but I'm sure it can be done since I've gotten pretty close myself. Luckily, it was recorded with a super-high quality microphone at 24-bits & 96khz sample rate. That also means you'll need a fairly beefy computer and or GPU to accomplish this within a decent time-frame.

Paying $100 per hour of audio processed with a bonus structure as follows: Extra $80 (multiplied by the % of comprehensibility ) if done within 4 hours of me sending you the file. The bonus halves every 4 hours thereafter. After 12 hours, there is no more bonus. If it takes over 24 hours, I'll need to move on to the next person as time is of paramount importance. So, as an example. If you finish in 3 hours at 75% comprehensibility then the bonus would be $60. If it takes 5 hours and only 65% then the bonus would be $26. If you can't get it over 50% than we will need to change the base rate, as I really can't be paying for something I can't understand.
Privacy is of the utmost importance and you should have a respectable reddit history preferably with machine learning or audio engineering posts, but the post content isn't strictly required.

Since I have about 13 hours I need done altogether, I will be picking two people at a time. The timer starts when I send the file and stops when you send the file back to me. If you do good work I may exclusively give you the rest of the work, or may divide it between people. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks and sorry for the wall'o'text

Edit: Paying in bitcoin only. 2% more if you use lightning network
edit2: I'll be AFK till about 3PM PST, and pick people slightly thereafter,
submitted by redditHi to Jobs4Bitcoins [link] [comments]

Removed comments/submissions for /u/WarrenMuppet007

Hi WarrenMuppet007, you're not shadowbanned, but 9 of your most recent 102 comments/submissions were removed (either automatically or by human moderators).

Comments:

g1h446u in greece on 14 Aug 20 (-1pts):
AH here you are. An unemployed Greek. lol. Of course you want socialism.
g1g8384 in Coronavirus on 14 Aug 20 (-30pts):
I am not here to prove anything. Neither I seek your internet validation.Do what you will with the data I provided.
If you are looking for a specific data just use google like any normal human...
g1cof3z in CryptoCurrency on 13 Aug 20 (1pts):
For their target audience ;)
g1ch9nq in investing on 13 Aug 20 (0pts):
I'm not looking to debate anything with you I know. Because you lack proper education on this matter and trying to go off on your opinion.
g1cgral in investing on 13 Aug 20 (1pts):
Nice. I think you need to go back to elementary school.
g1cgf1y in investing on 13 Aug 20 (0pts):
You cannot. That's your limitation.
g1cfrgp in investing on 13 Aug 20 (0pts):
I am just a guy who has a degree in robotics engineering and understand how cryptos work and how revolutionary they are. If I were you I would ask for a refund for your education. It's not worth...
g1cf3pj in investing on 13 Aug 20 (1pts):
Lol. You are the non believer and lack vision yet have the audacity to call me stupid. Good job Boomer.

Submissions:

i7q4t6 in investing on 11 Aug 20 (0pts):
Can BitCoin really exceed $50K, $100k, or $1 Mil in the next 10 years?
I'm a bot. My home is at /CommentRemovalChecker - check if your posts have been removed! (How to use)
Help us expose and stand up to social media bias and censorship!
submitted by MarkdownShadowBot to CommentRemovalChecker [link] [comments]

BSV is just ripple 2.0

I looked through YouTube videos for people like Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright supporting BSV, and from the arguments I've heard, it sounds a lot like ripple. Not only do they want Bitcoin to be centralized, they also want it to be regulation friendly. Sound familiar? This was the exact premise behind creating ripple. Creating a form of electronic cash which can be tracked, taxed, and allows government regulation defeats the entire purpose of peer to peer electronic cash. The cognitive dissonance can be seen in how BSV shills support regulation for BSV and then have the audacity to call it the vision of Satoshi (in their eyes, Craig Wright), when that completely defeats the vision that Satoshi had from the very beginning.
submitted by 1MightBeAPenguin to btc [link] [comments]

Roger Ver lies Lounge

Roger Ver is a liar with proof:

"Mt. Gox is totally fine." ... shortly thereafter Mt. Gox implodes ... "I am here to 'apologize'. Even though everything I said when I told you 'Mt. Gox is fine' was true, I am sorry that some of you lost money when it collapsed. Buy ether."
"I am banned from posting in /Bitcoin" ... accidentally posts to /Bitcoin ... "Oops. Now I'll pretend like I never claimed to be banned from /Bitcoin, and ignore anyone who asks me about that claim."
"I've dumped a few hundred BTC for BCH"... 2 weeks later: "I haven't sold a single Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash up until yesterday"
He lies about the subreddit he controls. He regularly lies about his holdings. He lied and scammed his way into the bitcoin.com domain, which he uses to push out FUD about Bitcoin and its developers. He lies on agreements he signs (e.g. "the bitcoin.com pool will mine with NYA/btc1/2x code... whoops just kidding, we're mining bch instead"). He even had the audacity to lie about what happened in court, when there is a public transcript available which disproves everything he said.
EDIT1:
This post's links (and the surrounding thread) shows Ver's history of promoting the bitclub ponzi, making excuses for its principles when they got arrested, and lying about his involvement: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/e94qxa/bitcoincom_exceo_and_convicted_felon_roger_vefaghpbm/
Please add to this list of LIES.
submitted by Where-is-my-BAB to BitcoinDotCON [link] [comments]

Southern District of New York amended complaint against Bitfinex and Tether

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16298999/110/in-re-tether-and-bitfinex-crypto-asset-litigation/
I. Introduction
  1. Defendants have executed a sophisticated scheme to fraudulently inflate the price of cryptocommodities, a class of crypto-assets that includes bitcoin. Defendants’ scheme was wildly effective, causing the price of these cryptocommodities to spike far above their legitimate value in the largest bubble in human history, and ultimately resulting in billions of dollars of dam-age to innocent cryptocommodity purchasers.
  2. The cryptocommodity market that Defendants manipulated was new and complex, and Defendants’ misconduct is staggering in its scope and audacity.
  3. Keeping their identities secret, Defendants made massive, carefully timed purchases of cryptocommodities to signal to the market that there was enormous demand and thus cause the price of those commodities to spike.
  4. There was no such demand. The assets Defendants used to make these purchases were essentially counterfeit.
  5. These purchases were made with Defendants’ own fraudulently issued crypto-asset called “tether” or “USDT”—a “stablecoin,” so called because it is purportedly pegged to and backed by U.S. dollars held in reserve. Tether, the company that created USDT, represented to the market that every USDT in circulation was backed by a U.S. dollar in Tether’s bank account, and holders could exchange their USDT for those dollars anytime they wished. USDT was thus held out as the digital equivalent of U.S. dollars.
  6. That was a lie.
  7. In reality, Tether issued billions of USDT to itself with no U.S. dollar backing—simply creating the USDT out of thin air. Tether hid that fact by “selling” newly issued USDT to Bitfinex, a crypto-exchange that was secretly owned and operated by the same individuals who owned and operated Tether. Because Bitfinex and Tether were essentially the same, Tether could simply transfer newly issued USDT into its account on Bitfinex without receiving U.S. dollars in exchange, as was required from genuine customers.
  8. As a result, when Tether issued unbacked USDT, every USDT issued thereafter, whether in exchange for U.S. dollars or not, was debased because there were not enough U.S. dollars in reserve to back every USDT. And the more USDT that Tether issued to Bitfinex, the more debased each USDT became.
  9. Bitfinex and Tether were able to maintain the illusion that USDT was fully backed with the assistance of shadow banks, including Crypto Capital, a shadow bank that Fowler operated, which ensured that Bitfinex and Tether had access to U.S. correspondent banks and thus could exchange U.S. dollars in response to requests from legitimate customers as needed.
  10. With the willing assistance of Bittrex, Inc. (“Bittrex”) and Poloniex LLC (“Polo-niex”), two other crypto-exchanges, Bitfinex and Tether used fraudulently issued USDT to make strategically timed, massive purchases of cryptocommodities just when the price of those com-modities was falling. 1This Complaint refersto Tether the company as “Tether” and tether the crypto-asset as USDT, which is short for “United States Dollar Tether.”
  11. Believing the lie that one USDT equaled one U.S. dollar, the market interpreted these massive purchases as reflecting meaningful consumer demand for cryptocommodities, which prevented the prices of those cryptocommodities from falling further. Thus, the same purchases that converted the USDT that Bitfinex and Tether had fraudulently created for free into valuable cryptocommodities also artificially inflated the value of those cryptocommodities. Bitfinex and Tether could then trade those cryptocommodities for other assets whose value was not inflated, including by selling them for U.S. dollars.
  12. Defendants’ manipulative purchases caused prices to skyrocket. From December 2016 to December 2017, the price of bitcoin increased twenty-five-fold,from $800 to $20,000, largely due to Defendants’ price manipulation. The price of other cryptocommodities also sky-rocketed over this same time: Ether and litecoin, for example, rose from $8 and $4.50 to $750 and$230, respectively.
submitted by DylanKid to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

04-03 19:45 - 'so 6200 or 5800 didnt interest you? / sub in a nutshell, upvotes people buying tops as encouragement, and downvotes posts that try to figure out why someone trading bitcoin would buy the top. / this sub is filled with newbies...' by /u/shakdnugz removed from /r/Bitcoin within 89-99min

'''
so 6200 or 5800 didnt interest you?
sub in a nutshell, upvotes people buying tops as encouragement, and downvotes posts that try to figure out why someone trading bitcoin would buy the top.
this sub is filled with newbies and flockers who don't have any idea about trading fundamentals, and then have the audacity to post about how dangerous it is to BUY TOPS lmao
gl with that bro
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: shakdnugz
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Permission from the State

This recent thread got me thinking.
State over-reach nowdays knows no boundaries. From Australia having the audacity to attempt to ban/backdoor encryption, to the UK now pontificating that it knows better than anyone what software should and should not be written, and how.
This measure is a grave threat (as if there were not enough around already) to personal freedom and to financial privacy.
And it is no wonder, as there has been an orchestrated effort, very transparent to all but the most stubborn ostriches, to completely eliminate financial privacy, under the guise of "fighting tax evasion" and "fighting money laundering".
The reality, of course, is quite different: the state is more interested in ensuring that its belly remains full, and is not above obliterating the financial privacy of millions to freely target and plunder as it sees fit.
Financial privacy then, even though it has been the standard for thousands of years, represents a giant obstacle to this objective.
With the latest move, the UK government is now asserting that even for peer to peer trades, the state middleman must be there, quietly snooping on every transaction. And not just that: It wants to require software developers to betray the privacy and safety of the users of their programs (whom they don't even know, and don't care to know) by undermining the software, making it report live data to the government.
We must see this for what it is. A totalitarian play, a test.
How long, should this come to pass, until demands for encryption backdoors grow louder once again?
After all, if any transaction you make could be terrorism-related, then why not every site your visit, or every conversation you have? Is the principle not the same?
It is absolutely appalling that the UK government - any government - would attempt something like this so candidly, without shame.
That alone tells us a lot already. They have grown emboldened.
The tyrants believe, and are willing to act on their belief, that invading the privacy of millions of people, and now compelling software programmers to weaken and backdoor their software for the benefit of state surveillance to be a perfectly normal request.
It isn't.
When will we awaken from our slumber? When is enough enough?
TL;DR: Power-hungry governments around the world want to know everything about you, and turn the state into crypto's very centralized middlemen by intimidating and coercing developers into betraying their users. It would be most unwise not to resist this and move to remove people who allegedly represent us from power. The result of complete state control over every sphere of our life can only be tyranny - it has been tried, and it produces much misery. You must understand the situation we face and not fall to hopelessness.**
submitted by xmr_kayront to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My dad [59M] wants to put me [17M] on Chinese medicine and acupuncture if I am to get off my medication. How can I tell him to fuck off?

I'm on Duloxetine HCL 90mg and Risperidone 0.75mg for treating my OCD, autism, and anger.
I don't like this medication. It makes me fat and sensitive and smell weird after I get out of the shower. Not sure if it's the DHCL or Risp. I've gained 30 pounds over the last year and I've found it hard to keep it off. I weigh 150 pounds and look thick. I just want to be off of it but I don't see my psychiatrist for another month.
My mom wants to keep me on the medication for fear of my OCD and anger returning. She's willing to phase me off of the Risperidone but not the DHCL.
And my homeopathic crank dad wants me to go to a Chinese medicine doctor and take acupuncture and herbs to manage me, if I am to get off my medication.
I don't like Chinese medicine. It's not based off of science but rather the teachings of a mythological deity named Shen Nong, and a lot of medicine products contain heavy metals and other toxic substances. Plus I don't like acupuncture. The needles shift around while I'm laying down and it hurts when they go in. And one time they hit one of my nerves and it really hurt but my dad had the audacity to say "ThAt'S bEcAuSe YoUr ChI iS bLoCkEd".
There is zero evidence for Chi, meridians, or acupuncture points. And I do not believe it, nor the herbal medicine my dad has given me, has ever helped me in the long run, if at all. He complains about BiG pHaRmA making drugs that make you dependent on them to make billions of dollars in revenue but he doesn't realize that the alternative medicine industry does the exact same.
We once had our own specialized naturopath that my parents claim has done wonders for our family and has cured people when modern medicine has failed them. I'm not so sure about the validity of these claims.
If I try to bring up any evidence against alternative medicine, he always always always replies with "ThEy'Re AlL bIaSeD" or "ScIeNcE cAn'T eXpLaIn EvErYtHiNg", "It'S bAsEd oFf Of ThOuSaNdS oF yEaRs Of HiStOrY", etc. and always tries to twist the argument in his favour.
He actually believes that Mercola and Greenmedinfo are not fake news, that naturopathy is the best medicine because "PhArMaCeUtIcAlS aRe NoT nAtUrAl, AnYtHiNg MaN-mAdE iS bAd FoR yOu", that the formaldehyde from aspartame and fruit are somehow different, that citric acid made in a lab is somehow different and worse for you than natural citric acid from citrus, that somehow pharmaceuticals damage the liver as it processes the medication (as if heavy metal laden Chinese medicine, hell, even alcohol doesn't do that), and that my internet usage needs to be "monitored" for "misinformation" about alternative medicine, unless if I turn to his journals and books about naturopathy and Chinese medicine.
One time he actually spent $600 on Chinese medicine which did nothing to help us. Waste of money, I could have put that in Bitcoin.
The studies on acupuncture have varying and conflicting results, leading to a suggestion that it is not effective beyond placebo. As such I do not want to subject myself to it, but if I don't then I'm not allowed to get off my medication. I am 17 years old and believe I should have a say about what is done to my own body. I want to know what I can say to them to get them to just fuck off.
Also they hate when I take to Reddit, they believe that total strangers can't tell us what to do since they have no involvement with us whatsoever, and asking online is somehow "immature" and a "violation of privacy".
I swear I can't wait until I'm 18, moved out, have my own job, and am independent, so I can spend my OWN money on my OWN BiG pHaRmA medicine.
submitted by ajsjaj181 to JUSTNOFAMILY [link] [comments]

Beware of U/FrequentEmphasis

Hello guys. Please in no circumstances deal with FrequentEmphasis . He was converting paypal to bitcoin for my friend, and as soon as he got 25$ he told my friend that he had sent the bitcoin to my friends bitcoin Wallet, which was not true.
My friend asked him for a screenshot of the transaction and he blocked my friend instantly, my friend got agitated and called the guy some words, to which this guy had the audacity to Threaten to kill my friend (who has now left reddit due to hearing something like this)
On the chat, he claims he is a cold blooded killer and my friend is done for. Whereas on a post he has made a month or so back (in the link) , he's suddenly a 19 year old broke student who falls on snow and has no money to go to the doctor lol
I request you guys to upvote this so that more people don't get scammed by such people and i request the mods to not let this behaviour go unnoticed.
Here are the proofs of the same :
http://imgur.com/a/TQluXpS
(EDIT : GOOD NEWS. I still have the username of his twitch channel, finding it and posting it here soon. Hope you guys do the needful 🤗)
submitted by Zoe803614 to Scams [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: Drama top posts from 2018-08-11 to 2019-08-10 20:29 PDT

Period: 364.37 days
Submissions Comments
Total 993 175972
Rate (per day) 2.73 479.44
Unique Redditors 502 14271
Combined Score 524087 3258754

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 9206 points, 13 submissions: Kellere31
    1. Smug post 3000: Magathots (1474 points, 98 comments)
    2. Smug post 13 😍Pibbls😍 (1302 points, 246 comments)
    3. Centrist smugpost 4 (1170 points, 187 comments)
    4. Smug post 15: conservative edition (802 points, 151 comments)
    5. Drama meta smug post 6 (676 points, 406 comments)
    6. Smug post 10 BasicallyADoctor fan edition (642 points, 63 comments)
    7. By the way I am totally an Anarchist sweaty! (574 points, 72 comments)
    8. In response to recent (((migration))) on this sub. (548 points, 49 comments)
    9. Smug post 8. The reminder that this applies to Magatards too. (502 points, 175 comments)
    10. Centrist smug post 9: shitty reddit humor (432 points, 97 comments)
  2. 8910 points, 2 submissions: Barrack-HusseinObama
    1. Rotten Tomatoes pulls “Want to see” percentage score from site after Captain Marvel interest dips below 25%. (8615 points, 1865 comments)
    2. Jeffrey Epstein Found Injured in NYC Jail Cell After Possible Suicide Attempt (295 points, 156 comments)
  3. 5735 points, 9 submissions: rsrfy
    1. >powermods (1746 points, 153 comments)
    2. look how they massacred my boy (974 points, 122 comments)
    3. never forget the innocence the fugees took from us (545 points, 56 comments)
    4. Ben Garrison puts down the syringe long enough to make his holiday gift guide (507 points, 205 comments)
    5. mfw centroid jannie (484 points, 26 comments)
    6. Shitting on your floor to own Drumpf (405 points, 230 comments)
    7. new Lawlz sticky? lemme save you a click (375 points, 71 comments)
    8. the real weapon they don't want you to have (361 points, 61 comments)
    9. had to do it to em (338 points, 31 comments)
  4. 4701 points, 11 submissions: BIknkbtKitNwniS
    1. Vice: Not believing in astrology is toxic masculinity. "Women and queer people are drawn to astrology because it offers community and refuge. In a heterosexual patriarchy, cis-het men arguably have less to seek refuge from" (603 points, 222 comments)
    2. Is Poland /ourcountry/ ? (515 points, 177 comments)
    3. Imagine being so unbearable that being replaced by a plastic doll is a real concern for you. (486 points, 442 comments)
    4. When rightoids call leftoids NPCs and vice versa (484 points, 143 comments)
    5. They targeted readers. Readers. (449 points, 302 comments)
    6. Obama isn't woke because he attended McCain's funeral instead of Aretha Franklin's because all black people are friends or something. (441 points, 98 comments)
    7. Bernie Sanders can't contain his (((inner Jew))) when he's asked about his favourite book. (400 points, 171 comments)
    8. The left really can't meme (394 points, 232 comments)
    9. Menslibber can't handle playful flirting from half naked Halloween thots. "I feel sexually harassed". (352 points, 275 comments)
    10. WatchRedditDies is literally filing a lawsuit against blackpeopletwitter for not letting mayos post lmao (293 points, 184 comments)
  5. 4569 points, 11 submissions: Ghdust2
    1. Another male feminist gets accused of sexual assault. The kicker? he was the founder of Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook. The university that was recommended to braincels after the quarantine. (653 points, 283 comments)
    2. Brie “All Mayos Need To Get K.O.” Larson gets angry at Thor for comparing her to Tom Cruise. (501 points, 360 comments)
    3. Imagine being this upset at a capehsit movie. (427 points, 214 comments)
    4. This is certifiably the worst thing Ben “The Fentanyl Man” Garrison has drawn. (415 points, 93 comments)
    5. So he totally jerks it to this, right? (411 points, 61 comments)
    6. Ben “Gotta Gas Em All” Garrison shares his thoughts on the Jessie Smollett controversy. (401 points, 66 comments)
    7. Mod of liberal_irl goes on a pinging spree. (400 points, 184 comments)
    8. Horseshoe theory proven right yet again as Chapo celebrates terrorist attacks on Jews. (376 points, 275 comments)
    9. ScarJo says actors should be allowed to do their jobs, the femcels over at gamerghazi react with terror. (344 points, 97 comments)
    10. The soyboys of menslib discuss how the thought of physical strength makes them uncomfortable. (334 points, 150 comments)
  6. 4390 points, 3 submissions: GeauxHouston22
    1. this is literally every one of you dweebs (2098 points, 191 comments)
    2. Jussie Smollett up for NAACP Award and I'm now fully convinced that our lizard overlords monitor this subreddit and manipulate reality to benefit it (1303 points, 335 comments)
    3. a tale as old as time (989 points, 189 comments)
  7. 4113 points, 7 submissions: Oh_hamburgers_
    1. T_D sent 3 tons of salt to the CNN headquarters (1760 points, 735 comments)
    2. Had fun at the meetup today drama, thanks for coming (571 points, 207 comments)
    3. Woke Twitter erupts into hysterics when a Jewish Mexican casually rests her arm during the Kavanaugh hearings (401 points, 345 comments)
    4. oh jeez (360 points, 296 comments)
    5. Blackfellas struggle to cope with the "white supremacist shooter" narrative getting BLACKED (359 points, 87 comments)
    6. Bitcoin boys may be out nearly $200m after boomer forgets to write down password and then dies (343 points, 145 comments)
    7. 300lb braphog crackhead crushes her 120lb crackhead manlet to death with a yokozuna finishing move (319 points, 92 comments)
  8. 4084 points, 8 submissions: dootwthesickness_II
    1. This image makes the CAfugees cry (864 points, 151 comments)
    2. The great CAnimal purge does NOT mean that Chapocels are welcome here. Defend /Drama's sovereignty. Post things that upset them. (756 points, 300 comments)
    3. In light of the recent spergfest involving /butchlesbians, let's remember to keep ourselves safe (550 points, 146 comments)
    4. /pol/ baits a new hook. Will the blue checkmarks bite again? (514 points, 111 comments)
    5. “Russians have changed tactics to try to drive a wedge between feminists and Muslims. You will be seeing a lot of these contentious posts on the front page for the coming year.” (431 points, 282 comments)
    6. "I am NOT an incel! I'm just involuntarily unable to get laid!" t. /ChapoTraphouse (331 points, 159 comments)
    7. Art museum discovers that museumgoers want to see art, not blank spaces on the walls that "encourage thought about how women's bodies are shown." (326 points, 187 comments)
    8. Build a wall and make /conservative pay for it (312 points, 137 comments)
  9. 4035 points, 9 submissions: Strictlybutters
    1. YEpost: 🌊 Drama’s Patron Saint wears a MAGA hat and Colin Kaepernick t shirt while reading quotations from chairman Mao (832 points, 132 comments)
    2. Kanye announces his yexit from the right (470 points, 213 comments)
    3. Zyklon Ben’s latest fentanyl laced fever dream (466 points, 157 comments)
    4. When I said that Hillary Clinton got schlonged by Obama, it meant got beaten badly. The media knows this. Often used word in politics! (460 points, 97 comments)
    5. GQ writer can’t believe people have the audacity to wish her a Merry Christmas and likens it to being told as a female to smile more😤😤 (439 points, 145 comments)
    6. Strong 💪 big boy 👦 president DESTROYS small soychild libshit with facts and logic! (408 points, 138 comments)
    7. Chris Pratt fills his closet with 🇺🇸 🐍tee shirts 🐍 🇺🇸from goodwill like a poor🤢🤢🤮🤮 and therefore as logic obviously dictates is white supremacist trash and is from here on out CANCELLED! (343 points, 293 comments)
    8. Are female AI voices causing toxic masculinity or is this the most retarded hot take ever (319 points, 81 comments)
    9. Broke people are usually very low class, have extremely bad manners, have zero etiquette and no class at all whatsoever. THREAD (298 points, 93 comments)
  10. 3998 points, 9 submissions: Coonass_alt
    1. Jussie literally walked out of his apartment to go stage the hate crime with the noose ALREADY around his neck. His own apartment cameras captured it. (672 points, 136 comments)
    2. the NYT finally breaks the bad news that most people actually got a tax cut from blumpf and /politics is SEETHING. Currently 18% upvoted. (554 points, 360 comments)
    3. How much C O P E does it take to make a graph like this? Found in /datingoverthirty (547 points, 224 comments)
    4. Scientists say that drinking alcohol during pregnancy is unsafe. /Science white-knights melt the fuck down. (442 points, 222 comments)
    5. Multiple people have tried to remove references to Epstien's Jewish heritage from his Wikipedia article today, fight between people who want to keep that information there and those who want to scrub it. (384 points, 221 comments)
    6. College calls the police, sends out campus wide e-mails, after cartoon frog is posted on bulletin board (379 points, 181 comments)
    7. For the second day in a row, literally the top 50 posts on reddit.com were removed by mods. SMH y'all really can't behave. Be better. (363 points, 59 comments)
    8. Teens attack random people in Philadelphia (352 points, 293 comments)
    9. Reddit Gamers get scammed by marketing and overhype for like the 10th time in the past 3 years and now the subreddit for the newest pile of shit is in open revolt. Remember these retards fell for an EA game. (305 points, 142 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. SnapshillBot (28652 points, 937 comments)
  2. Ed_ButteredToast (17519 points, 956 comments)
  3. AnnoysTheGoys (16293 points, 642 comments)
  4. Starship_Litterbox_C (16083 points, 492 comments)
  5. BIknkbtKitNwniS (15442 points, 152 comments)
  6. snallygaster (15259 points, 699 comments)
  7. The_Reason_Trump_Won (15096 points, 124 comments)
  8. Tzar-Romulus (14084 points, 578 comments)
  9. Corporal-Hicks (13887 points, 360 comments)
  10. TaysSecondGussy (13505 points, 430 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Rotten Tomatoes pulls “Want to see” percentage score from site after Captain Marvel interest dips below 25%. by Barrack-HusseinObama (8615 points, 1865 comments)
  2. SEETHING white femcel by deleted (4884 points, 983 comments)
  3. Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit. by deleted (4867 points, 2995 comments)
  4. A New Zealander literally said "Subscribe to PewDiePie" before shooting up a mosque by ObsessiveMuso (3968 points, 2093 comments)
  5. Unstoppable force meets immovable object by Mat_The_49th (2944 points, 544 comments)
  6. The_Donald just got quarantined by EddingtonDidNothingW (2280 points, 927 comments)
  7. this is literally every one of you dweebs by GeauxHouston22 (2098 points, 191 comments)
  8. drama by DannedFromBrama (2006 points, 96 comments)
  9. Thots on suicide watch as it turns out they have to pay taxes too by deleted (1948 points, 772 comments)
  10. You’re welcome by deleted (1784 points, 190 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 2701 points: deleted's comment in Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit.
  2. 1778 points: RobertSpringer's comment in Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit.
  3. 1617 points: a_cute_grill's comment in A pre-HRT, pre surgery Transwoman who also happens to be a lesbian wins a major women's cycling competition. cycling is pissed.
  4. 1474 points: Destirigon's comment in A pre-HRT, pre surgery Transwoman who also happens to be a lesbian wins a major women's cycling competition. cycling is pissed.
  5. 1461 points: HardIsLife's comment in Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit.
  6. 1275 points: RandolphCox's comment in Thots on suicide watch as it turns out they have to pay taxes too
  7. 1209 points: keeeeshawn's comment in Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit.
  8. 1090 points: CirqueDuFuder's comment in Gillette made an ad telling their customers that they are sexist pieces of shit.
  9. 1030 points: stalejokesunlimited's comment in Thots on suicide watch as it turns out they have to pay taxes too
  10. 985 points: melokobeai's comment in Autist furry somehow gets job at NASA, proceeds to insult a member of the National Space Council, loses internship
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Roger Ver is a well-known scammer.

rbtc-censorship https://gist.github.com/chris-belchec9f4b90bec1b2fbf8caaab178719ac24
"Roger Ver openly admitting that he will promote BCash as Bitcoin" https://de.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7jzpiafter_roger_ver_openly_admitting_that_he_will/
"MtGox is fine" Roger Ver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0 Thousands of people lost their life savings on Mtgox shortly after that.
Vote manipulation: https://twitter.com/brian_trollz/status/887699030901501952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23887699030901501952
Astroturfing - "Roger Ver pays a public relations company to astroturf social media with anti-core, pro-BU propaganda."- former mod https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/842826844311375872
Roger´s sockpuppets: https://de.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/87t3ot/delicious_proof_that_roger_employs_sockpuppets/
https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/979325093666082817
Bought accounts to push agenda: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
MemoryDealers.com founder Roger Ver abuses admin access at Blockchain.info https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131608.0;all
Roger buying likes on twitter https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/900445557436538880
Roger Ver Lies https://decentralize.today/roger-ver-lies-f5333e152858
Antpool = Viabtc conclusive proof https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6v2fic/in_case_you_still_didnt_believe_it_antpool_viabtc/
The fee lie - Everyone can see that roger ver is lying again when there are literally no txs in the #Bitcoin mempool and 5 sat txs are in the next block https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/903866375567007745
More fee lies from "Bitcoin Judas"
https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/921994604500709377
Roger Ver lies more often than he tells the truth. This is not an attack, just an objective observation of the facts.
"Mt. Gox is totally fine." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0) ... shortly thereafter Mt. Gox implodes ... "I am here to 'apologize'. Even though everything I said when I told you 'Mt. Gox is fine' was true, I am sorry that some of you lost money when it collapsed. Buy ether."
"I am banned from posting in /Bitcoin" ... accidentally posts to /Bitcoin ... "Oops. Now I'll pretend like I never claimed to be banned from /Bitcoin, and ignore anyone who asks me about that claim."
"I've dumped a few hundred BTC for BCC"... 2 weeks later: "I haven't sold a single Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash up until yesterday"
He lies about the subreddit he controls. He regularly lies about his holdings. He lied and scammed his way into the bitcoin.com domain, which he uses to push out FUD about Bitcoin and its developers. He lies on agreements he signs (e.g. "the bitcoin.com pool will mine with NYA/btc1/2x code... whoops just kidding, we're mining bcash instead"). He even had the audacity to lie about what happened in court, when there is a public transcript available which disproves everything he said.
There are more examples of blatant deception that I don't have the time or patience to dig up right now. Make no mistake: the man is, unfortunately, a sociopath.
https://de.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6xpu8j/roger_ver_lies/
submitted by ayanamirs to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The number of times I've been told I'm "backing out of an agreement" is staggering. I'm fine with debating any 2X supporters, but drop that BS argument because NONE of us agreed to anything

It's amazing how heavily some 2X supporters lean on that nonsensical argument. My tendency is to think it's an extension of the endless "social contracts" the government forces onto everyone. We get so entrenched into thinking that if the "authority" decides something, everyone else has to follow.
In the Bitcoin network, at first glance, miners and large businesses appear to fill the role of "authority," and they have been absolutely furious that we didn't just roll over and install the client they said we were going to install.
It makes them all look like fools. As they should for thinking they can hold us to their agreements.
Again, I really don't want to throw salt here, and I would love to argue any legitimate points regarding a HF. But the accusation that we somehow have collectively "failed to keep our word" because someone "promised on our behalf" is some statist crap if I've ever heard it.
No core developers signed the agreement, therefore none are breaking promises.
None of this community signed the agreement. Therefore none of us are breaking any promise.
TL;DR The very reason I'm so unwaveringly against 2X is because of how aghast so many 2X supporters are that I have the audacity to disagree with what "The Almighty Miners" chose for me. I think it's far more important for those people to understand that they can't hold me to anything, and I'm here specifically for that feature.
My node runs 0.15
submitted by Cryptoconomy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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[1] 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[2], 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 tps continuously, 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:
  1. Alice moves funds to Bob
  2. Bob moves funds to Ernie
  3. Ernie moves funds to Dave
  4. 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
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

What would you like to see in a book called "Roko's Basilisk"?

I would like your assistance, my fellow sneer culturists, in our eternal and vital work to increase existential risk.
Specifically: I've written a surprisingly popular book about why bitcoins and blockchains are trash. (I basically have a second part-time job now as a finance journalist, which supplies a bit of welcome cash.)
But sales are dropping off - so it's time to write the next one.
The options are:
  1. The Good, The Bad and the Blockchain: For A Few Bitcoins More - the obvious sequel. I have a blog full of material to adapt. It won't be as incisive or impactful as the first one, but it should sell at least a few copies.
  2. Roko's Basilisk: A Savage Journey to the Dark Heart of the Transhumanist Dream.
I wanted to ask what you would like to see in that second one. That's one hell of a subtitle, but never shrink from audacity after all.
If you saw a book of that title and subtitle:
I should point out - this may have slight commercial prospects. Apart from the mention of the Basilisk on Silicon Valley, Tom Chivers (the science journalist) is writing one about these people too, through a real publisher. We've spoken about the topic, and basically I think both books will promote each other - one is a weirdness, two is a Thing.
submitted by dgerard to SneerClub [link] [comments]

Why NYA is an attack on Bitcoin and why it will fail (long)

I wrote a rather lengthy response to a reddit post that I think is worth sharing, especially for newcomers to dispell some false narratives about S2X and Barry Silberts' New-York Agreement aka hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin that is doomed to fail.
big block hard-liners wanted block size only, no SegWit.
Which doesn't make any logical sense. A lot of fud was actively being spread about how segwit was unsafe (such as the ANYONECANSPEND fud) but segwit is ofcourse working as intended thanks to the world class engineering of the Bitcoin Core developers. This led to the suspicion that BitMain was behind the opposition of segwit. BitMain miners use "covert AsicBoost" which is a technique that allows their rigs to use less electricity than competing mining equipment. However, segwit introduced changes to Bitcoin that made using covert AsicBoost impossible, which would explain their fierce opposition to segwit. We're talking big money here - the AsicBoost advantage is worth US$ 100 million according to estimates of experts.
After segwit was finalized, the Bitcoin software was programmed to activate segwit but not before 95% of the hashpower signalled to be ready. After all, miners are tasked with creating valid blocks and should be given the opportunity to update their software for protocol changes such as segwit. As a courtesy to the miners, the Bitcoin software basically said: "ok, segwit is here, but I'll politely hold off its activation until 95% of you say that you're ready to deal with this protocol change".
Sadly, mining is heavily centralized, and segwit was never getting activated due to the opposition of a few or perhaps even a single person: Jihan Wu of BitMain. As an aside, the centralization of hash power is also a direct result of AsicBoost. How this works: since AsicBoosted rigs are able to mine more efficiently than their competitors, these rigs drive up the difficulty and with that the average amount of hashes required to find a block. This in turn causes less efficient rigs to mine at a loss because they need to expend more energy to find a block. As a result, BitMain competitors got pushed out and BitMain became the dominant self-mining ASIC manufacturer.
After segwit was finalized, it required 95% of the hashpower to activate but it never gained more than around 30%. So 70% of hash power abused the courtesy of the Bitcoin software to wait until they were ready for activation and refused to give the go ahead. This went on for months and worst case it would have taken until August 2018 before segwit would activate.
let's do a compromise- we do SegWit AND we hard fork
In March 2017 a pseudonymous user called Shaolin Fry created BIP148 which is a softfork that invalidates any block that wouldn't signal segwit readiness starting August 1st 2017. This also became known as the UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork, as opposed to the original miner-activated soft fork that didn't work as intended). This patch saw significant adoption and miners would soon be forced to signal segwit or else see their blocks being invalidated by the network, which would cause them significant financial losses.
In May 2017 so after BIP148, the backroom New-York Agreement (NYA) was created by the Digital Currency Group of Barry Silbert together with businesses in the Bitcoin space such as BitPay and almost all miners. The NYA was the beginning of an outright misinformation campaign.
The NYA was trumpeted to be a "compromise". Miners would finally agree to activate segwit. In return, Bitcoin would hardfork and double its capacity on top of the doubling already achieved by segwit. In reality, BIP148 was already going to force miners to signal the activation of segwit. Also, developers and most users were notably absent in this NYA. So, given that segwit was already unstoppable because of BIP148, the parties around the table had to "compromise" to do something that they all wanted: hardfork Bitcoin to increase its capacity.
Or, is it all in fact really about increasing capacity? After all, segwit already achieved this. Bcash was created which doubled block size as well but without segwit. And then there is good old Litecoin having four times the transaction capacity of Bitcoin and segwit. Plenty of working alternatives that obsolete the need for yet another altcoin. So, perhaps transaction capacity is used as an excuse to reach a different goal. Let's explore.
Apparently after not-so-careful study of the Bitcoin whitepaper, the NYA participants came up with an absurd redefinition of what is "Bitcoin". According to this bizarre definition, they started to claim that Bitcoin is being defined as:
  1. Any blockchain that has the most cumulative hashpower behind it (measured from the Genesis block at the inception of Bitcoin):
  2. Using the SHA256 hashing algorithm;
  3. Having the current difficulty adjustment algorithm (resetting difficulty every 2016 blocks).
Ad 1. Note that it starts with "any blockchain". This also includes blockchains that contain invalid blocks, in other words, blocks that Bitcoin nodes would reject.
This is ofcourse bizarre but it is exactly what the NYA participants claim. It effectively puts all power in the hand of miners. Instead of nodes validating blocks, according to this novel and absurd interpretation of Bitcoin it will be miners that call the shots. Whatever block a miner produces will be valid as long as they mine on top of their own block, because that chain will then have the most cumulative hash power. Nodes become mere distributors of blocks and lose all their authority as they can no longer decide over the validity of a block. MinerCoin is born.
The Bitcoin whitepaper actually mentions this scenario where a majority of the hashpower takes over the network and starts producing invalid blocks and refers to it as being an attack. It is worth quoting this section 8, second paragraph in its entirety:
"As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification." (emphasises mine).
Any doubt left whether "most hashpower wins" is an attack should be removed by a telling remark in the release notes of 0.3.19:
"Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain."
As mentioned, miners representing 95% of all hash power participate in the NYA. They are currently expressing their support for the NYA by putting "NYA" inside blocks. The NYA participants intend to remove their hash power from Bitcoin completely and point it towards their altcoin. To double down on their claim that Bitcoin is defined by hashpower, they show some serious audacity by referring to their altcoin as... "Bitcoin". Anyone not part of the NYA refers to their coin as segwit2x, S2X or sometimes 2x.
The NYA participants proceed to proclaim victory. They reason that with all hash power on their blockchain and hardly any left for Bitcoin, "legacy Bitcoin" will be stuck as blocks will be created so slowly that Bitcoin becomes unusable, forcing everyone to switch to the "real" Bitcoin (sic). In other words, it was part of the plan was to remove hash power from Bitcoin to disrupt and force users into their altcoin.
Ofcourse, Bitcoin Core would not just sit idle and let such an attack happen. There are several ways to defend against this attack. As a last resort, an emergency difficulty reset combined with a change in the PoW algorithm can be deployed to get Bitcoin going again.
This is not likely to be necessary however as miners simply can't afford to mine a coin that has a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin. They have large bills to pay which is impossible by mining a coin that has half or even less the value of Bitcoin. In other words, miners would bankrupt themselves unless their altcoin attains the same value as Bitcoin. Given the lack of user, community and developer support it is save to say that this is not going to happen. Their coin will have only a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin and miners have no choice but to continue mine Bitcoin in order to receive the income necessary to pay for their huge operational expenses.
A moment was set for the hardfork: block 494,784 a big block will be produced such that it is invalid for the current Bitcoin network and will discard it.
Ofcourse, some nodes must accept the new, bigger S2X blocks. Therefore, Jeff Garzik (co-founder of a company called Bloq) started out to create btc1 which is a fork of the Bitcoin node software and which is adapted such that it accepts blocks up to twice in size, so that the segwit2x altcoin can exist. Note the 1 in btc1 which refers to their version numbering. Bitcoin Core releases are still 0.x but btc1 is numbered 1.x. This is to send the message that they have released the real Bitcoin that is now no longer a beta 0.x release but a production ready 1.x. This nonwithstanding the fact that btc1 is a copy of Bitcoin 0.14 with some minor changes and without any significant development causing it to quickly fall behind Bitcoin.
The NYA participants go on to claim that when hash power is on the btc1 blockchain, and Bitcoin is dead as a result because no or hardly any new blocks are being created, then the Bitcoin Core developers have no choice but to start contributing to their btc1 github controlled by Jeff Garzik.
In the NYA end state, Bitcoin is a coin of which miners set the consensus rules, and the Core developers sheepishly contribute to software in a repository controlled by Jeff Garzik or whoever pays him.
Needless to say, this is never ever going to happen.
The small block hard-liners are now against 2x and want SegWit only.
There is no such thing as small block hardliners. As is probably clear by now, NYA is not about block size. It is about control over Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin Core has never closed the door on a block size increase. In the scaling roadmap published in December 2015, Bitcoin Core notes:
"Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."
Bitcoin Core literally says here very clearly that further increases of block size are on the table as an option in the future.
For my personal opinion-
I hope that your personal opinion has changed after taking notes of the above.
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

LOL these people crack me up. Now we are the "Corporate Takeover of Bitcoin".

That's what they're calling this? 😂 Unbelievable.
One thing the last five years has taught me is that people will change reality as extensively as they want, if it suits their bias. You want to view things literally the opposite of reality? Go for it!
Corporate takeover of bitcoin via Blockstream is okay, but since those who oppose it happen to own businesses, they are now dubbed the "corporate takeover" of Bitcoin. 🤗
Sure why not!
Literal centralization of bitcoin transactions by pulling them offline to trusted third-parties running $30,000 lightning hubs is OK. But raising the block size limit is the REAL "centralization", and $20,000 nodes in 40 years is too expensive. 🤗
It just blows me away that those people have the audacity to call this side of the debate a "corporate takeover", after this entire divide happened in the first place because of their "corporate takeover" of bitcoin.
submitted by BitttBurger to btc [link] [comments]

My dad [59M] wants to put me [17M] on Chinese medicine and acupuncture if I am to get off my medication. How can I tell him to fuck off?

I'm on Duloxetine HCL 90mg and Risperidone 0.75mg for treating my OCD, autism, and anger.
I don't like this medication. It makes me fat and sensitive and smell weird after I get out of the shower. Not sure if it's the DHCL or Risp. I've gained 30 pounds over the last year and I've found it hard to keep it off. I weigh 150 pounds and look thick. I just want to be off of it but I don't see my psychiatrist for another month.
My mom wants to keep me on the medication for fear of my OCD and anger returning. She's willing to phase me off of the Risperidone but not the DHCL.
And my homeopathic crank dad wants me to go to a Chinese medicine doctor and take acupuncture and herbs to manage me, if I am to get off my medication.
I don't like Chinese medicine. It's not based off of science but rather the teachings of a mythological deity named Shen Nong, and a lot of medicine products contain heavy metals and other toxic substances. Plus I don't like acupuncture. The needles shift around while I'm laying down and it hurts when they go in. And one time they hit one of my nerves and it really hurt but my dad had the audacity to say "ThAt'S bEcAuSe YoUr ChI iS bLoCkEd".
There is zero evidence for Chi, meridians, or acupuncture points. And I do not believe it, nor the herbal medicine my dad has given me, has ever helped me in the long run, if at all. He complains about BiG pHaRmA making drugs that make you dependent on them to make billions of dollars in revenue but he doesn't realize that the alternative medicine industry does the exact same.
We once had our own specialized naturopath that my parents claim has done wonders for our family and has cured people when modern medicine has failed them. I'm not so sure about the validity of these claims.
If I try to bring up any evidence against alternative medicine, he always always always replies with "ThEy'Re AlL bIaSeD" or "ScIeNcE cAn'T eXpLaIn EvErYtHiNg", "It'S bAsEd oFf Of ThOuSaNdS oF yEaRs Of HiStOrY", etc. and always tries to twist the argument in his favour.
He actually believes that Mercola and Greenmedinfo are not fake news, that naturopathy is the best medicine because "PhArMaCeUtIcAlS aRe NoT nAtUrAl, AnYtHiNg MaN-mAdE iS bAd FoR yOu", that the formaldehyde from aspartame and fruit are somehow different, that citric acid made in a lab is somehow different and worse for you than natural citric acid from citrus, that somehow pharmaceuticals damage the liver as it processes the medication (as if heavy metal laden Chinese medicine, hell, even alcohol doesn't do that), and that my internet usage needs to be "monitored" for "misinformation" about alternative medicine, unless if I turn to his journals and books about naturopathy and Chinese medicine.
One time he actually spent $600 on Chinese medicine which did nothing to help us. Waste of money, I could have put that in Bitcoin.
The studies on acupuncture have varying and conflicting results, leading to a suggestion that it is not effective beyond placebo. As such I do not want to subject myself to it, but if I don't then I'm not allowed to get off my medication. I am 17 years old and believe I should have a say about what is done to my own body. I want to know what I can say to them to get them to just fuck off.
Also they hate when I take to Reddit, they believe that total strangers can't tell us what to do since they have no involvement with us whatsoever, and asking online is somehow "immature" and a "violation of privacy".
I swear I can't wait until I'm 18, moved out, have my own job, and am independent, so I can spend my OWN money on my OWN BiG pHaRmA medicine.
submitted by ajsjaj181 to relationship_advice [link] [comments]

My Recent Experience With Genesis Mining // Read This Before You Buy A Contract

I put $8,200 USD on a total of three Genesis Mining contracts for 50 TH/s of hash power last November, and which only went into effect a mere six months ago in February/March of this year. Now, they're in danger of becoming terminated in less than 60 days because of the low BTC price + increased hash rate difficulty. I had done a bit of research beforehand and tested out some hash rate mining scenarios that may occur at some point in the near future; even multiplying the then hash rate several times over, while keeping the BTC price relatively average (back then it was around the $8K mark and rising).
In all my benchmarks, the amount of hash power I had purchased appeared to make a profit, albeit a small one in even an increasing hash rate difficulty scenario—but never did I imagine that the contract would become unprofitable in such a short period of time. I thought I'd be able to ride it out for at least 1–2 years and either make my ROI or hold for longer to make a possible margin of profit. Plus, my payouts (when they were being generated) never reflected the numbers I had come up with using mining calculators during my research phase; instead, I was only generating half of what was depicted, which was another unexpected curve ball.
Genesis Mining had the audacity of sending out an email about two weeks ago where they stated the following:
In a couple of days, we will roll out a very special offer only for our existing Bitcoin Mining customers. You better stay tuned!
So that very special offer arrived earlier today via another email, and if was for existing customers to upgrade to the new Radiant contracts for $180 per 1 TH/s, which if you do the math would come out to $9000 for the 50 TH/s (or more than I had paid for the original contracts to begin with). They also callously stated in that same email:
As a result, some user contracts are now mining less than the daily maintenance fee requires to be covered, and thus they entered the 60 days grace period, after which open-ended contracts will get terminated.
Although I agreed to Genesis' terms prior to signing up, I never imagined this scenario unfolding in such a short time; however, for them to also add insult to injury with a deplorable marketing scheme as the one I illustrated in the email above should hopefully give you an idea of who you'll be doing business with, in case you're considering a cloud mining contract with them. My advice to anyone interested in cloud mining would be to either pay for your own equipment and mine the BTC yourself, or better yet, buy the BTC directly from an exchange, especially right now while its price is relatively low and hold onto it. I would discourage anyone from pursuing cloud mining as you'll most-likely have no legal recourse since you'll be dealing with a foreign entity that's not bound by the same laws or ethical requirements as the ones in your country.
submitted by dutch602 to GenesisMining [link] [comments]

For the newbies: You may have heard that Bitcoin works by "solving math problems", but what are the math problems?

Disclaimer: This has probably been covered before, and in more approachable language, so if this explanation is pointless duplication, let me know and I'll delete it.
So the math problems in Bitcoin aren't your traditional math: your computer isn't solving algebra problems or partial differentials. They involve cryptographic hashes: you might've come across these when you download a file, where the website says "here's the file, and here's a hash you can use to verify that the file downloaded properly". So your process of verification would be:
Download -> Hash(Downloaded File) -> Is Hash The Same? 
Say you downloaded a copy of Audacity for OSX, and the site says "the MD5 hash for audacity-macosx-ub-2.1.2.dmg is 535e103d9bc4a4625d71260c3a427d09 if you want to check it downloaded properly". So you download the file, head to your command prompt, and:
$ md5 audacity-macosx-ub-2.1.2.dmg MD5 (audacity-macosx-ub-2.1.2.dmg) = 535e103d9bc4a4625d71260c3a427d09 
Hey, it's the same.
Now, hashes work by taking all the numbers in the file and Doing Something to them; the simplest would, of course, be the checksum: add all the numbers together. One big problem with checksumming though: if you add 1 to a number somewhere in the file, and subtract 1 elsewhere, you get a corrupted file with the same checksum. Not ideal.
So algorithms like MD5, SHA-1 and the like arose, which do more complicated things. The number that falls out of these is quite large: MD5, for example, outputs a 128-bit number (the biggest value is something like 80 quintillion quintillion) but it's not the absolute value of the number that's important, just the fact that it's the same as what the website says it should be.
Aside: "But if the hash is just a huge number, why does it have those weird letters in?"
It's just written in hexadecimal (base 16) instead of base 10. In your average decimal base-10 number, the digits are 0-9 and the number values go units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.
In base 16, the digits are 0-9 then a-f (ten to fifteen), and the number values go units, sixteens, two-hundred-and-fifty-sixes, four-thousand-and-ninety-sixes, etc.
Now. Bitcoin uses this same technology (it uses the SHA-256 algorithm in particular) to hash the contents of each block of transactions that comes through. It looks a little like this:
Hash of the last block -----\ | Hash of the transactions --+ SHA256 -> This block's hash in this block | (twice) | Current time ----------/ 
And thus the block chain gets built: "this block's hash" falls out of the above algorithm, and gets fed into the algorithm for the next block.
Except SHA-256 doesn't take long to compute; a cellphone can do literally millions of these hashes per second. Here's where the genius of Bitcoin comes in: there's an artificial limit placed by the algorithm on how fast blocks can be generated, and it doesn't matter how fast your computer (or the whole network of computers) is at generating these hashes. It works by adding one thing to the above diagram:
Hash of the last block -----\ | Hash of the transactions --+ SHA256 -> This block's hash in this block | (twice) | Current time ----------+ | A number to twiddle -------/ 
(The technical literature actually calls it a "nonce".)
I said above that the numeric value of the hash isn't important when you download a file, just the fact that it matches what the website says it should be. In Bitcoin, the numeric value of the hash is important: it needs to be less than a certain value (the "target") for the block you make to be accepted by the network. For example, (as of the time of writing) the last block had a hash of 000000000000000001ef62f299ea93356f4d52c75ff3cc442b4a073e90f947e0; look at all those zeros at the front!
SHA-256 is very good at making an even distribution of its numeric value: futz with the content of what you're hashing even a tiny bit, and the number that falls out is vastly different. So, you need to do a lot of twiddling of that nonce, to find a block where the hash comes out with all those zeros at the front.
In fact, you need to do so much twiddling that, on average, the entire network of computers doing this will only find one solution to the problem every ten minutes. That solution gets broadcast to the network, the other computers will plug it in as "the hash of the last block", and keep going.
One more question you might have: what happens when computers suddenly get a lot faster at doing these calculations, and they can rattle their way to a solution in a minute, or 30 seconds?
Bitcoin has a solution: change the target, to make it even lower. This is referred to as a "change in difficulty", and happens around every two weeks if the blocks come out every ten minutes (every 2,016 blocks). If the blocks come out faster, the difficulty changes sooner, and changes by more, to get things back on the ten-minutes-per-block track.
Conversely, if computers suddenly get very slow at doing this work and blocks only come out once an hour, the difficulty will change to make life easier. (Again, it'll only change every 2,016 blocks, so it might take a while to build the chain up to that point; until then, we'd have to suffer with slow blocks.)
So, I hope this was useful, and that it was accurate. It helped to clarify things in my mind, at least; let me know if it helped (and if I missed anything).
submitted by OrangeredStilton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Audacity + Notoriety

In the early days, Bitcoin was a radical new experiment in money. It was global, anonymous, and with its goal to dethrone fiat currency and central banker hegemony, it was utterly audacious. From day one, Bitcoin was directly at odds with the agenda of central bankers, who wanted total control over the money supply, and an end to all cash. Bitcoin was the epitome of audacity.
Then, dark markets made Bitcoin sinister. Governments scrambled to put a lid on illicit commerce and capital flight denominated in bitcoin. Bitcoin became notorious for thumbing its nose at the authorities in increasingly amusing ways.
In sum, Bitcoin's audacity and notoriety launched it from a worthless toy to stardom. Today, we must set out to do the same for Decred.
Recall it was the world's most disenfranchised persons who quote "invested" in Bitcoin first; of course back then, it wasn't really investing so much as it was financial martyrdom. VCs weren't even an afterthought.
When thinking about audacity and notoriety, we must ask who/what/when/where/why.
Audacity and notoriety was Bitcoin's foot in the door, as it must be for us at Decred. In cryptocurrency, this is what it means to "pay the cost to be the boss".
submitted by insette to DCR [link] [comments]

Today's violent posts: 2019-06-23

First of all, some interesting usernames: jjh1488, AutisticSubhuman1488, GasTheBlues, CausticAxion, xGenocideOnU, Perryvall_Causti, PenisPenisPenis1488
User theyreallinonit2 in The_Donald: We_Will_Destroy
We Will Destroy America Together
User realXstrawarot in honkler: i_will_shoot
Tucker lost his show at cnn after j. Stewart roasted his ass for 30 min. Tucker is a shitbucket that has the audacity to call himself a journalist. By allah if you call opinion pieces journalism, i will shoot myself right here.
User Haywood_Jablomie42 in KotakuInAction: should_be_killed
This. This isn't a matter of "two groups disagree", this is one group wanting to either murder or enslave the other group. You can't reconcile that. Never forget that they think we should be killed merely for disagreeing with them.
User TheCuckTriggerer in conspiracy: must_be_destroyed
I believe there will be War, but the war will be interrupted by something and everybody will stop fighting and go back home.
There's going to be massive solar flares that make the Carrington event look like a light bulb shorting out. Power grids will be wiped out and anything electronic will be rendered useless.
This event will cause more death and casualty than all the wars the world has ever waged combined.
And when Humanity is at its Darkest Hour a race of benevolent aliens is going to come and be our "Saviors".
They will uplift us spiritually, heal the planet, and bring us into a New Age of Enlightenment and peace and prosperity.
But ultimately at the end of the day I believe these beings will be the ones that were the architects of the solar flare to begin with. They believe to save Humanity, it first must be destroyed.
Though their intentions may be benevolent, I believe they should leave Humanity alone and let us figure things out by ourselves.
User lisasimpsonfan in GCdebatesQT: I_will_kill
I believe that trans people are entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else. They should be protected when it comes to access to housing, health care, and job protection. I don't hate or even dislike trans people.
I don't believe they deserve special privileges or treatment. I believe in science and science says mammals can't change biological sex. I am not going to humor someone by denying science just to make them feel better. Men can not become women no matter how much they want.
By saying 'if you don't agree with whatever I say it's violence or I will kill myself' is what abusive people say to manipulate other people. I don't play those games. Not agreeing someone can magically become a woman by putting on a dress isn't violence or killing anyone. it's common sense. And anyone who says they are going to kill themselves until you don't agree with them either needs to be evaluated by a medical professional or quit being abusive and manipulative.
The only provable violence I have seen is from trans women to gender critical women. "Kill all TRFS" and "PUNCH TRFS" while they walk around with weapons are the norm. Or memes where they threaten our lives with guns.
User kevlarut in The_Donald: should_be_killed
“And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
User NissanRB25DET in chadfish: should_be_executed
There needs a bracket around all of them that says should be executed on sight, useless members of society (hypothetically of course)
User babababagahdh374672 in The_Donald: can_be_raped
Its a fake news liberal lie that unattractive women can be raped. It is not true or possible
User Rekot24 in The_Donald: must_be_destroyed
The Dems will make up some ridiculous bullshit to blame on Trump and the media will repeat it endlessly and ignore completely everything you just said. They have no shame. They are sold out to evil. There is no level they won't stoop to in order to win. There is no bargaining with this, the Democratic party must be destroyed.
User jaredschaffer27 in Drama: should_be_destroyed
Any website that allows /masstagger to exist should be destroyed
User Pajeet_My_Son in KotakuInAction: should_be_executed
I feel like as a poor white person that pays taxes, has a job and is putting them selves through school I should be executed for being white.
Yes. I deserve to be killed for being a normal person. I’ve never really done anything malicious to anyone but I deserve death none the less.
User Contempt4All in The_Donald: I_will_kill
Force my wife to have an abortion and I will kill every one involved included the judge.
I’ll be a hero.
User ThatGreyJediDude in The_Donald: we_should_kill
So because a kid could be brought in an unloving home or the oh so terrible foster care system we should kill them? Why stop at the arbitrary line of birth then?
User Bulbmin66 in WatchRedditDie: should_be_killed
I've literally never seen anyone in frenworld actually say that people should be killed. I used that sub quite often and knew all the subliminal messages, none of them implied actual killing. Chapo on the other hand advocates violence all the time.
User CharityStreamTA in WatchRedditDie: should_be_killed
Isn't their political stance that the holocaust didn't happen, that longnoses should be killed etc.
I mean TD is still up so it isn't an issue with them being right wing.
User royal_orleans in NickerNation: im_gonna_fucking_kill
im still not tired of winning!! hahaha....ha....
im gonna fucking kill myself
User Day_of_the_COPE in Drama: I_should_kill
Yes. I got him so upset he self reported saying I should kill myself and he was going to kill himself because he told me he couldn’t not respond and hoped drama gets banned. It was fucking hilarious.
He accused me of working your account, quietus(a mod) and I forget the others. Then another guy straight up accused me of being a paid foreign troll to come in and disrupted drama hahaha.
I have found that legitimately just telling people the truth fucks with them super hard. Because people who operate on pure projection don’t imagine I could be some totally normal guy who is telling the truth about why I was up all night etc. it’s 10X better than any ridiculous story.
User thanosisright188 in chadfish: I_will_kill
Insult my mom again and I will kill you
User goingplaces614 in metacanada: should_be_executed
There's nothing he can do. He has to cut, cut, cut or the fucking province is going to go bankrupt. The Ontario Liberals should be executed for what they did to the province's finances. I actually believe Ontario will never recover and will go bankrupt. There's almost no way out. Any premier who tries to fix it will get voted out and the Libs will just spend another 300 billion buying votes. Bankruptcy is guaranteed.
User WaltzRoommate in DebateAltRight: we_would_decimate
I suppose we would decimate their army, in the classical understanding of "decimate", which meant to reduce something to 90% of its original size. We are not that good at killing soldiers. We're great against buildings, but not against an actual military.
User Karwobra in The_Donald: I_would_kill
Standing down is tolerating it. Quite frankly, I would kill those 150 if it meant stopping Iranian hostility towards America. We can’t just back off, or they will keep up these minor attacks.
User Shigaraki_Handyman in MGTOW: I_would_kill
I don't understand American men. I would kill everyone who did this to me. Make it look like a robbery gone wrong for my wife and a revenge killing against the judge. They have lots of enemies. I would ensure I would get my kids back and never let her family see them again. Plus the Psychiatrist would have an unfortunate accident. It's not illegal, It's justice. And I would plan an alibi and make sure I would not get caught. These people deserve it.
User DonPedey in The_Donald: we_will_nuke
I think Ben is saying that we should use disproportionately more force to show that we can crush them. The problem a lot of people are seeing is that this leads to warmongering since every response is extreme.
“You place sanctions on us? Well, the US will bomb your military locations and kill hundreds of people. I know you won’t declare war since we have just shown you a glimpse of what is in store. By the way, take off the sanctions or we will nuke you next time.”
Proportionality is a major part of just war theory. I’m surprised Ben doesn’t understand that (or maybe he is ignoring it on purpose?)
User Ur_Glog in The_Donald: can_be_killed
Men can be killed, but and idea, an idea that people believe in is immortal.
User tigereyes121 in AgainstDomesticAbuse: I'm_going_to_kill I'm_going_to_kill
“This is a very important picture. I was at a domestic violence conference and all of a sudden I saw this woman, Millie Bianco, with a picture of her daughter, Lisa Bianco. Lisa was a very badly beaten woman. She took out a protection order and filed charges against her husband. He went to prison because the abuse was horrific. But he was always saying: ‘When l get out, I’m going to kill that fucking bitch. She put me in here; I’m going to kill her.’
“One day, the prison gave him a day furlough, with a car, to supposedly go and see his mother. Instead, he went to Lisa’s house. She had a beeper that would tell her when he came close, because he had to have a tag on his ankle. She was in the shower, the beeper went off, she went running out into the street naked. He was there with a sawn-off shotgun, and he beat her to death.
“He got the death penalty and was executed, but for the mother, that’s nothing. It’s like, the system let him kill her.”
Source: The Guardian
submitted by ViolentThreatBot to ViolentThreatBot [link] [comments]

Satoshi Analysis Live Stream Ep - 035 - The Audacity of Bitcoin Application Rémunératrice #9 // Gagne du Bitcoin sur Android EQUIPO DE GANADORES DE BITCOINS - YouTube Audacity - How To Download Streaming Audio Audyt RODO, Bitcoin rośnie, funkcje audacity

As highlighted earlier in chart 2, bitcoin's realised volatility has averaged 120% over the past three years, with a range of 50% to 400%. By comparison, typical G10 currency volatility is 8% with a range of 7% to 16% over the past three years. Typical emerging markets FX volatility is about 9% with a range of 7% to 20% over the past three years. Even during periods of extreme financial market ... The Audacity of Bitcoin • Friday Crypto News • To Buy or Not to Buy BTC JP Morgan - Audacity of Bitcoin - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Bitcoin Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all ... Only fresh and important news from trusted sources about audacity 2 today! Be in trend of Crypto markets, cryptocurrencies price and charts and other Blockchain digital things! Find answer by real cryptoprofessionals to your questions at our news platform! Find the best cryptotrends. Guides; Blockchain; Cryptocurrency; Bitcoin; Altcoin; Price analysis; ICO; Blog; Search results for - audacity ...

[index] [25592] [10839] [10090] [19655] [10592] [37456] [19878] [31728] [9556] [3884]

Satoshi Analysis Live Stream Ep - 035 - The Audacity of Bitcoin

Satoshi Analysis Live Stream Ep - 035 - The Audacity of Bitcoin Welcome to the world of crypto! This is the first of many comprehensive cryptocurrency analysis videos. Comment below with any ... Here I explain why the established legacy financial institutions fear Bitcoin and give a very realistic blueprint in how it will gain dramatically wider acce... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue How To Use Audacity - Part 3 - Editing An Audio File This video is part three of my How To Use Audacity tutorial series, aimed at complete beginners, or those looking to learn more about Audacity. Bienvenidos a mí canal . En el encontraréis diferentes maneras de ganar dinero por internet sencillamente.

#