Bitcoin is Antifragile - Unchained Capital

Why we shouldn't be asking for regulation and why we need the RIGHT to make bad investments.

I have deleted some of my old accounts but I have been frequenting bitcoin since 2014 and I am rather disappointed with the change over the last year and calls for regulation of crypto. So I thought I should make a reasoned argument as to why regulation is a terrible idea.

1. There aren't THAT many scams

4 out of 5 startups fail crypto or not. Failing is does not equate to scam. Further more sometimes the difference between a scam, just a poorly run startup, slimely business, and a bad idea isn't so clear. I'd guesstimate that at least 95% of crypto projects actually are acting in good faith.

2. Fraudsters don't follow laws anyways

Scammers are often already breaking laws, if they promise they will do X, Y, and Z and they don't they have already broken a contract and are liable to civil suits, and yes even just a promise in a whitepaper can already be considered a contract! Even emails can be considered to be legally binding between two parties in most countries and most freelancers already know this.
If a fraudster is going to really scam people they will be one of those projects with an anonymous team or a fake one. And guess what since the government can't stop people from making crypto transactions a scammer from Russia is still going to be taking your ETH regardless of the regulation because they are anonymous!

3. Regulation favors the rich

In America you often have to be an accredited investor to invest in early startups. In other words to invest in a young company that is having an ICO, if the same rules applied to crypto, you would have to be accredited. So what is an accredited investor?
To be an accredited investor, a person must demonstrate an annual income of $200,000, or $300,000 for joint income, for the last two years with expectation of earning the same or higher income. An individual must have earned income above the thresholds either alone or with a spouse over the last three years. The income test cannot be satisfied by showing one year of an individual's income and the next two years of joint income with a spouse. The exception to this rule is when a person is married within the period of conducting a test. A person is also considered an accredited investor if he has a net worth exceeding $1 million, either individually or jointly with his spouse. The SEC also considers a person to be an accredited investor if he is a general partner, executive officer, director or a related combination thereof for the issuer of unregistered securities.
source
This means you basically have to be a millionaire to invest in early stages of a startup. So that means 99% of people in this subbreddit could no longer participate in ICOs if the same rules applied.
Furthermore the people that will be writing these regulations are going to tend to be older people who have more traditional and conservative investments, so why would someone who is invested in say paypal, want to make it easy for their investment to be made irrelevant? They have disincentive to create good and fair regulations. They lack what Nassim Taleb calls "Skin in The Game" which leads to poor or selfish decisions.

4. No one seems to actually know what "regulation" means

I see people commenting about how they don't like project A and that its a "scam". Truthfully I feel this is often because sometimes it isn't always the best technology or startup that is the best investment so people can get butt hurt over it when they see projects they don't like become successful and then they say "oh I wish there was regulation so this wouldn't become popular." What the fuck are you guys talking about? How do regulate whether or not a shitty technology is favored by people over a good one? Do you really think the government should be deciding what is "good" or "bad" technology? Because if they did Bitcoin would have never been invented in the first place.
Also "regulation" isn't some magic thing that will stop bad things or even scams. Because of the nature of decentralization people can very easily be anonymous and setup ICOs.

5. Regulation will be ineffective and will cause brain drain

Like it or not tax/regulation havens will always exist. So companies will tend to move to places with the least regulation, Binance is a good example of that. And since crypto transactions are trustless the actual company can be in Malta even if the token or coin is used primarily in somewhere like the US. Which means that these crypto companies will still be able to reap the benefits without any of the cost of physically being in some country. That's a lot of tax revenue that will be lost because of regulation.
This also creates more inequality as it means most of the worlds wealth will end up be more concentrated in tax havens. Not to mention anonymous scammers don't follow regulations anyways.

6. You are telling the government you are too stupid to handle your own money

Why on earth should you or the government or anyone tell me I can't throw $1000 bucks at some startup on the other side of the world? Regulation is only going to add more red tap for small startups, I have some experience with this personally as I work for two blockchain startups.
One of these startups I suggested they add an equity function to their utility token, turning it into stock + utility token, as I think that is way more valuable to investors and they will likely be able to raise more money in their ICO. However they have determined that the paperwork alone costs way too much time and money. So these regulations are already hurting both investors and startups. Regulation KILLS innovation.
You can't get 1000x return on one investment without taking a 95% loss on 10, in the end it is still worth it and you still win but regulations will make it damn near impossible for regular people to invest in projects in their early stages or from new better startups being created, so you will only be "protected" from insane profits with maybe a slight improvement in your losses.
More regulation means less profit, and lets be real, most of you are here and want "regulation" because you want more money but this is the worst way to go about it.
If you are too stupid to do basic research and to have diversified your portfolio then you are bad at investing and you shouldn't be playing this game, no amount of regulation will make you a better decision maker. We need the right to make bad investments that fail because that's how investing is done, you tend to make a loss on most investments but the few that profit more than make up for the sum of losses. Just think of the potential of millions of world changing startups that will never be because of red tape.
It's like taxing people because they are dumb.

The Solution: Lawsuits

You can still sue people for things that are not explicitly breaking a law, but breaking a contract. The only regulation should be a business license so the government knows who they are, after that its not harm no foul rule. That means that if ICOs or cryptos try to trick people that they can be taken to court and sued to hell so they still are culpable for wrong doing without hindering young startups.
Stricter regulations would have made a lot more sense in a pre-internet and pre-crypto world. This is because only people who could make researching and educating themselves a full time job could really understand if a business had a reasonable proposition and model since researching anything pre-internet was way more difficult. However with the democratization of information with the internet and of value with crypto these regulations don't make as much sense because the informational asymmetry has almost entirely disappeared between accredited investors and regular motivated people. The only difference now is the size of the wallet, this is a terrible world to live in where only rich have the options.
I highly recommend everyone in crypto read Nassim Talebs "Incerto" collection particularly his latest book "Skin in The Game".
submitted by cryptonewsguy to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Why I'm all in on BNB and maybe not crazy

You may remember my post a few weeks back: Yes, You Should Buy Some BNB.
At that time, BNB had just started holding above 0.0019-20 BTC, a level it failed to hold three times. The timing was not the primary reason for investing, but it made the decision urgent. The price subsequently rose to roughly 0.0026 BTC and now appears to be settling into a floor around 0.0020-21. They say resistance becomes support, ceilings become floors. Historically for BNB, the downtrend normally ends before hitting the former ceilings. If there was ever a time to of all in, I think now is it… so I did.
Figured this would be a good time to dive a bit deeper on why I’m so ultra bullish on BNB.
Charisma - Binance feels deeply charismatic to me. It’s a word I didn’t think of in investing until this Peter Thiel interview. Binance strikes me as especially charismatic. Investors largely love Binance as a product and as a company. A lot of this charisma comes from the trust people have in Binance. CZ recently spoke about how Binance now has a “2-hour rule” which is where they update the community every two hours. You may not have known about this exact rule, but you probably have felt it and you certainly have read CZ now-famous “funds are safe.” This expression is so pervasive that you see people racing to comment with it. Bizonaci made this masterpiece which introduced the spelling “safu,” or as CZ recently said Binance is the “safust.” I mean shit, look how calm things were with BNB after after an unexpected SYStem wide freeze. The market stayed calm and BNB is the largest exchange… Let me repeat, Binance—the world’s largest exchange of trustless assets—had to emergency halt trading and the entire market is NBD… The morning after, Jackson Palmer tweeted this sentiment summary, Sherman Lee posted this beautiful piece in Forbes, and Binance announced S.A.F.U. as an official part of their commitment to protect investors.
Antifragile - Antifragile is a concept Nassim Taleb coined to describe things that get stronger with stress. Binance seems to strengthen with bad news. When China last banned exchanges, Binance up and moved to Malta and the price soared. Now Binance is in three countries/jurisdictions and probably entering more. These emerging crypto hubs are competing for epic tax revenues, especially relative to their size. If the EU were to push Malta for more regulation, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Malta leave the EU. After all, is Malta better off with Binance, EOS, et al or with the EU? The latter may still be true but it’s increasingly less clear cut. This puts it in a position of incredible strength when it comes to negotiation, staying automomous, and gaining the government cooperation to build financial bridges across the world. In short, I see Binance as having a real shot as delivering on it’s mission of financial freedom. Exchange the world.
Adoption - BNB is rapidly gaining adoption. In the past few months, we’ve seen small exchanges list BNB. In the last week, this pace has increased dramatically as Bitmex and Metamask have joined the BNB party. YouTubers and the Twitter sphere seem to be talking about BNB more frequently. The $1B impact fund is to be denominated in BNB and a team member noted in the recent Binance Labs AMA that partners will be able to accept payments in BNB. New coins have already been paying Binance humungo checks to gain access to Binance’s user base; if Binance pulls of Binance Chain DEX (powered by BNB), they’re going to compete at the ERC20 level for the ICO market, at least to some extent. It’s still unclear what Binance Chain will look like, but the support volume is definitely more compelling than other DEXes would be launching with. ICOs numbers are holding strong and Binance continues to be the most attractive place to list. Moreover, with the recent investment ChiliZ, founded by Alexander Dreyfus (founder of e-gaming companies), Binance has demonstrated an interest in the broader speculation market, which basically is crypto right now… and Binance hasn’t even introduced options/futures…
Team - The Binance team seems truly world class to me. A good chunk of my last post was about the team (and CZ’s fly-af shorts), but one thing I did not say last time was the value of CZ’s cult-leadership. Don’t get me wrong, I consider this a double edged sword much like ETH and nearly every coin but BTC has. But on the positive edge, this gives Binance an incredible edge when it comes to execution, recruiting, and a ultimately achieving their vision. You can feel the team support for CZ; you can see it in this video and in Binance’s recent staff re-tweet. I also think not enough of my last post was about the community manager(s) who I feel are killing it compared to other subreddit mods.
Market - IMO the market will mostly bounce around/move sideways for some time and Binance will make money either way. There may be big moves up but I expect them to be met with significant resistance. Technical analysis is a major driver of price action in crypto specifically because most coins/token have no underlying value (i.e. it is largely emotional responses). As such, alts will continue to have trading value even if they lose a lot of expectation-based value. After all, look how many alts recently went up 20-30%. Get rich quick sentiment has not dried up nearly to the degree some people say. Maybe I’m following the wrong people, but I haven’t seen anyone talk about Bitcoin being “dead”—only people talking about people talking about it being dead. Do you really think Tron and IOTA will die any day now? No, you don’t. The FOMO and FUD are real and the firepowereserve capital many alts have is massive. If a mostly sideways market plays out, then profit chasing will increasingly turn to algo trading, which Binance is well positioned for. In a recent interview, CZ mentioned Binance is planning to expand it’s capacity by 100-1,000x to prepare for a massive increase in usage, and he said it before the algo traders temporarily broke Binance’s API… Okay, but let’s say it’s not like this, let’s say there’s a major breakdown in alts much sooner (maybe everyone realizes Lightning makes a XRP useless). In this case, I expect Convert-to-BNB to do quite well given how many alts are on Binance (especially those who paid to show up because they were so shitty they couldn’t get the crowd to vote for them). Moreover, if you’re losing your life savings and BNB continues to grow, many investors are going to try to an dig themselves out of a hole by selling for BNB. Either way, BNB probably has a bright future.
Q3 - Right now, BNB is performing poorly because of the sell the news paradigm crypto seems to operate under. But at about this time last quarter BNB was at peak BTC and ETH value. Compared to last quarter, we’re two weeks ahead, which would make this bottom somewhere between yesterday and next weekend. The growth during the last quarter was also sharper than this quarter, suggesting less to fall, and I suspect the hype train is going to be larger this cycle as rumors of the DEX become more imminent. There’s also extra worry this quarter because the market assumes Binance’s profit will be lower and the second year discount will be lowered (50% BNB discount —> 25% off with BNB discount). I sense that these fears are already priced in. For starters, Binance hasn’t shot up directly after the great quarterly news; why would it shoot down on bad news, especially if it is expected? Regarding the discount, 25% is still better than 0% off, so people should keep using it (especially if the BNB they’re holding is appreciating), and for the next year, Binance should be making 50% more profit (before they made 0.05%, now they will make 0.075% profit). I believe the sentiment on this concern is oversold when the math appears way better to me.
Concerns - With all this in mind, I do still have a few concerns. For instance, what do Binance founders/team plan to do with their 100M coins as the BNB supply approaches 100M supply? Will they sell a-la Charlie Lee or will their sell-off be more pre-meditated a la Ripple’s 55mo escrow release? In theory as the price of BNB rises, it will take longer for the supply to get to 100M so this question could be a ways off, but I still would prefer clarity over this (even if it relies on trust). There’s some sentiment concern that the 1/5 vesting coming up will cause a large sell off. I assume inside folk see world-dominating growth ahead given the recent all-star Binance Labs hires, but still would be nice to understand this risk better. Finally, perhaps my largest concern is will Binance have an EOS moment with the freezing functionality laid out in the DEX competition requirements? I can certainly envision a decentralized use and Binance has demonstrated doing the right thing when they take emergency action, but I want to share the concern nevertheless.
Deflationary - One concern I do not have with with BNB but recognize others do is about the utility of BNB after the discount goes to 0. Binance says BNB will be used as gas in the eventual Binance Chain DEX. This gives it utility, and unlike other blockchains, Binance already has usage demand. So, if you think any altcoin has value, then BNB—at the DEX stage and without a discount—has value. Beyond dominating trading utility (a huge industry use case), BNB has a decent store of value argument (the other huge industry use case). Unlike most coins/token have unreleased supply for inflation, fees, etc., BNB supply is already fully diluted. While BTC expands its supply for some time to come, BNB will be lowering its supply through the burn. Sure, people lose BTC which is a deflationary force, but I suspect this will become less common as wallet tech improves and the industry matures. To be clear, I don’t think BNB and BTC are otherwise comparable and I don’t think BNB (or any coin/token) will replace BTC. But, BTC has demonstrated that investors want stores of value, so whether your thesis is high usage will appreciate or store of value will appreciate, BNB checks both boxes.
submitted by ohitsthatguygreat to BinanceExchange [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: The more it's attacked, the stronger it gets

Nassim Taleb, the venerable anti-intellectual intellectual, came up with an interesting concept called anti-fragility. He observed that the English language does not have a word that can describe the exact opposite meaning of fragility. Anything that breaks owing to stressors is fragile. But do we have a word to describe a phenomenon that gains from stressors?
Just imagine a scenario where an entity keeps gaining in power as it is attacked more and more. At most, we have a word such as ‘robust’ that describes something that remains steadfast in spite of stressors, attacks or damage. Taleb changed this situation by coming up with the idea of ‘Anti-Fragility’. He surmises that there are indeed situations where one can benefit from stressors, volatility, attacks and things that are seemingly bad news for the rest of the world. Those entities that gain from disorder, chaos and stressors are Anti-Fragile.
One observable exemplar of Anti-Fragility that can be seen in contemporary times is cryptocurrencies in general and Bitcoin in particular. Bitcoin has managed to create a huge buzz among technology geeks and society in general.
Its mass appeal, which sometimes (or maybe most of the time) borders on the side of hysteria and mania, has brought it into the forefront of mainstream attention. The head-spinning price changes and volatility in price action only manage to fuel the intense speculation which pervades its trading.
Meanwhile, there is a small section which is not too enthused with the rise of the Bitcoin culture. The economic and financial elites are not comfortable with the idea of Bitcoin as they feel it impinges on their turf. They are the incumbents who have gained the most from the existing status quo. Anything that even remotely threatens the prospects of their fat wallets getting slightly thinner has to be extinguished at the earliest.
Thus, we hear repeated attacks from incumbents, such as the JP Morgan chief, who call Bitcoin a fraud among other things. But once the incumbents realised that nobody is listening or paying attention, they backtracked and even started praising Bitcoin as the ‘New Gold’.
We also see repeated instances of central bankers trying to impose restrictions on Bitcoin by claiming that such cryptocurrencies are used by villains to convert and store their ill-gotten wealth. A simple extension of this logic would suggest that central bankers must first ban fiat currencies and cash and even gold as that too is used for nefarious activities like money laundering, prostitution, smuggling et al. Currencies, essentially, are a double-edged sword that can be used for both good and bad. Just because it is used for bad does not mean we have to do away with the whole concept altogether. Have they not heard of the cliché, “Throwing the baby along with the bath water”?
Interestingly, the more Bitcoin is attacked from all quarters, the more powerful it keeps becoming. The attacks reinforce the belief among its supporters that Bitcoin is a natural hedge against the vagaries of the system. If something like a Lehman Brothers crisis (or worse) occurs tomorrow, the whole system will get affected negatively in a synchronised fashion. Financial markets will get battered and bruised and there will be a widespread erosion of wealth and value. In such a scenario, something like Bitcoin will have better odds of not only surviving the crisis but even thriving under it.
Bitcoin is a revolt of the decentralised masses against the fragilities of the system. So when systemic elites complain and cry against the growing emergence of Bitcoin it only ends up adding to the conviction of the devouts. Like a phenomenon, which is truly anti-fragile, Bitcoin keeps gaining power and ‘currency’ when it is put under the stress of repeated attacks. Attempts to suppress and stifle it end up making it even stronger.
Against this backdrop, we have the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issuing a notice that they want to ring-fence the financial system by not allowing transactions relating to cryptocurrencies. Normally, this would have been a big blow to cryptocurrencies if the big boss does not even want to deal with it. But if past history is anything to go by, participants will find ways and methods to side step or circumvent such regulations. If regulated entities in India are banned from dealing with virtual currencies then participants will look towards other countries where cryptocurrencies are not looked at with such derision. RBI may have to backtrack eventually if the Bitcoin pie keeps getting bigger and incumbents complain about loss of business.
Yet, the caution displayed by RBI must also be appreciated on some fronts. As the Bitcoin craze manifests itself in bigger forms, it has led to spawning of actual fraudulent activity. The trend of issuing Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) tokens is attracting unruly elements to take advantage of the situation. All kinds of bogus ICOs are being offered to leverage the exponential growth of Bitcoins and its underlying Blockchain technology.
While many ICOs are genuine, some are not above board. Newbies and gullible people are getting taken in by the Ponzi scheme-like characteristics of such ICOs. The repeated cautions and warning letters by the RBI regarding such activities should be understood in this context and one should not get carried away by the Bitcoin mania. It is easy to get swept away by stories of people getting instantly wealthy by buying bitcoins at an early stage. There are numerous fraudsters who are eager to exploit the basic instinct of the fear of missing out.
Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding cryptocurrencies (which also include security and hacking issues), it is important to understand that we are dealing with a concept whose time has come.
No force can throttle the momentum that Bitcoin has generated. The whole argument that “Blockchain is good while Bitcoin is bad” is pure hogwash as currently Blockchain is Bitcoin and has come out of Bitcoin, while Bitcoin is Bitcoin. The whole basis of such arguments reeks of rhetoric and insecurity. It is perhaps a good idea to draw a parallel with George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Blockchain good, Bitcoin bad reminds me of the argument put forth by the Animal Farm establishment: "Four legs good, two legs better" which actually meant “Two legs good, four legs bad”. I have a feeling that this is a good parallel to draw as Orwell would have surely appreciated the Bitcoin phenomenon if he was alive today.
submitted by Smiranb to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF) would have been safer than 2-flag RBF (with no FSS-RBF). RBF-with-no-FSS has already been user-tested - and rejected in favor of FSS-RBF. So, why did Peter Todd give us 2-flag RBF with no FSS-RBF? Another case of Core ignoring user requirements and testing?

TL;DR:
Here are your Artificially Limited!TM "options" under Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF":
0 - Original / "classic" version of Bitcoin (where the transaction is not replaceable).
1 - FSS-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by a later txn only if using the same outputs, just with a higher miner fee).
2 - Full-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
Yeah. Peter did all that work and gave us the middle finger by not giving us that simpler & safer middle option.
Once again Peter Todd / Core appears to be ignoring user requirements and testing, by giving us a more-complicated and more-dangerous feature that has already been tested and rejected (Full RBF - where the sender can arbitrarily double-spend any outputs) - and omitting a simpler and safer feature which users have favored (FSS-RBF - where the sender can only resend the same the transaction using the same outputs, now with a higher miners fee).
If Peter Todd had given us "3-flag RBF" (which includes FSS-RBF) then this would have been safer than the 2-flag RBF he actually gave us (which does not include FSS-RBF).
Feter Todd had already implemented a form of RBF which was field-tested and rejected in the first few hours due to an outcry from users (F2Pool), and replaced with the safer FSS-RBF:
Peter Todd talked F2Pool (Chun Wang) into implementing his RBF patch. A few hours later Chun realises want a terrible idea that was and switches to FSS RBF (safe version of RBF).
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3aenx0/avoid_f2pool_they_are_incompetent_reckless_and/?ref=search_posts
With Opt-In Full RBF, Core appears to be once again ignoring user requirements and testing, by giving us a more-complicated and more-dangerous feature that has already been tested and rejected by users, who clearly preferred FSS-RBF.
  • 3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF) would have been the safer form of RBF (0 = no RBF, 1 = FSS-RBF, 2 = Full RBF).
  • So, why did Peter Todd give us the more-complicated and more-dangerous 2-flag form of RBF (0 = no RBF, 2 = Full RBF ... omitting the simpler & safer "FSS-RBF" option) even after the more-complicated and more-dangersous version had been field-tested and rejected (within hours) by F2Pool, which ended up going back and implementing the safer form?
RBF supporters are wrong or lying about what "problem" RBF is supposed to "solve"
RBF supporters claim they just "want to allow the sender increase the fee on a txn that's not getting mined."
They're either wrong, or outright lying, because we've already gotten two proposals for better (simpler and safer) solutions for stuck transactions:
(1) If RBF supporters had really wanted to just help solve this "stuck transaction" problem, then the simpler and safer form of RBF (which would be totally sufficient to achieve the above) would have been FSS-RBF - not (Opt-In) Full RBF.
(2) Or even "more" safer and simpler: just impose a "transaction timeout" - after say 72 hours, a stuck txn (which no miners have been mining) simply gets dropped from the mempool. More below on this proposed transaction timeout:
RBF is being sold as a lie. A true Trojan Horse. We are being told that it was created to solve the stuck transaction problem but that is a lie.
In a recent exchange with an RBF apologist he admits that there is already a clean and simple fix for stuck transactions.
Another patch by Garzik introduces a 72 hour timeout for stuck transactions. This is the correct and clean fix. If you were so boneheaded that you sent a high value transaction without a proper fee then a 72 hour penalty seems perfectly reasonable.
What is not reasonable is using stuck transactions as an excuse to Trojan horse in a fee market system that turns the bitcoin blockchain into an auction house.
jratcliff63367
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uqpap/rbf_has_nothing_to_do_with_fixing_stuck/?ref=search_posts
The "leading" supporters / apologists for RBF (eg, nullc Gregory Maxwell) are probably smart enough to know that those other simpler & safer solutions are indeed out there - so it does make sense to assume possible bad faith on their part here, and assume that they're not merely "wrong" - they're actually lying.
From the KISS principle to Nassim Taleb, everyone agrees: Simpler is better
FSS-RBF (First-Seen-Safe RBF) is the safer and simpler form of RBF where the sender can increase the fee for only the same outputs/UTXOs.
It solves the "stuck transaction" problem without introducing any other new complexities (and potential vulnerabilities) to the system.
There was a post on the front page today from Nassim Taleb talking about this simplicity concept in general: that a solution should be at least as simple as the problem that it intends to solve.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: "Solutions need to be at least as simple as the problem they solve. (Anything else brings multiplicative unintended side effects.) #FatTails"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3whz3c/nassim_nicholas_taleb_solutions_need_to_be_at/?ref=search_posts
So... Why didn't Peter Todd give us the simpler and safer solution **FSS-RBF".
  • Why did he instead give us the more-complicated and more-dangerous (Opt-In) Full RBF?
  • Don't be fooled by the "Opt-In" part. That's just the part where he lets you turn "Full RBF" off or on for any given transaction.
  • There's already been some shadiness already as to whether this should "opt-in" or really "opt-out".
    • A few days after Peter Todd's "Opt-In RBF" got merged into the github repo, another Pull Request (PR) came up, to change it from "Opt-In" to "Opt-Out" (ie, "On-by-Default") - but Gregory Maxwell quietly closed that Pull Request (PR).
    • There are posts on-line from RBF supporters who say that the real plan is to quietly migrate from Opt-In Full RBF to On-By-Default (Opt-Out) Full RBF, eg:
opt-in RBF -> 2-4-8 -> opt-in RBF with wallets opting in by default -> LN -> full RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uw2ff/quotes_show_that_rbf_is_part_of_coreblockstreams/?ref=search_posts
We need to learn that the only consensus that matters is among us, the users.
And the devs need to learn to listen and respond to what the users are saying, instead of ignoring us.
PS - We don't need to speak C/C++ in order to communicate our requirements to the devs. Any dev who cannot understand and intelligently respond to the following English-language user-requirements specification should GTFO:
0 - Original / "classic" version of Bitcoin (where the transaction is not replaceable).
1 - FSS-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by a later txn only if using the same outputs, just with a higher miner fee).
2 - Full-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
Question for petertodd
(1) Why did your first draft release of this "feature" fail to implement the above simpler and safer specification?
Bonus question for petertodd
(2) You've already implemented an RBF feature, at your suggestion, for F2Pool.
You implemented your more-complicated, more-dangerous Full RBF - and after few hours of community outcry, it was removed, and F2Pool re-implemented it the simpler safer way: with FSS RBF.
What did you learn from this experience with the users?
Inspired by:
Why don't go the safe way? RBF would allow double spending attacks. It would be much better if a transaction in mempool can only be replaced by a new one if the transaction outputs are the same as in the original transaction (FSS-RBF). So you cannot replace it by a completely different transaction and you cannot double-spend.
Maybe it would be nice to mark the initial transaction by either one of three flags:
  • Old transaction version (non replaceable).
  • FSS-RBF (replaceable by a similar transaction with higher miner fee).
  • Full-RBF (replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
As a merchant you could safely accept 2 but not 3. I don't see any good reasons why one would favor 3 over 2.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3wlxr5/i_cant_believe_im_saying_this_but_luke_jr_is/cxxdu14
nomailing
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to btc [link] [comments]

04-09 14:52 - 'Bitcoin: The more it's attacked, the stronger it gets' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Smiranb removed from /r/Bitcoin within 6-16min

'''
Nassim Taleb, the venerable anti-intellectual intellectual, came up with an interesting concept called anti-fragility. He observed that the English language does not have a word that can describe the exact opposite meaning of fragility. Anything that breaks owing to stressors is fragile. But do we have a word to describe a phenomenon that gains from stressors?
Just imagine a scenario where an entity keeps gaining in power as it is attacked more and more. At most, we have a word such as ‘robust’ that describes something that remains steadfast in spite of stressors, attacks or damage. Taleb changed this situation by coming up with the idea of ‘Anti-Fragility’. He surmises that there are indeed situations where one can benefit from stressors, volatility, attacks and things that are seemingly bad news for the rest of the world. Those entities that gain from disorder, chaos and stressors are Anti-Fragile.
One observable exemplar of Anti-Fragility that can be seen in contemporary times is cryptocurrencies in general and Bitcoin in particular. Bitcoin has managed to create a huge buzz among technology geeks and society in general.
Its mass appeal, which sometimes (or maybe most of the time) borders on the side of hysteria and mania, has brought it into the forefront of mainstream attention. The head-spinning price changes and volatility in price action only manage to fuel the intense speculation which pervades its trading.
Meanwhile, there is a small section which is not too enthused with the rise of the Bitcoin culture. The economic and financial elites are not comfortable with the idea of Bitcoin as they feel it impinges on their turf. They are the incumbents who have gained the most from the existing status quo. Anything that even remotely threatens the prospects of their fat wallets getting slightly thinner has to be extinguished at the earliest.
Thus, we hear repeated attacks from incumbents, such as the JP Morgan chief, who call Bitcoin a fraud among other things. But once the incumbents realised that nobody is listening or paying attention, they backtracked and even started praising Bitcoin as the ‘New Gold’.
We also see repeated instances of central bankers trying to impose restrictions on Bitcoin by claiming that such cryptocurrencies are used by villains to convert and store their ill-gotten wealth. A simple extension of this logic would suggest that central bankers must first ban fiat currencies and cash and even gold as that too is used for nefarious activities like money laundering, prostitution, smuggling et al. Currencies, essentially, are a double-edged sword that can be used for both good and bad. Just because it is used for bad does not mean we have to do away with the whole concept altogether. Have they not heard of the cliché, “Throwing the baby along with the bath water”?
Interestingly, the more Bitcoin is attacked from all quarters, the more powerful it keeps becoming. The attacks reinforce the belief among its supporters that Bitcoin is a natural hedge against the vagaries of the system. If something like a Lehman Brothers crisis (or worse) occurs tomorrow, the whole system will get affected negatively in a synchronised fashion. Financial markets will get battered and bruised and there will be a widespread erosion of wealth and value. In such a scenario, something like Bitcoin will have better odds of not only surviving the crisis but even thriving under it.
Bitcoin is a revolt of the decentralised masses against the fragilities of the system. So when systemic elites complain and cry against the growing emergence of Bitcoin it only ends up adding to the conviction of the devouts. Like a phenomenon, which is truly anti-fragile, Bitcoin keeps gaining power and ‘currency’ when it is put under the stress of repeated attacks. Attempts to suppress and stifle it end up making it even stronger.
Against this backdrop, we have the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issuing a notice that they want to ring-fence the financial system by not allowing transactions relating to cryptocurrencies. Normally, this would have been a big blow to cryptocurrencies if the big boss does not even want to deal with it. But if past history is anything to go by, participants will find ways and methods to side step or circumvent such regulations. If regulated entities in India are banned from dealing with virtual currencies then participants will look towards other countries where cryptocurrencies are not looked at with such derision. RBI may have to backtrack eventually if the Bitcoin pie keeps getting bigger and incumbents complain about loss of business.
Yet, the caution displayed by RBI must also be appreciated on some fronts. As the Bitcoin craze manifests itself in bigger forms, it has led to spawning of actual fraudulent activity. The trend of issuing Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) tokens is attracting unruly elements to take advantage of the situation. All kinds of bogus ICOs are being offered to leverage the exponential growth of Bitcoins and its underlying Blockchain technology.
While many ICOs are genuine, some are not above board. Newbies and gullible people are getting taken in by the Ponzi scheme-like characteristics of such ICOs. The repeated cautions and warning letters by the RBI regarding such activities should be understood in this context and one should not get carried away by the Bitcoin mania. It is easy to get swept away by stories of people getting instantly wealthy by buying bitcoins at an early stage. There are numerous fraudsters who are eager to exploit the basic instinct of the fear of missing out.
Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding cryptocurrencies (which also include security and hacking issues), it is important to understand that we are dealing with a concept whose time has come.
No force can throttle the momentum that Bitcoin has generated. The whole argument that “Blockchain is good while Bitcoin is bad” is pure hogwash as currently Blockchain is Bitcoin and has come out of Bitcoin, while Bitcoin is Bitcoin. The whole basis of such arguments reeks of rhetoric and insecurity. It is perhaps a good idea to draw a parallel with George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Blockchain good, Bitcoin bad reminds me of the argument put forth by the Animal Farm establishment: "Four legs good, two legs better" which actually meant “Two legs good, four legs bad”. I have a feeling that this is a good parallel to draw as Orwell would have surely appreciated the Bitcoin phenomenon if he was alive today.
'''
Bitcoin: The more it's attacked, the stronger it gets
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Smiranb
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

CVM  Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin, Stocks, Portfolio and The Crash ... Cryptocurrency Bitcoin की Value पहुंचेगी ₹ 65 Lac - Philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb ने किया दावा Why Nassim Taleb is still betting on crypto - YouTube Nassim Taleb advised Lebanese citizens to use cryptocurrencies

– Nassim Taleb, Antifragile. Bitcoin is an adaptive and evolving system; it is not static. No one controls the network and there are no leaders capable of forcing changes onto the network. It is decentralized at every layer, and as a result, it has shown to be immune to any type of attack. Cryptocurrency reviews and scores by Nassim Taleb, Essayist and former Trader, on Bitcoin: Created by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Nassim Taleb, Universitätsprofessor und Autor von Black Swan, hält Bitcoin für eine gute Idee, aber die meisten Investoren können die Feinheiten nicht verstehen. Ist Bitcoin für Idioten? Laut einem Tweet von Nassim Taleb am 21. Juni ist Bitcoin (BTC) eine gute Idee, aber “fast alle Bitcoiner sind totale Idioten”. Bitcoin is an excellent idea that fulfills the needs of the complex system, not because it is a cryptocurrency, but precisely because it has no owner, no authority that can decide on its fate, writes the famous essayist, scholar, and risk analyst ... — Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) June 21, 2020. Ma Taleb ha aggiunto una frase che riguarda direttamente Bitcoin ed in particolare i bitcoiner. “Bitcoin è una buona idea, ma quasi tutti i bitcoiner sono totalmente idioti, non possono cogliere sfumature al di là dei biscotti della fortuna”.

[index] [19579] [34229] [47325] [26179] [13959] [31628] [46936] [2467] [51053] [15479]

CVM Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin

Nassim Nicholas Taleb in an interaction with Ami Shah of ETMarkets.com on the sidelines of Times Network India Economic Conclave talks about what makes him b... Nassim Taleb, author of “Skin in the Game”, got into a small Twitter feud in which he explained that most investors can’t understand the nuances of a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. Fireside Chat: Nassim Nicholas Taleb & Naval Ravikant www.goBLOCKCON.com Join the conversation: https://www.t.me/BLOCKCON The term "Lindy Effect" was let's say coined by Albert Goldman in the sixties but heavily popularized by Nassim Taleb through his "Incerto" books. What is th... Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin, Stocks, Portfolio and The Crash 🧠Enroll with Crypto University Courses Now: https://cryptouniversity.co.za Subscribe To My Channel:h...

#