(PDF) Prediction of Cryptocurrency Market Price Using Deep

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3

Part 1
Part 2
So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network.
Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now.
After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise.
As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked.

Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus.

There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain.
>"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day".
By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB.
What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold.
What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate.
Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party.
Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T.
In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper.
What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money?
Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards.
There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit.
Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice.
There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create.
Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

An UBI/VAT alternative Yang should consider

Housing cannot be both a good investment and be affordable.
Banks create money out of nothing;
More granularly, when a bank creates a loan, they acquire both an asset and a liability: the asset is the loan principal, the liability is a “customer deposit” that the one loaned money can use as money to purchase a factory or home or attend college or whatever. As a loan is repaid, the loaned money disappears from the banking system (as both asset and liability are destroyed). The interest ends up as bank profit. In contrast, non bank institutions have to draw down funds from one type of asset (e.g. their cash) to pay for the new loan asset, once loan funds are paid out. As we will see this has far reaching consequences.
97% of money in our economy is bank money created from nothing.
Because of the existence of corporations, which abstract risk away from the individual, our economy has virtually unlimited demand for loans/credit. Interest rates are not the real constraint on this lending (though they could be - they are not currently), rather central bank credit guidance is. Here is an example of US central bank credit guidance. Banks can lend out almost infinite amounts of money, and get as much reserves as they need to meet reserve requirements - it’s the fed who determines when a bank goes under.
We should change the federal reserve’s mandate, from achieving “full” employment and targeting 2% inflation, to growing productivity and maximizing credit growth while keeping said growth within some tight bound (e.g. half a percent) of real growth.
This is because the shortest path to meeting the fed’s current mandate is by inflating asset bubbles, particularly in the mortgage market: a mortgage seems like an easy loan to judge the risk of, but when everyone is lending mostly to finance the purchase of real estate, you quickly create a systemic risk invisible to bank loan officers, which crowds out real growth in the economy.
On the contrast, lending money to productive enterprises was the engine that propelled record breaking growth in asian economies like japan, taiwan, china, korea, but also ... drumroll... nazi germany (the much derided “money printing” of hilter was actually very sound, if unconventional, economics), with no need for outside investment - as long as the loans were used productively they could be paid back, and in such economies, with lots of slack and unemployment - credit growth and real growth could grow at rates higher than 10% in tandem for many years.
We can make it easier for the fed to achieve this new mandate by levying a nationwide land value tax and replacing as much of the income and sales taxes as possible with it. We could also provide everyone with a “basic income” in the form of a flat, transferrable land value tax deduction for each person, which would prevent a hong kong esque situation; this would be similar to a homestead deduction, except everyone would have it instead of just homeowners - it would encourage people to live together and make land use more efficient - phrased another way it would increase family cohesion and reduce divorce. Similarly communities could be provided with small flat deductions for building and maintaining public libraries, community colleges, and possibly parks/nature preserves (along with lvt exemptions for said institutions as well as church buildings/grounds (but not church parking lots)).
What kind of effect would changing the fed’s mandate have?
Barring the creation of new industries and new majors, college attendance can only increase productivity for a finite amount of workers. Thus, fewer student loans would be issued, and college attendance and cost would fall in tandem, and majors that don’t increase worker productivity would downsize.
Mortgages would only be issued for the construction of new homes - home prices would decline.
Many new businesses would form as bank credit would finance new business formation. There would be a higher percentage of “bad on paper” loans, but there would be no sudden explosion of bad loans, and the business cycle would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Bad loans in and of themselves are not problematic as long as you learn from them (e.g. if you made a bad loan to finance the construction of a solar farm, and the fed buys up that debt through qe, at least you still have a solar farm, maybe next time loan to finance a nuclear plant or something).
Income and wealth equality would increase dramatically, as new business competed for workers while stock and housing prices only grew as fast as the real economy.
There would be no inflation as banks would no longer lend money towards many categories of consumer purchases. The price of a new truck would go down. The fed would tamper growth in credit card usage through guidance and bank audits.
Corporate profitability would go down as business competition heated up, workers and consumers would benefit. With a an lvt in place, land speculation, the traditional primary avenue for speculation, would be impossible. You might see smaller and much less devastating bubbles form in random places like bitcoin or em spectrum (em spectrum might require legislative action, since em spectrum like land is a limited resource that everyone needs).

(Sources of inspiration, Richard Werner, Henry George)
submitted by Frumpagumpus to YangForPresidentHQ [link] [comments]

Georgist/Monetary Realist Manifesto

Housing cannot be both a good investment and be affordable.
Banks create money out of nothing;
More granularly, when a bank creates a loan, they acquire both an asset and a liability: the asset is the loan principal, the liability is a “customer deposit” that the one loaned money can use as money to purchase a factory or home or attend college or whatever. As a loan is repaid, the loaned money disappears from the banking system (as both asset and liability are destroyed). The interest ends up as bank profit. In contrast, non bank institutions have to draw down funds from one type of asset (e.g. their cash) to pay for the new loan asset, once loan funds are paid out. As we will see this has far reaching consequences.
97% of money in our economy is bank money created from nothing.
Because of the existence of corporations, which abstract risk away from the individual, our economy has virtually unlimited demand for loans/credit. Interest rates are not the real constraint on this lending (though they could be - they are not currently), rather central bank credit guidance is. Here is an example of US central bank credit guidance. Banks can lend out almost infinite amounts of money, and get as much reserves as they need to meet reserve requirements - it’s the fed who determines when a bank goes under.
We should change the federal reserve’s mandate, from achieving “full” employment and targeting 2% inflation, to growing productivity and maximizing credit growth while keeping said growth within some tight bound (e.g. half a percent) of real growth.
This is because the shortest path to meeting the fed’s current mandate is by inflating asset bubbles, particularly in the mortgage market: a mortgage seems like an easy loan to judge the risk of, but when everyone is lending mostly to finance the purchase of real estate, you quickly create a systemic risk invisible to bank loan officers, which crowds out real growth in the economy.
On the contrast, lending money to productive enterprises was the engine that propelled record breaking growth in asian economies like japan, taiwan, china, korea, but also ... drumroll... nazi germany (the much derided “money printing” of hilter was actually very sound, if unconventional, economics), with no need for outside investment - as long as the loans were used productively they could be paid back, and in such economies, with lots of slack and unemployment - credit growth and real growth could grow at rates higher than 10% in tandem for many years.
We can make it easier for the fed to achieve this new mandate by levying a nationwide land value tax and replacing as much of the income and sales taxes as possible with it. We could also provide everyone with a “basic income” in the form of a flat, transferrable land value tax deduction for each person, which would prevent a hong kong esque situation; this would be similar to a homestead deduction, except everyone would have it instead of just homeowners - it would encourage people to live together and make land use more efficient - phrased another way it would increase family cohesion and reduce divorce. Similarly communities could be provided with small flat deductions for building and maintaining public libraries, community colleges, and possibly parks/nature preserves (along with lvt exemptions for said institutions as well as church buildings/grounds (but not church parking lots)).
What kind of effect would changing the fed’s mandate have?
Barring the creation of new industries and new majors, college attendance can only increase productivity for a finite amount of workers. Thus, fewer student loans would be issued, and college attendance and cost would fall in tandem, and majors that don’t increase worker productivity would downsize.
Mortgages would only be issued for the construction of new homes - home prices would decline.
Many new businesses would form as bank credit would finance new business formation. There would be a higher percentage of “bad on paper” loans, but there would be no sudden explosion of bad loans, and the business cycle would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Bad loans in and of themselves are not problematic as long as you learn from them (e.g. if you made a bad loan to finance the construction of a solar farm, and the fed buys up that debt through qe, at least you still have a solar farm, maybe next time loan to finance a nuclear plant or something).
Income and wealth equality would increase dramatically, as new business competed for workers while stock and housing prices only grew as fast as the real economy.
There would be no inflation as banks would no longer lend money towards many categories of consumer purchases. The price of a new truck would go down. The fed would tamper growth in credit card usage through guidance and bank audits.
Corporate profitability would go down as business competition heated up, workers and consumers would benefit. With a an lvt in place, land speculation, the traditional primary avenue for speculation, would be impossible. You might see smaller and much less devastating bubbles form in random places like bitcoin or em spectrum (em spectrum might require legislative action, since em spectrum like land is a limited resource that everyone needs).

(Sources of inspiration, Richard Werner, Henry George, the name monetary realism coopted from/coined by, I believe, Cullen Roche)
submitted by Frumpagumpus to georgism [link] [comments]

An open letter to Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and voluntaryists. Peer-to-peer trade makes "Government" obsolete. If we can create a peer-to-peer economy at scale, then a voluntaryist society will form as a result. I believe to have outlined a network structure for achieving a peer-to-peer economy at scale.

An open letter to Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and voluntaryists. Peer-to-peer trade makes
This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Central Theory Assumptions
  1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade
  2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers
  3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60%
  4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant
  5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result.
2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?
  1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin
  2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation
  3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers)
2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?
  1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID)
  2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider.
  3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID.
  4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants.
2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?
There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition:
  1. Competing Blockchains: If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain.
  2. Competing Server: Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain.
  3. Competing Indexes: Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network.
  4. Competing Protocols (dapps): Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols.
  5. Competing Moderators: Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all.
  6. Competing Clients: Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network.
  7. Competing Users: Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price.
https://preview.redd.it/9btv0n7uo4121.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b742f4d7af7f4a4fab6d801a4458d399335908c
Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing
submitted by guyfawkesfp to btc [link] [comments]

An open letter to all voluntaryists. Peer-to-peer trade makes "Government" obsolete. If we can create a peer-to-peer economy at scale, then a voluntaryist society will form as a result. I believe to have outlined a network structure for achieving a peer-to-peer economy at scale.

An open letter to all voluntaryists. Peer-to-peer trade makes
This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Central Theory Assumptions
  1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade
  2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers
  3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60%
  4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant
  5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result.
2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?
  1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin
  2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation
  3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers)
2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?
  1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID)
  2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider.
  3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID.
  4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants.
2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?
There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition:
  1. Competing Blockchains: If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain.
  2. Competing Server: Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain.
  3. Competing Indexes: Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network.
  4. Competing Protocols (dapps): Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols.
  5. Competing Moderators: Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all.
  6. Competing Clients: Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network.
  7. Competing Users: Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price.
https://preview.redd.it/oyl8hvq81a121.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6a11c38e00f9dd3d4533c017e0d258c6ad9d4dc
Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing
submitted by guyfawkesfp to GoldandBlack [link] [comments]

u/Tempatroy: "u/adam3us, u/nullc, u/luke-jr don't even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin." ... u/nullc: "You have been around for thirteen hours and you think you understand Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years" ... PLUS: a lengthy response from me :)

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68hkk5/former_core_fanboy_admits_95_of_core_loyalists/dgyp1ok/
I mean if you base your understanding of what Bitcoin is based on the whitepaper or even Satoshi’s talk, people heavily associated with Blockstream (like adam3us, nullc, luke-jr et al.) don’t even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin.
~ u/Tempatroy
Welcome to Reddit, Tempatroy.
Thank you for pinging me to your insult.
I’m always interested in hearing when someone who has been around for thirteen hours (and, in fact, needed to be manually whitelisted to get past the 24 hours automod rule in rbtc) thinks that they understand the premise of Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years, participated in it before the overwhelming majority of people here, or who worked on cryptocurrency for a decade even before Bitcoin.
~ u/nullc
Here is my response to u/nullc:
TL;DR:
Bitcoin cannot be decentralized and permissionless and trustless if we use some political / social process to decide on “the rules”.
The only way that Bitcoin can be decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work to decide on “the rules”.
This implies that “the rules” of Bitcoin cannot be be defined using some political / social process before a block is appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
In the system invented by Satoshi, “the rules” can only be defined using Proof-of-Work. This requires observing which chain has the most Proof-of-work after a block has been appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
Yes this seems upside-down to people who are accustomed to rules being “handed down” by some authority (Satoshi, Greg, Blockstream, etc.).
But - if we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless - then we must recognize that:
  • The chain with the most Proof-of-Work is the “valid” chain - ie, the chain with the most Proof-of-Work defines “the rules” after the fact; and
  • There is no concept in Bitcoin of some pre-existing “rules” defining the valid chain.
To put it even more bluntly:

”The rules” are not defined “before the fact” by Greg, or by Blockstream.

”The rules” are defined “after the fact” by observing the chain (not the “valid chain” - simply the “chain”) that has ended up having the most Proof-of-Work.

Details
As others have pointed out to u/nullc: u/Tempatroy wasn’t being insulting - he was merely making a factual observation - pointing out that:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc does not understand (or perhaps is merely pretending not to understand) the must fundamental aspect of Bitcoin.
I will describe this problem at length below.
I apologize in advance for the convolutedness of this exposition - this is only a first draft off the top of my head now.
Other people have explained this better - and hopefully I will also someday manage to put together a more succinct exposition of my own.
This major “blind spot” of Greg’s has already been commented on at length, eg:
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg’s comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought “honest” meant “plays by Core rules.” [But] there is no “honesty” involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
It’s a subtle point.
It involves two approaches to defining Bitcoin’s “rules”:
  • a naive, incorrect approach used throughout most of human history - called ‘Approach (1)’ below, versus
  • the correct approach developed by Satoshi - called ‘Approach (2)’ below

‘Approach (1)’ - The “naive” (incorrect, pre-Satoshi) approach
This is the approach adopted by Greg Maxwell u/nullc, and many of the people who follow him - eg Adam Back u/adam3us CEO of Blockstream, and Luke-Jr u/luke-jr (who also thinks he can decide which transactions are “spam” and which are not - ie, he is authoritarian, the antithesis of Bitcoin) - and by the “low-information” people on the censored forum r\bitcoin.
I know it sounds like I am being rude here - but the situation is dire, after so many years of censorship, and with Bitcoin’s market cap dropping to 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap for the first time (despite the moderate price rise which actually makes people overlook this drop in market cap), and in view of the hope and promise of Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi - enabling a more rational and sustainable system for capital allocation.
Sidebar on Bitcoin’s “killer app”:
I think that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the most important “killer app” of Bitcoin - not coffee, not remittances, not even as a store-of-value or a speculative asset class - although those are all nice things.
I would argue that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the main thing which “fantasy fiat” has not been doing - causing the various social and economic and ecological crises which may destroy civilization on our planet in a few decades.
The main hope offered by Bitcoin is that, by preventing central bankers from “ninja-mining” their “fantasy fiat” and handing it out to their buddies to invest in non-rational, non-sustainable projects, Bitcoin could help people make decisions for allocating capital which actually increase our well-being, instead of increasing our suffering.
People like Greg and his followers (naively, incorrectly) believe (or pretend to believe) that the “rules” (specifically: the “rules” governing which block to append next) are somehow “pre-defined” and are somehow (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in “the software” - and that the miners must “honestly” obey these pre-defined rules.
On the surface (and to people who are used to obeying “rules” handed down from some authority: eg from a government, a religion, a dev team, etc.), this may have a certain appeal - but it is not how Satoshi actually designed Bitcoin.
‘Approach (2)’ - Satoshi’s approach - Proof-of-Work
Satoshi, (correctly, brilliantly, counter-intuitively) specified (in the whitepaper, and in his software) that the “rules” of Bitcoin are decided in a totally different way.
He specified that the “rules” are decided after the fact - because they are decided by Proof-of-Work.
This means that whichever (branch of the) chain ends up having the most Proof-of-Work is by definition the valid chain.
The (counter-intuitive, hard-to-understand) implication here is that before any particular (branch of the chain) has clearly “won” in this ongoing, every-ten-minutes battle...
  • The “rules” determining which “next” block is “valid” are still “up in the air”;
  • The rules are “not yet decided” until after a block has been buried a-few-blocks-deep into the chain;
  • The “rules” will only become clear / manifest after we inspect the last few blocks appended to the chain which ended up (“after the fact”) having the most Proof-of-Work.
If we closely examine these two (quite different approaches), we can make a several observations:
First: There is a massive logical flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’, when people try to apply it to Bitcoin.
This flaw can perhaps be informally captured by the following phrase:
“In ‘Approach (1)’, it’s turtles all the way down (which is of course impossible).”
‘Approach (1)’ suffers from a fatal omission: it fails to specify how the rules manifested / incorporated / coded in the software get put there in the first place.
This might seem like a “detail” - but actually it is everything.
This can be seen if we ask ourselves the following (rarely asked) questions:
  • Where do the “rules” come from?
  • Who makes those rules?
  • Satoshi?
  • Greg / Adam / Luke-Jr?
  • Blockstream?
  • The miners?
  • “Users”? (see: “User-Activated Soft Fork” / UASF)
  • “Investors” (aka: the “economic majority”)?
This also leads to other, specific questions, which are applicable in the current situation:
  • By what process do the rules get defined?
  • By a social / political process?
  • By a particular dev team offering some code?
Of course, initially Satoshi did offer some code - and it did contain some rules.
But Satoshi also explicitly stated that those rules at some point could be changed.
Satoshi suggested a process which could involve some political and social debate offline, culminating in some new code being released, and everyone installing that code, and - voilà - new “rules” determining the validity of subsequent blocks would now be in place.
For example, Satoshi famously made an important remark on bitcointalk.org where he suggested how this process could be used to remove the temporary anti-spam kludge which had been added to temporarily impose a 1MB “max blocksize” limit.
But Satoshi is gone now. So we can’t use him as an “authority” to hand down “the rules” to us.
But we still want Bitcoin to evolve - to be upgraded. (Otherwise, it will be destroyed by the alt-coins!)
For example, SegWit, although it is technically described as a “soft fork”, is one proposal for upgrading / evolving Bitcoin - and SegWit would involve a rather substantial change to the “rules” - indeed, SegWit would involve making all transactions “anyone-can-spend” under the old rules - which, by the way, is the main reason why SegWit is so dangerous, and which is why it should be rejected.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t really “change the rules” per se - but it does make it easier for miners and full node operators to express their preference regarding one particular rule - the rule involving how big a block can be.
So we are now faced with the question:
  • Who makes the rules? And how?
Here’s the answer:
Satoshi’s revolutionary solution to defining “the rules” is not based on social or political processes - which can be manipulated (eg by sybil attacks, bribes, coercion, violence, etc.)
Instead, Satoshi’s brilliant mechanism for deciding which block to append next is based on Proof-of-Work, as summarized in the slogans “One CPU, one vote” or “They vote with their hashpower”.
This moment of “voting with their hashpower” is the actual process where “the rules” (governing the validity of the next block) come into existence.
This is all very counterintuitive to many people.
But other people (who perhaps have a more “sophisticated” appreciation of social and economic processes - or perhaps a “deeper” understanding of game theory) can often begin to glimpse the massive flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’.
The problem with “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ is that it neglects to specify where the rules come from - ie, who makes “the rules” - and how.
Once Satohsi himself is removed from the picture, we have a situation where we have to “somehow” do all of the following:
  • agree on certain rules,
  • then get them into software,
  • and then get that software deployed on the network,
  • and then 51% of all hashpower has to start mining using those rules,
  • and then in a 10-minute period where various “candidate blocks” are competing to be appended to the chain, one of those blocks ends up getting “buried deeper” under more Proof-of-Work
  • and at that point , the system has been “upgraded”, and the newly appended block reflects the new “rules”.
In most cases (but not in all cases) “the new rules” are the same as “the old rules”.
This is because this system does allow the rules to be changed, when Bitcoin evolves or gets upgraded.
We should also add the ‘caveat’ there that this system only works if the majority of hashpower does not adopt “crazy rules” - ie rules which would decrease the value of everyone’s bitcoins.
The system only works if the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, if the majority never adopts “crazy rules” which would destroy the value of everyone’s coins.
The important thing is that the rules are “post-defined” - after the next block has been added chain (and a few more blocks have been piled on top of it).
  • This means that there are no “pre-defined” rules in the system.
  • There are only “post-defined” rules, which can be observed by inspecting the decisions made by the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking” hashpower, as new blocks got appended to the chain.
The only part of this scenario that guarantees a decentralized, permissionless, trustless system is the on-chain Proof-of-Work stuff - not the off-chain social / political stuff.
All the other stuff (the political / social process where people argue about rules, code them up in software, and deploy that software on the network) - all that “prior” stuff is done using the “old” “pre-Satoshi” methods - so it’s not actually reliable (ie, it’s not decentralized or permissionless or trustless - ie, it can be sabotaged by sybils, or bribery, or threats of violence, etc.)
So the political / social process of talking about the rules on Reddit or on a mailing list, or coding up some rules in some code and offering that code to the public (eg, Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, saying “These are the rules”) - that part of the process is not “Nakamoto Consensus”, so it’s not reliable, and it’s not “Bitcoin.”
The magical moment where the system actually becomes “Bitcoin” is when the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners” use Proof-of-Work to decide what block is the one that gets appended to the chain.
Another metaphor might be that the (naive, incorrect) ‘Approach (1)’ assumes that some other higher authority (Satoshi, Greg, Core/Blockstream) has already handed down the “rules” in C++ code.
Meanwhile the correct ‘Approach (2)’ - (Nakamoto Consensus a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” a/k/a “They vote with their hashpower”) does not require the existence of any authority (no Satoshi, no Greg, no Blockstream) to pre-define the “rules”.
Bitcoin simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit seeking” - and then whatever they vote on as being “the next block” is by definition the next block - and they “re-decide” on this (essentially “re-deciding” on what the rules are) every ten minutes.
This is incredibly counter-intuitive to many, many people - especially to people who are of an “authoritarian” mindset - ie, they are accustomed to “rules being handed down from some higher authority”.
But this is how Bitcoin actually works.
The rules are decided not by me or by you or by Satoshi or by Greg or by Blockstream.
The rules are decided by the miners - and re-decided every ten minutes (usually the “same old” rules as during the previous ten minutes - but not “always”: because there are times when the rules may indeed be upgraded, if the majority of hashpower suddenly decides so).
And the mechanism for these rules being decided (and re-decided, and re-decided, every ten minutes) is: hashpower, a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” - which simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Sidebar:
Of course, Exhibit A in any discussion about “authoritarianism” would be Luke-Jr, because he provides the most glaring and grotesque example of the “error of authoritarianism”.
This may indeed be a deep-seated psychological problem, so we can’t really “blame” the person for it.
But at the same time, we should always be vigilant to make sure that this “error of authoritarianism” does not get adopted as part of Bitcoin’s system for determining “the rules” - because the only way that Bitcoin can remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work (and not some “higher authority”) to determine “the rules”.
‘Approach (1)’ is used quite widely. It powers many legacy systems in the world - but it’s not what makes Bitcoin decentralized and permissionless and trustless!
In “legacy” systems, people used a political / social process to agree upon some rules (vulnerable to all the old attacks: in particularly sybil attacks, social coercion, ostracism, bribes, threats of violence or actual acts of violence, etc.) - and, eventually, through this messy process, a set of rules was finally hammered out.
Then these socially / politically selected rules become manifested / incorporated (“coded up”) in some software, and that software gets deployed on the network, and then everything becomes wonderfully easy: it is now just a question of checking whether a particular block satisfies those rules or not.
This (naive, non-Bitcoin) ‘Approach (1)’ all sounds wonderful until one remembers that it does not provide us with any decentralized, permissionless, trustless mechanism for actually forming consensus on what these “rules” should be, and then coding them in software, and getting everyone to install that software on the network!
At this point, many people (eg, the smart investors who understood Bitcoin from the very beginning) can see that this “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ neglects to specify the process of how these particular “rules” got manifested / incorporated / coded in the software itself - and how people reached a consensus to deploy this particular software on the network.
The current ongoing “blocksize debate” uses a social / political process for deciding on “the rules” - ie, it does not use Proof-of-Work.
This is the social / political / off-chain war we’re seeing now - where:
  • One faction (Core/Blockstream today) wants a “rule” that says that blocks must be less than 1 MB,
  • Another faction wants a rule that says that blocks must be less than 8 MB,
  • Another faction (BU / Emergent Consensus) wants a convenient “on-chain pre-signaling system” where miners can pre-announce their intention to adopt certain rules regarding the maximum size of the next block that they will mine (1 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, etc.)
  • Another faction (SegWit) wants a new rule where all transactions would be considered “anyone-can-spend”, plus a new rule added to the system to do a different verification process regarding who can actually spend them.
It’s all fine for this social / political / off-chain “rule-deciding” process to be taking place now - wherever it happens to take place - eg, on Reddit, on Slack, in various dev mailing lists, perhaps at meetings at Blockstream, perhaps in secret gathering places such as the notorious “Dragons Den” - and also now to some extent it has been starting to take place at other social / political venues - eg other online forums devoted to discussing other clients (BU, Classic, etc.).
But any rules which are decided “off-chain” like this aren’t really “rules” yet. They can only become “rules” if the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking hashpower” actually mines a block which satisfies these “rules”.
‘Approach (2)’ is the major breakthrough invented by Satoshi - his solution to the Byzantine General Problem, supporting decentralized formation of consensus among parties who do not trust each other.
This breakthrough was also so counter-intuitive that very, very few people even understood it when Satoshi first proposed it in the whitepaper, and in the accompanying C++ code.
In particular, as amazing as it may sound, there are many Core / Blockstream devs who do not actually understand the subtle stuff here about how Bitcoin really works.
Why are people always so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr?
I’m going to step on some people’s toes by making provocative and even somewhat unkind statements - I do apologize, but I also do believe I am describing real and unfortunate problems which are critically important to address and resolve.
People who do not have a very clear understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work might have a hard time understanding this mechanism invented by Satoshi.
Yes this (unfortunately) means guys like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back.
They both know cryptography - and Greg knows C++ - but these two guys in particular apparently do not have a very good understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
They understand how (given a pre-existing set of rules) a particular implementation can reflect / express those “rules”.
But they never have shown any understanding for the “bigger” process whereby those “rules” got selected in the first place.
Indeed, in their arrogance and hubris, they assume that they are the ones who define those rules (in a non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless manner - ie, in a totally anti-Bitcoin manner).
I know this may sound like an insult - and I have certainly hurled it as an insult on many occasions in this forum over the years - out of frustration at the fact that these two guys have set themselves up as leaders for this system - so they are effectively attempting to sabotaging Bitcoin.
But in addition to being an “insult”, it also happens to be a fact. (So maybe we can just call it an “insulting fact”.)
I did not originally (several years ago) hurl this as an “insult”. I only started to raise my voice and get angry when (and many other people) I had to repeat this fundamental (but admittedly subtle) aspect of Bitcoin over and over again for years - because guys like Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr - who don’t actually understand how Bitcoin actually works - kept telling people like me that we were “wrong” (when in fact Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr are wrong - at least on this subtle and crucial point about when and where and how the “rules” of Bitcoin get decided).
Anyone can read the whitepaper. And if you do, you will notice this amazing thing. The “rules” are not pre-defined by any authority.
The “rules” are actually “post-defined” as a by-product of the process of hashing, which is based on the fact that the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr erroneously “assume” that they are the ones who decide the rules.
But this is not how Satoshi designed Bitcoin.
And this - in a nutshell, is the main reason why people are so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr.
And it’s also, the reason why Bitcoin’s market share has been declining, now dropping below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap - due in large part to the fact that, for the past few years, Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr have been running around telling everyone that they get to define the rules - when all the really intelligent people involved in Bitcoin know that this is not the case: the hashpower defines the rules, as manifested by Proof-of-Work!
Of course, if we want to be “charitable”, then we cannot really “blame” them for being wrong about this subtle but fundamental about where the “rules” of Bitcoin actually come from.
The sad but likely truth is that people who spend most of their waking hours thinking about things like C++ and cryptography may have a certain kind of “mindset” which makes them suffer from “blind spots” when it comes to understanding how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
Sorry if this sounds harsh - but at this point, after all the damage inflicted on Bitcoin by Adam and