Bitcoin History – Price since 2009 to 2019, BTC Charts

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

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

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

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.
Not going to add to my existing paranoia by speculating, but here it is updated...
Here’s my Top 22 list of suspicious shenanigans and red flags surrounding the COVID narrative:

  1. The Imperial College Death data - Neil Ferguson and Gates-funded Imperial College, London Model that ‘persuaded’ Johnson and Trump to lockdown. Projected 500K deaths in UK and 2.2m deaths in US, EVEN WITH LOCKDOWN. Less than 10% accuracy but 110% alarmist, and evidence that the coding was deliberately flawed and designed to inflate numbers. Gates funding everyone involved in the staged 'debacle'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Ferguson, with a terrifyingly consistent track record for hyping minor viruses that fail to transpire into pandemics (Swine Flu, Bird Flu, BSE etc), failing upwards as a ‘safe pair of hands‘.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565369/useless-professor-neil-ferguson-antonia-staats/
EDIT: the material below has now disappeared twice, so I’m reposting with the 95% that disappeared some minutes ago....
2) Ferguson’s blasé attitude to his affair during lockdown - clearly not too worried for his lovers’ family, if he genuinely believed COVID was a threat. No "error of judgement", just a man who knew there was nothing to fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/ministers-hypocrisy-over-neil-ferguson-lockdown-affair
3) Hospitals cleared of patients in readiness for a pandemic that never came. Desperate for cash, doctors and nurses were financially incentivised to put down patients dying with/ of COVID on death certificates to gain payments. In US $13,000 per patient, and $39,000 per patient on ventilator etc.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72070/this-is-how-much-hospitals-are-making-if-patients-have-coronavirus/index.html
Footage of empty hospitals worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ9yaUOVKs
Nurses furloughed, sent home for suspected virus without testing. Nurses - with nothing better to do - on TikTok etc:
Nurses slammed for filming TikTok showing them carrying coronavirus 'body-bag':
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nurses-slammed-filming-tiktok-showing-21960411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMHU6MtPVqQ etc
4) Games played with age and numbers, proof that only the elderly and very sick elderly were dying, but less of pneumonia and flu than in previous years. Median age of 79 in US and 82 in UK. Meanwhile whole country on lockdown.
"The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality."
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
(table from 2/7 down the page...)
5) When this became apparent, initial scare stories in press about children dying of virus, later proven to have no merit, just to ensure the hysteria was generalised. Meanwhile, probability of a child dying from the 'virus' is 35m to 1.

https://preview.redd.it/ufir9p8nx8c51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=32ab3b0b0a83f3010abd9c6baf381f589bcc7c9b
"The second row shows that 2 deaths have been recorded among over 7 million school children aged between 5 and 14 (around 1 in 3.5 million), an extremely low risk — although additional deaths may be reported following coroners’ investigations. Over the last five years, there has been an average of 94 deaths registered over this 9-week period for those aged 5–14, and so the 2 Covid deaths represents only 2% of the normal risk faced by this group. That is, whatever average risk they would have faced in these 9 weeks if Covid had never existed — a risk which was extraordinarily low — was increased by Covid by only 2%."
from: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/kawasaki-like-disease-affecting-children-caused-coronavirus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264135/UK-says-children-died-syndrome-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8316223/Up-100-British-children-mysterious-inflammatory-disease-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8278963/Ill-youngsters-directly-exposed-corona-victims-refused-tests-medics.html
6) The ludicrous claim that they had never considered economic and psychological DEATH toll of lockdown.
There was a press conference in June on BBC, where they said "saving lives" from the virus was considered more important. Hard to believe, but I can't find the footage yet...
"One of the most consistent themes that emerges from the minutes of SAGE meetings is how the Government repeatedly expected its scientists to account for the economic impact of lockdown restrictions – even though SAGE was not doing any economic modelling."
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/03/sagegate-part-one-treasury-and-downing-street-advisors-delayed-covid-19-lockdown/
7) Doctors globally openly being told they can save paperwork and earn money by basing cause of death on ASSUMPTION of COVID, based on the vaguest of pretexts and symptoms.
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid19-cause-death-certificate-pcom-20200401.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-vax-doctor-covid-19-death-certificates-984407/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlGkCABfyLw
Also, from the UK...Health Secretary Matt Hancock calls for urgent review into coronavirus death data in England.
It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724
8) The propaganda campaign against any form of alternative to vaccine (Vitamin C and D, African cures, HCQ etc)
“The Government’s leading body for Covid19 drug trials – led by the controversial character Professor Peter Horby – Oxford’s Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health and heading the vaccine programme - stands accused of grossly misleading negative trial results for the coronavirus management drug Hydroxychloroqhine. (Conflict of interest, surely?)
The lead story in today’s France Soir – a long-respected and unaligned French daily – presents compelling evidence to suggest that the Whitehall/Cabinet Covid19 “advice” team cannot be trusted….and raises yet more doubts about BBC complicity in a false Coronavirus narrative.”
https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/explosive-more-uk-covid-experts-facing-serious-data-manipulation-charges/
http://www.francesoir.fsociete-sante/remdesivir-une-molecule-dinteret-therapeutique-tres-discutable-sur-le-covid-19-partie ( in French)
The [Lancet’s] claim that hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients has been used by rivals as a stick to beat the US President, who has himself been taking the drug and hailed it a 'game-changer' in the war on coronavirus.
Mounting doubts over the study's reliability culminated yesterday when the authors retracted their study from the Lancet medical journal, whose editorial standards have also been thrown into question.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html
“The Deputy Chief Investigator of the Recovery Trial, Prof. Martin Landray, gave an interview to France-Soir. What he revealed was quite remarkable.
Firstly, the mortality rate of the hydroxychloroquine patients was a staggering 25.7%.
The recommended hydroxychloroquine dose for an adult in the UK is no more than 200 — 400 mg per day. In France, 1800 mg per day is considered to be lethal poisoning.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
https://time.com/5840148/coronavirus-cure-covid-organic-madagasca
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vitamin-c-myth.html
9) The saturation of Gates into the narrative at every level. His hallowed and unquestioned presence in media as expert, the only Moses who can lead us out of this wilderness with his magic potions, release us from our prisons with his benevolence. His financial connections through BMGF to NIH, CDC, WHO, BBC, Guardian, CNN etc and of course every pharmaceutical company in existence....
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Amazing Polly (pretty much every video this year):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm19xYwJ2nQ
BBC compromised:

“Transforming lives through media”? Gates and the CIA? Can we give up the pretence that neutral Auntie speaks for - or represents - us and our best interests?


Charities and foundations - without transparency, oversight and apparently universally trusted. Call your genocidal plans ‘charity’ and not only will you look like a philanthrApist, but people will even donate to their own demise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
EDIT: For further information, I just found this webpage:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
UK Guardian compromised:
Hear the Guardian is regrettably letting 180 staff go this week. Hopefully BMGF can find them suitable homes...
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/22/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundations-sponsorship-of-the-guardian/
From the article:
“This story came from a Guardian sub-section called ‘Global Development‘.
But then I came across this 2010 Guardian story about how the Guardian has started up this new ‘Global Development’ site in partnership with… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So much information on Gates...almost “paralysed” with possibilities. Ideas?
10) Recent US and UK stories where people clearly dying of other things - cancer, suicide, motorcycle accidents etc are ascribed to COVID. Officially, George Floyd’s death should have been ascribed to COVID, since I believe he tested positive during autopsy. Might have led to a very different world...
https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-autopsy-coronavirus-protests-a9548386.html
HighImpactFix video about case number “massage” and motorcycle anomalies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olz03OPeijM&feature=youtu.be
11) Recent US and UK stories of the deceitful practices by which:
i) the case numbers are conflated with all death numbers on certain days
ii) Dying "of" vs "with" COVID
iii) anyone who dies after testing positive is a COVID death
iv) cases being reported and subliminally conflated with deaths by the media, when death numbers fell too low to keep the public sufficiently terrified to accept coming measures
v) case numbers merely made up or inflated by a factor of ten, in Florida’s case last week.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
Too many to include all here, but the recent Florida 'mistake' is here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7g8BgKAXE
If this is a genuine event, what possible reason would there be to commit fraud in so many ways to keep it looking genuine, besides the need to control demolish the world economy and vaccine-shill?
12) Event 201. Drill gone live. Nuff said.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
CORBETT REPORT:
https://www.corbettreport.com/mml2020/
Amazing Polly:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7O5RylrMUV8F/
13) The fact that there have been no surprises at all since the crisis began. Every next step had been telegraphed in the media well in advance. Everything began with the notion that a vaccine would be the only solution and the narrative has remained remarkably consistent to Event201.
14) Even with all of these statistical somersaults, the death numbers this year are not far from what they’ve been in previous years. Pneumonia and flu deaths are suspiciously down.


2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Compared with:

2019- Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
2019 Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/
MUCH, MUCH MORE DATA NEEDED HERE....
15) That in the space of four months, they have managed to capitalise on this crisis and remove so many rights from us permanently. An opportunity for which they’ve been waiting for years, COVID sped up the process and kept us otherwise preoccupied.
Here is my list of achieved or achievable hidden agenda:
In no particular order:
  1. Controlled demolition of the stock market/ global economy. Global reset etc
  2. Transhumanist/ AI rollout (post-human, Gates patents for human batteries linked with cryptocurrency (60606). https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/
  3. Vaccine adulation and promotion (Gates etc promising vaccine = release from captivity - pharmaceutical companies in league with WHO to drum up mandatory sales)
  4. Expediting the climate change agenda, conflating it with the virus as a call for world government and global sustainability.
  5. Plus RFID/ ID2020 tracking through vaccines (mark of the beast, without which no transaction/ employment will be possible)
  6. Demonisation and eradication of cash (total financial dominion)
  7. Mass unemployment and Universal Credit system linked to Social Credit.
  8. Bank (and corporate) bailouts – this time round it looks legitimate and necessary, no public outcry.
  9. Using and conditioning us to the concept of quarantining as a future method of control should there be any hint of unrest.
  10. Cultification of the NHS to the point of a unifying religion (clapping and donations and lionisation of medical staff during what must be the quietest time in their history)
  11. Legitimation of multiculturalism and immigration (race-baiting through NHS and volunteers, #youclapforusnow
  12. A shot in the arm for the MSM and government as a whole: no longer irrelevant and dying, people watching 24-7 since pandemic. Taking attention away from alternative media.
  13. Privatisation of NHS/ public services – corporations will step in to ‘save’ us (public gratitude replacing scepticism)
  14. Makes government look noble and heroic (wartime/ WW2 mentality fostered)
  15. COVID19 as cover story for 5G radiation/ environmental pollution/ vaccine damage etc
  16. Mass Surveillance – using 5G ‘for our safety’ to track and trace
  17. Opportunity to pass draconian laws against human rights (assembly, sectioning, travel, speech)
  18. Social alienation/ conformity as preference/ patriotic duty
  19. Prevention of assembly in order to protest draconian laws
  20. Depopulation in stages (elderly first, then with vaccines and suicides/ bankruptcy etc due to system collapse)
  21. Censorship of social media and social discourse in general
  22. Installation of 5G during lockdown to avoid scrutiny
  23. Effecting the transition of the workplace, shopping district and school to the home, ending community and all nourishing human interactions.
  24. The ‘new normal’ - social revolution and culture creation through social distancing/ queuing for shops/reinvention of the word essential/ mask wearing etc
  25. Destruction of small and medium sized businesses and the high street in general
  26. Fauci’s early dismissive comments about virus, herd immunity and futility of masks, before the script was revised.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
”You don’t need a mask.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHsEmlIoE4
To the NEJM, he described COVID in March as a flu, with similar numbers predicted to suffer.
“WOW! Dr. Fauci in New England Journal of Medicine Concedes the Coronavirus Mortality Rate May Be Much Closer to a Very Bad Flu”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/wow-dr-fauci-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-concedes-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-may-be-much-closer-to-a-very-bad-flu/
Why the u-turn? Surely we define our experts by their consistency.
F William Engdahl article:
https://fort-russ.com/amp/2020/04/shedding-light-on-the-dishonorable-record-of-dr-fauci-a-real-mengele/
Christine Grady (Fauci’s wife) and her sinister connections to NIH and Gates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYen0g4TRU
17) Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries - The statistical chances (14%) of three members of the UK Cabinet (made up of 22 people), including the prime minister, actually catching it and one almost dying apparently, right before reversing his decision to let it pass.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-of-senior-government-figures-affected-by-coronavirus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51827356
A very intentionally dramatic start to our lockdown, announced by Johnson from his "death-bed", ensuring all were in the appropriate state of panic:
"Boris Johnson: Hospital doctors were ready to announce my death"
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-hospital-doctors-were-ready-to-announce-my-death/
18) Meanwhile, racism knocks the virus off the front pages and our minds for a few weeks, but we’re meant to go right back to taking it seriously when requested.
https://summit.news/2020/06/05/1200-public-health-experts-sign-letter-advocating-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-is-a-bigger-threat-than-covid-19/
19) The many proven fake media stories...of long lines for testing and hospital footage from NY, mannequins in beds etc
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-accused-by-project-veritas-of-faking-footage-in-michigan-coronavirus-testing-report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUBTtUTOII
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-video-operating-dummy-coron/partly-false-claim-video-shows-doctors-operating-on-a-dummy-to-exaggerate-extent-of-coronavirus-crisis-idUSKBN21P2Q8
20) International care home scandals - Deliberately mandating coronavirus carriers into crowded care homes to bump up death toll and concomitant hysteria, kill off elderly...murder?
"It is remarkable how many deaths during this pandemic have occurred in care homes. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in the 11 weeks up to 22 May in England and Wales — 25,000 more than you would expect at this time of the year. Two out of five care homes in England have had a coronavirus outbreak; in the north-east, it’s half.
Not all these deaths, however, have been attributed to Covid-19. Even when death certificates do mention it, it is not always clear that it is the disease that was the ultimate cause of death..."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
"The daughter of a 91-year-old gran who died of Covid-19 she contracted in a care home is demanding to know why her mum was “sacrificed” by ministers.
Retired teacher Anne Duncan died in Edinburgh’s Western General Hospital two days after her family managed to force a move out of the care home in the city where they feared she would die alone.
Her daughter Linda hit out at what she called a “scandalous” policy to release coronavirus patients into care homes and called for her mum’s death to be investigated as part of a wider review."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/scots-gran-who-died-covid-22172074
Also, more than 40% of US ‘virus‘ deaths occur in nursing homes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/504885-over-40-percent-of-us-covid-19-deaths-are-linked-to-nursing-homes-nyt
21) (thanks to Reddit’s lawofconfusion!) Ventilators - All of the sudden, a clamour for them generated panic demand and buying. Cuomo desperate, while he sat in front of a warehouse wall full of them. Hegelian dialectics at play. Trump apparently withholding, Trump giving them out like Oprah, then the evidence that they were killing most people on them.
“A giant study that examined outcomes for more than 2,600 patients found an extraordinarily high 88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study
22) Testing inconsistencies:
Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds.
”The study's lead author, Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/half-of-cdc-coronavirus-test-kits-are-inaccurate-study-finds/ar-BB16S6M6
“According to the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis himself, it cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/05/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts/
Tanzania scandal and the goat/ papaya ‘positive‘ testing (they had to put in the religious dig as a debunking attempt here, didn’t they?):
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-tanzania-testing-kits-questioned-after-goat-and-papaya-test-positive-11982864
Also, this about CT testing irregularities:
https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/covid-19/connecticut-says-it-found-testing-flaw-90-false-positives/article_91811362-a9b3-53ab-9485-00067ce9e0d5.html
Funny how all the “mistakes” err on the side of positive...

submitted by secretymology to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Why i’m bullish on Zilliqa (long read)

Edit: TL;DR added in the comments
 
Hey all, I've been researching coins since 2017 and have gone through 100s of them in the last 3 years. I got introduced to blockchain via Bitcoin of course, analyzed Ethereum thereafter and from that moment I have a keen interest in smart contact platforms. I’m passionate about Ethereum but I find Zilliqa to have a better risk-reward ratio. Especially because Zilliqa has found an elegant balance between being secure, decentralized and scalable in my opinion.
 
Below I post my analysis of why from all the coins I went through I’m most bullish on Zilliqa (yes I went through Tezos, EOS, NEO, VeChain, Harmony, Algorand, Cardano etc.). Note that this is not investment advice and although it's a thorough analysis there is obviously some bias involved. Looking forward to what you all think!
 
Fun fact: the name Zilliqa is a play on ‘silica’ silicon dioxide which means “Silicon for the high-throughput consensus computer.”
 
This post is divided into (i) Technology, (ii) Business & Partnerships, and (iii) Marketing & Community. I’ve tried to make the technology part readable for a broad audience. If you’ve ever tried understanding the inner workings of Bitcoin and Ethereum you should be able to grasp most parts. Otherwise, just skim through and once you are zoning out head to the next part.
 
Technology and some more:
 
Introduction
 
The technology is one of the main reasons why I’m so bullish on Zilliqa. First thing you see on their website is: “Zilliqa is a high-performance, high-security blockchain platform for enterprises and next-generation applications.” These are some bold statements.
 
Before we deep dive into the technology let’s take a step back in time first as they have quite the history. The initial research paper from which Zilliqa originated dates back to August 2016: Elastico: A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains where Loi Luu (Kyber Network) is one of the co-authors. Other ideas that led to the development of what Zilliqa has become today are: Bitcoin-NG, collective signing CoSi, ByzCoin and Omniledger.
 
The technical white paper was made public in August 2017 and since then they have achieved everything stated in the white paper and also created their own open source intermediate level smart contract language called Scilla (functional programming language similar to OCaml) too.
 
Mainnet is live since the end of January 2019 with daily transaction rates growing continuously. About a week ago mainnet reached 5 million transactions, 500.000+ addresses in total along with 2400 nodes keeping the network decentralized and secure. Circulating supply is nearing 11 billion and currently only mining rewards are left. The maximum supply is 21 billion with annual inflation being 7.13% currently and will only decrease with time.
 
Zilliqa realized early on that the usage of public cryptocurrencies and smart contracts were increasing but decentralized, secure, and scalable alternatives were lacking in the crypto space. They proposed to apply sharding onto a public smart contract blockchain where the transaction rate increases almost linear with the increase in the amount of nodes. More nodes = higher transaction throughput and increased decentralization. Sharding comes in many forms and Zilliqa uses network-, transaction- and computational sharding. Network sharding opens up the possibility of using transaction- and computational sharding on top. Zilliqa does not use state sharding for now. We’ll come back to this later.
 
Before we continue dissecting how Zilliqa achieves such from a technological standpoint it’s good to keep in mind that a blockchain being decentralised and secure and scalable is still one of the main hurdles in allowing widespread usage of decentralised networks. In my opinion this needs to be solved first before blockchains can get to the point where they can create and add large scale value. So I invite you to read the next section to grasp the underlying fundamentals. Because after all these premises need to be true otherwise there isn’t a fundamental case to be bullish on Zilliqa, right?
 
Down the rabbit hole
 
How have they achieved this? Let’s define the basics first: key players on Zilliqa are the users and the miners. A user is anybody who uses the blockchain to transfer funds or run smart contracts. Miners are the (shard) nodes in the network who run the consensus protocol and get rewarded for their service in Zillings (ZIL). The mining network is divided into several smaller networks called shards, which is also referred to as ‘network sharding’. Miners subsequently are randomly assigned to a shard by another set of miners called DS (Directory Service) nodes. The regular shards process transactions and the outputs of these shards are eventually combined by the DS shard as they reach consensus on the final state. More on how these DS shards reach consensus (via pBFT) will be explained later on.
 
The Zilliqa network produces two types of blocks: DS blocks and Tx blocks. One DS Block consists of 100 Tx Blocks. And as previously mentioned there are two types of nodes concerned with reaching consensus: shard nodes and DS nodes. Becoming a shard node or DS node is being defined by the result of a PoW cycle (Ethash) at the beginning of the DS Block. All candidate mining nodes compete with each other and run the PoW (Proof-of-Work) cycle for 60 seconds and the submissions achieving the highest difficulty will be allowed on the network. And to put it in perspective: the average difficulty for one DS node is ~ 2 Th/s equaling 2.000.000 Mh/s or 55 thousand+ GeForce GTX 1070 / 8 GB GPUs at 35.4 Mh/s. Each DS Block 10 new DS nodes are allowed. And a shard node needs to provide around 8.53 GH/s currently (around 240 GTX 1070s). Dual mining ETH/ETC and ZIL is possible and can be done via mining software such as Phoenix and Claymore. There are pools and if you have large amounts of hashing power (Ethash) available you could mine solo.
 
The PoW cycle of 60 seconds is a peak performance and acts as an entry ticket to the network. The entry ticket is called a sybil resistance mechanism and makes it incredibly hard for adversaries to spawn lots of identities and manipulate the network with these identities. And after every 100 Tx Blocks which corresponds to roughly 1,5 hour this PoW process repeats. In between these 1,5 hour, no PoW needs to be done meaning Zilliqa’s energy consumption to keep the network secure is low. For more detailed information on how mining works click here.
Okay, hats off to you. You have made it this far. Before we go any deeper down the rabbit hole we first must understand why Zilliqa goes through all of the above technicalities and understand a bit more what a blockchain on a more fundamental level is. Because the core of Zilliqa’s consensus protocol relies on the usage of pBFT (practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) we need to know more about state machines and their function. Navigate to Viewblock, a Zilliqa block explorer, and just come back to this article. We will use this site to navigate through a few concepts.
 
We have established that Zilliqa is a public and distributed blockchain. Meaning that everyone with an internet connection can send ZILs, trigger smart contracts, etc. and there is no central authority who fully controls the network. Zilliqa and other public and distributed blockchains (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) can also be defined as state machines.
 
Taking the liberty of paraphrasing examples and definitions given by Samuel Brooks’ medium article, he describes the definition of a blockchain (like Zilliqa) as: “A peer-to-peer, append-only datastore that uses consensus to synchronize cryptographically-secure data”.
 
Next, he states that: "blockchains are fundamentally systems for managing valid state transitions”. For some more context, I recommend reading the whole medium article to get a better grasp of the definitions and understanding of state machines. Nevertheless, let’s try to simplify and compile it into a single paragraph. Take traffic lights as an example: all its states (red, amber, and green) are predefined, all possible outcomes are known and it doesn’t matter if you encounter the traffic light today or tomorrow. It will still behave the same. Managing the states of a traffic light can be done by triggering a sensor on the road or pushing a button resulting in one traffic lights’ state going from green to red (via amber) and another light from red to green.
 
With public blockchains like Zilliqa, this isn’t so straightforward and simple. It started with block #1 almost 1,5 years ago and every 45 seconds or so a new block linked to the previous block is being added. Resulting in a chain of blocks with transactions in it that everyone can verify from block #1 to the current #647.000+ block. The state is ever changing and the states it can find itself in are infinite. And while the traffic light might work together in tandem with various other traffic lights, it’s rather insignificant comparing it to a public blockchain. Because Zilliqa consists of 2400 nodes who need to work together to achieve consensus on what the latest valid state is while some of these nodes may have latency or broadcast issues, drop offline or are deliberately trying to attack the network, etc.
 
Now go back to the Viewblock page take a look at the amount of transaction, addresses, block and DS height and then hit refresh. Obviously as expected you see new incremented values on one or all parameters. And how did the Zilliqa blockchain manage to transition from a previous valid state to the latest valid state? By using pBFT to reach consensus on the latest valid state.
 
After having obtained the entry ticket, miners execute pBFT to reach consensus on the ever-changing state of the blockchain. pBFT requires a series of network communication between nodes, and as such there is no GPU involved (but CPU). Resulting in the total energy consumed to keep the blockchain secure, decentralized and scalable being low.
 
pBFT stands for practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and is an optimization on the Byzantine Fault Tolerant algorithm. To quote Blockonomi: “In the context of distributed systems, Byzantine Fault Tolerance is the ability of a distributed computer network to function as desired and correctly reach a sufficient consensus despite malicious components (nodes) of the system failing or propagating incorrect information to other peers.” Zilliqa is such a distributed computer network and depends on the honesty of the nodes (shard and DS) to reach consensus and to continuously update the state with the latest block. If pBFT is a new term for you I can highly recommend the Blockonomi article.
 
The idea of pBFT was introduced in 1999 - one of the authors even won a Turing award for it - and it is well researched and applied in various blockchains and distributed systems nowadays. If you want more advanced information than the Blockonomi link provides click here. And if you’re in between Blockonomi and the University of Singapore read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 2 dating from October 2017.
Quoting from the Zilliqa tech whitepaper: “pBFT relies upon a correct leader (which is randomly selected) to begin each phase and proceed when the sufficient majority exists. In case the leader is byzantine it can stall the entire consensus protocol. To address this challenge, pBFT offers a view change protocol to replace the byzantine leader with another one.”
 
pBFT can tolerate ⅓ of the nodes being dishonest (offline counts as Byzantine = dishonest) and the consensus protocol will function without stalling or hiccups. Once there are more than ⅓ of dishonest nodes but no more than ⅔ the network will be stalled and a view change will be triggered to elect a new DS leader. Only when more than ⅔ of the nodes are dishonest (66%) double-spend attacks become possible.
 
If the network stalls no transactions can be processed and one has to wait until a new honest leader has been elected. When the mainnet was just launched and in its early phases, view changes happened regularly. As of today the last stalling of the network - and view change being triggered - was at the end of October 2019.
 
Another benefit of using pBFT for consensus besides low energy is the immediate finality it provides. Once your transaction is included in a block and the block is added to the chain it’s done. Lastly, take a look at this article where three types of finality are being defined: probabilistic, absolute and economic finality. Zilliqa falls under the absolute finality (just like Tendermint for example). Although lengthy already we skipped through some of the inner workings from Zilliqa’s consensus: read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 3 and you will be close to having a complete picture on it. Enough about PoW, sybil resistance mechanism, pBFT, etc. Another thing we haven’t looked at yet is the amount of decentralization.
 
Decentralisation
 
Currently, there are four shards, each one of them consisting of 600 nodes. 1 shard with 600 so-called DS nodes (Directory Service - they need to achieve a higher difficulty than shard nodes) and 1800 shard nodes of which 250 are shard guards (centralized nodes controlled by the team). The amount of shard guards has been steadily declining from 1200 in January 2019 to 250 as of May 2020. On the Viewblock statistics, you can see that many of the nodes are being located in the US but those are only the (CPU parts of the) shard nodes who perform pBFT. There is no data from where the PoW sources are coming. And when the Zilliqa blockchain starts reaching its transaction capacity limit, a network upgrade needs to be executed to lift the current cap of maximum 2400 nodes to allow more nodes and formation of more shards which will allow to network to keep on scaling according to demand.
Besides shard nodes there are also seed nodes. The main role of seed nodes is to serve as direct access points (for end-users and clients) to the core Zilliqa network that validates transactions. Seed nodes consolidate transaction requests and forward these to the lookup nodes (another type of nodes) for distribution to the shards in the network. Seed nodes also maintain the entire transaction history and the global state of the blockchain which is needed to provide services such as block explorers. Seed nodes in the Zilliqa network are comparable to Infura on Ethereum.
 
The seed nodes were first only operated by Zilliqa themselves, exchanges and Viewblock. Operators of seed nodes like exchanges had no incentive to open them for the greater public. They were centralised at first. Decentralisation at the seed nodes level has been steadily rolled out since March 2020 ( Zilliqa Improvement Proposal 3 ). Currently the amount of seed nodes is being increased, they are public-facing and at the same time PoS is applied to incentivize seed node operators and make it possible for ZIL holders to stake and earn passive yields. Important distinction: seed nodes are not involved with consensus! That is still PoW as entry ticket and pBFT for the actual consensus.
 
5% of the block rewards are being assigned to seed nodes (from the beginning in 2019) and those are being used to pay out ZIL stakers. The 5% block rewards with an annual yield of 10.03% translate to roughly 610 MM ZILs in total that can be staked. Exchanges use the custodial variant of staking and wallets like Moonlet will use the non-custodial version (starting in Q3 2020). Staking is being done by sending ZILs to a smart contract created by Zilliqa and audited by Quantstamp.
 
With a high amount of DS; shard nodes and seed nodes becoming more decentralized too, Zilliqa qualifies for the label of decentralized in my opinion.
 
Smart contracts
 
Let me start by saying I’m not a developer and my programming skills are quite limited. So I‘m taking the ELI5 route (maybe 12) but if you are familiar with Javascript, Solidity or specifically OCaml please head straight to Scilla - read the docs to get a good initial grasp of how Zilliqa’s smart contract language Scilla works and if you ask yourself “why another programming language?” check this article. And if you want to play around with some sample contracts in an IDE click here. The faucet can be found here. And more information on architecture, dapp development and API can be found on the Developer Portal.
If you are more into listening and watching: check this recent webinar explaining Zilliqa and Scilla. Link is time-stamped so you’ll start right away with a platform introduction, roadmap 2020 and afterwards a proper Scilla introduction.
 
Generalized: programming languages can be divided into being ‘object-oriented’ or ‘functional’. Here is an ELI5 given by software development academy: * “all programs have two basic components, data – what the program knows – and behavior – what the program can do with that data. So object-oriented programming states that combining data and related behaviors in one place, is called “object”, which makes it easier to understand how a particular program works. On the other hand, functional programming argues that data and behavior are different things and should be separated to ensure their clarity.” *
 
Scilla is on the functional side and shares similarities with OCaml: OCaml is a general-purpose programming language with an emphasis on expressiveness and safety. It has an advanced type system that helps catch your mistakes without getting in your way. It's used in environments where a single mistake can cost millions and speed matters, is supported by an active community, and has a rich set of libraries and development tools. For all its power, OCaml is also pretty simple, which is one reason it's often used as a teaching language.
 
Scilla is blockchain agnostic, can be implemented onto other blockchains as well, is recognized by academics and won a so-called Distinguished Artifact Award award at the end of last year.
 
One of the reasons why the Zilliqa team decided to create their own programming language focused on preventing smart contract vulnerabilities is that adding logic on a blockchain, programming, means that you cannot afford to make mistakes. Otherwise, it could cost you. It’s all great and fun blockchains being immutable but updating your code because you found a bug isn’t the same as with a regular web application for example. And with smart contracts, it inherently involves cryptocurrencies in some form thus value.
 
Another difference with programming languages on a blockchain is gas. Every transaction you do on a smart contract platform like Zilliqa or Ethereum costs gas. With gas you basically pay for computational costs. Sending a ZIL from address A to address B costs 0.001 ZIL currently. Smart contracts are more complex, often involve various functions and require more gas (if gas is a new concept click here ).
 
So with Scilla, similar to Solidity, you need to make sure that “every function in your smart contract will run as expected without hitting gas limits. An improper resource analysis may lead to situations where funds may get stuck simply because a part of the smart contract code cannot be executed due to gas limits. Such constraints are not present in traditional software systems”. Scilla design story part 1
 
Some examples of smart contract issues you’d want to avoid are: leaking funds, ‘unexpected changes to critical state variables’ (example: someone other than you setting his or her address as the owner of the smart contract after creation) or simply killing a contract.
 
Scilla also allows for formal verification. Wikipedia to the rescue: In the context of hardware and software systems, formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of intended algorithms underlying a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property, using formal methods of mathematics.
 
Formal verification can be helpful in proving the correctness of systems such as: cryptographic protocols, combinational circuits, digital circuits with internal memory, and software expressed as source code.
 
Scilla is being developed hand-in-hand with formalization of its semantics and its embedding into the Coq proof assistant — a state-of-the art tool for mechanized proofs about properties of programs.”
 
Simply put, with Scilla and accompanying tooling developers can be mathematically sure and proof that the smart contract they’ve written does what he or she intends it to do.
 
Smart contract on a sharded environment and state sharding
 
There is one more topic I’d like to touch on: smart contract execution in a sharded environment (and what is the effect of state sharding). This is a complex topic. I’m not able to explain it any easier than what is posted here. But I will try to compress the post into something easy to digest.
 
Earlier on we have established that Zilliqa can process transactions in parallel due to network sharding. This is where the linear scalability comes from. We can define simple transactions: a transaction from address A to B (Category 1), a transaction where a user interacts with one smart contract (Category 2) and the most complex ones where triggering a transaction results in multiple smart contracts being involved (Category 3). The shards are able to process transactions on their own without interference of the other shards. With Category 1 transactions that is doable, with Category 2 transactions sometimes if that address is in the same shard as the smart contract but with Category 3 you definitely need communication between the shards. Solving that requires to make a set of communication rules the protocol needs to follow in order to process all transactions in a generalised fashion.
 
And this is where the downsides of state sharding comes in currently. All shards in Zilliqa have access to the complete state. Yes the state size (0.1 GB at the moment) grows and all of the nodes need to store it but it also means that they don’t need to shop around for information available on other shards. Requiring more communication and adding more complexity. Computer science knowledge and/or developer knowledge required links if you want to dig further: Scilla - language grammar Scilla - Foundations for Verifiable Decentralised Computations on a Blockchain Gas Accounting NUS x Zilliqa: Smart contract language workshop
 
Easier to follow links on programming Scilla https://learnscilla.com/home Ivan on Tech
 
Roadmap / Zilliqa 2.0
 
There is no strict defined roadmap but here are topics being worked on. And via the Zilliqa website there is also more information on the projects they are working on.
 
Business & Partnerships
 
It’s not only technology in which Zilliqa seems to be excelling as their ecosystem has been expanding and starting to grow rapidly. The project is on a mission to provide OpenFinance (OpFi) to the world and Singapore is the right place to be due to its progressive regulations and futuristic thinking. Singapore has taken a proactive approach towards cryptocurrencies by introducing the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act). Among other things, the PS Act will regulate intermediaries dealing with certain cryptocurrencies, with a particular focus on consumer protection and anti-money laundering. It will also provide a stable regulatory licensing and operating framework for cryptocurrency entities, effectively covering all crypto businesses and exchanges based in Singapore. According to PWC 82% of the surveyed executives in Singapore reported blockchain initiatives underway and 13% of them have already brought the initiatives live to the market. There is also an increasing list of organizations that are starting to provide digital payment services. Moreover, Singaporean blockchain developers Building Cities Beyond has recently created an innovation $15 million grant to encourage development on its ecosystem. This all suggests that Singapore tries to position itself as (one of) the leading blockchain hubs in the world.
 
Zilliqa seems to already take advantage of this and recently helped launch Hg Exchange on their platform, together with financial institutions PhillipCapital, PrimePartners and Fundnel. Hg Exchange, which is now approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), uses smart contracts to represent digital assets. Through Hg Exchange financial institutions worldwide can use Zilliqa's safe-by-design smart contracts to enable the trading of private equities. For example, think of companies such as Grab, Airbnb, SpaceX that are not available for public trading right now. Hg Exchange will allow investors to buy shares of private companies & unicorns and capture their value before an IPO. Anquan, the main company behind Zilliqa, has also recently announced that they became a partner and shareholder in TEN31 Bank, which is a fully regulated bank allowing for tokenization of assets and is aiming to bridge the gap between conventional banking and the blockchain world. If STOs, the tokenization of assets, and equity trading will continue to increase, then Zilliqa’s public blockchain would be the ideal candidate due to its strategic positioning, partnerships, regulatory compliance and the technology that is being built on top of it.
 
What is also very encouraging is their focus on banking the un(der)banked. They are launching a stablecoin basket starting with XSGD. As many of you know, stablecoins are currently mostly used for trading. However, Zilliqa is actively trying to broaden the use case of stablecoins. I recommend everybody to read this text that Amrit Kumar wrote (one of the co-founders). These stablecoins will be integrated in the traditional markets and bridge the gap between the crypto world and the traditional world. This could potentially revolutionize and legitimise the crypto space if retailers and companies will for example start to use stablecoins for payments or remittances, instead of it solely being used for trading.
 
Zilliqa also released their DeFi strategic roadmap (dating November 2019) which seems to be aligning well with their OpFi strategy. A non-custodial DEX is coming to Zilliqa made by Switcheo which allows cross-chain trading (atomic swaps) between ETH, EOS and ZIL based tokens. They also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a (soon to be announced) USD stablecoin. And as Zilliqa is all about regulations and being compliant, I’m speculating on it to be a regulated USD stablecoin. Furthermore, XSGD is already created and visible on block explorer and XIDR (Indonesian Stablecoin) is also coming soon via StraitsX. Here also an overview of the Tech Stack for Financial Applications from September 2019. Further quoting Amrit Kumar on this:
 
There are two basic building blocks in DeFi/OpFi though: 1) stablecoins as you need a non-volatile currency to get access to this market and 2) a dex to be able to trade all these financial assets. The rest are built on top of these blocks.
 
So far, together with our partners and community, we have worked on developing these building blocks with XSGD as a stablecoin. We are working on bringing a USD-backed stablecoin as well. We will soon have a decentralised exchange developed by Switcheo. And with HGX going live, we are also venturing into the tokenization space. More to come in the future.”
 
Additionally, they also have this ZILHive initiative that injects capital into projects. There have been already 6 waves of various teams working on infrastructure, innovation and research, and they are not from ASEAN or Singapore only but global: see Grantees breakdown by country. Over 60 project teams from over 20 countries have contributed to Zilliqa's ecosystem. This includes individuals and teams developing wallets, explorers, developer toolkits, smart contract testing frameworks, dapps, etc. As some of you may know, Unstoppable Domains (UD) blew up when they launched on Zilliqa. UD aims to replace cryptocurrency addresses with a human-readable name and allows for uncensorable websites. Zilliqa will probably be the only one able to handle all these transactions onchain due to ability to scale and its resulting low fees which is why the UD team launched this on Zilliqa in the first place. Furthermore, Zilliqa also has a strong emphasis on security, compliance, and privacy, which is why they partnered with companies like Elliptic, ChainSecurity (part of PwC Switzerland), and Incognito. Their sister company Aqilliz (Zilliqa spelled backwards) focuses on revolutionizing the digital advertising space and is doing interesting things like using Zilliqa to track outdoor digital ads with companies like Foodpanda.
 
Zilliqa is listed on nearly all major exchanges, having several different fiat-gateways and recently have been added to Binance’s margin trading and futures trading with really good volume. They also have a very impressive team with good credentials and experience. They don't just have “tech people”. They have a mix of tech people, business people, marketeers, scientists, and more. Naturally, it's good to have a mix of people with different skill sets if you work in the crypto space.
 
Marketing & Community
 
Zilliqa has a very strong community. If you just follow their Twitter their engagement is much higher for a coin that has approximately 80k followers. They also have been ‘coin of the day’ by LunarCrush many times. LunarCrush tracks real-time cryptocurrency value and social data. According to their data, it seems Zilliqa has a more fundamental and deeper understanding of marketing and community engagement than almost all other coins. While almost all coins have been a bit frozen in the last months, Zilliqa seems to be on its own bull run. It was somewhere in the 100s a few months ago and is currently ranked #46 on CoinGecko. Their official Telegram also has over 20k people and is very active, and their community channel which is over 7k now is more active and larger than many other official channels. Their local communities also seem to be growing.
 
Moreover, their community started ‘Zillacracy’ together with the Zilliqa core team ( see www.zillacracy.com ). It’s a community-run initiative where people from all over the world are now helping with marketing and development on Zilliqa. Since its launch in February 2020 they have been doing a lot and will also run their own non-custodial seed node for staking. This seed node will also allow them to start generating revenue for them to become a self sustaining entity that could potentially scale up to become a decentralized company working in parallel with the Zilliqa core team. Comparing it to all the other smart contract platforms (e.g. Cardano, EOS, Tezos etc.) they don't seem to have started a similar initiative (correct me if I’m wrong though). This suggests in my opinion that these other smart contract platforms do not fully understand how to utilize the ‘power of the community’. This is something you cannot ‘buy with money’ and gives many projects in the space a disadvantage.
 
Zilliqa also released two social products called SocialPay and Zeeves. SocialPay allows users to earn ZILs while tweeting with a specific hashtag. They have recently used it in partnership with the Singapore Red Cross for a marketing campaign after their initial pilot program. It seems like a very valuable social product with a good use case. I can see a lot of traditional companies entering the space through this product, which they seem to suggest will happen. Tokenizing hashtags with smart contracts to get network effect is a very smart and innovative idea.
 
Regarding Zeeves, this is a tipping bot for Telegram. They already have 1000s of signups and they plan to keep upgrading it for more and more people to use it (e.g. they recently have added a quiz features). They also use it during AMAs to reward people in real-time. It’s a very smart approach to grow their communities and get familiar with ZIL. I can see this becoming very big on Telegram. This tool suggests, again, that the Zilliqa team has a deeper understanding of what the crypto space and community needs and is good at finding the right innovative tools to grow and scale.
 
To be honest, I haven’t covered everything (i’m also reaching the character limited haha). So many updates happening lately that it's hard to keep up, such as the International Monetary Fund mentioning Zilliqa in their report, custodial and non-custodial Staking, Binance Margin, Futures, Widget, entering the Indian market, and more. The Head of Marketing Colin Miles has also released this as an overview of what is coming next. And last but not least, Vitalik Buterin has been mentioning Zilliqa lately acknowledging Zilliqa and mentioning that both projects have a lot of room to grow. There is much more info of course and a good part of it has been served to you on a silver platter. I invite you to continue researching by yourself :-) And if you have any comments or questions please post here!
submitted by haveyouheardaboutit to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

My Very Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags and Clear Indications of Scumbaggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Need Your Help To Source References and Links For Existing Categories And Add New Ones. This is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE. I Know I've Missed Tonnes...Ideas?

My Very Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags and Clear Indications of Scumbaggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Need Your Help To Source References and Links For Existing Categories And Add New Ones. This is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE. I Know I've Missed Tonnes...Ideas?
Here’s my Top 22 list of suspicious shenanigans and red flags surrounding the COVID narrative:

  1. The Imperial College Death data - Neil Ferguson and Gates-funded Imperial College, London Model that ‘persuaded’ Johnson and Trump to lockdown. 500K deaths in UK and 2.2m deaths projected in US, EVEN WITH LOCKDOWN. Less than 10% accuracy but 110% alarmist, and evidence that the coding was deliberately flawed and designed to inflate numbers. Gates funding everyone involved in the staged 'debacle'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Ferguson, with a terrifyingly consistent track record for hyping minor viruses that fail to transpire into pandemics (Swine Flu, Bird Flu, BSE etc), failing upwards as a ‘safe pair of hands‘.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565369/useless-professor-neil-ferguson-antonia-staats/
EDIT: I‘ve reposted, but thought I’d put back the 95% that disappeared some minutes ago....
2) Ferguson’s blasé attitude to his affair during lockdown - clearly not too worried for his lovers’ family, if he genuinely believed COVID was a threat. No "error of judgement", just a man who knew there was nothing to fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/ministers-hypocrisy-over-neil-ferguson-lockdown-affair
3) Hospitals cleared of patients in readiness for a pandemic that never came. Desperate for cash, doctors and nurses were financially incentivised to put down patients dying with/ of COVID on death certificates to gain payments. In US $13,000 per patient, and $39,000 per patient on ventilator etc.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72070/this-is-how-much-hospitals-are-making-if-patients-have-coronavirus/index.html
Footage of empty hospitals worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ9yaUOVKs
Nurses furloughed, sent home for suspected virus without testing. Nurses - with nothing better to do - on TikTok etc:
Nurses slammed for filming TikTok showing them carrying coronavirus 'body-bag':
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nurses-slammed-filming-tiktok-showing-21960411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMHU6MtPVqQ etc
4) Games played with age and numbers, proof that only the elderly and very sick elderly were dying, but less of pneumonia and flu than in previous years. Median age of 79 in US and 82 in UK. Meanwhile whole country on lockdown.
"The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality."
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
(table from 2/7 down the page...)
5) When this became apparent, initial scare stories in press about children dying of virus, later proven to have no merit, just to ensure the hysteria was generalised. Meanwhile, probability of a child dying from the 'virus' is 35m to 1.

https://preview.redd.it/exxx18mdn8c51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9f00fd75d396a945a4244eab07b37325706eca3
"The second row shows that 2 deaths have been recorded among over 7 million school children aged between 5 and 14 (around 1 in 3.5 million), an extremely low risk — although additional deaths may be reported following coroners’ investigations. Over the last five years, there has been an average of 94 deaths registered over this 9-week period for those aged 5–14, and so the 2 Covid deaths represents only 2% of the normal risk faced by this group. That is, whatever average risk they would have faced in these 9 weeks if Covid had never existed — a risk which was extraordinarily low — was increased by Covid by only 2%."
from: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/kawasaki-like-disease-affecting-children-caused-coronavirus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264135/UK-says-children-died-syndrome-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8316223/Up-100-British-children-mysterious-inflammatory-disease-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8278963/Ill-youngsters-directly-exposed-corona-victims-refused-tests-medics.html
6) The ludicrous claim that they had never considered economic and psychological DEATH toll of lockdown.
There was a press conference in June on BBC, where they said "saving lives" from the virus was considered more important. Hard to believe, but I can't find the footage yet...
"One of the most consistent themes that emerges from the minutes of SAGE meetings is how the Government repeatedly expected its scientists to account for the economic impact of lockdown restrictions – even though SAGE was not doing any economic modelling."
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/03/sagegate-part-one-treasury-and-downing-street-advisors-delayed-covid-19-lockdown/
7) Doctors globally openly being told they can save paperwork and earn money by basing cause of death on ASSUMPTION of COVID, based on the vaguest of pretexts and symptoms.
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid19-cause-death-certificate-pcom-20200401.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-vax-doctor-covid-19-death-certificates-984407/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlGkCABfyLw
Also, from the UK...Health Secretary Matt Hancock calls for urgent review into coronavirus death data in England.
It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724
8) The propaganda campaign against any form of alternative to vaccine (Vitamin C and D, African cures, HCQ etc)
“The Government’s leading body for Covid19 drug trials – led by the controversial character Professor Peter Horby – Oxford’s Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health and heading the vaccine programme - stands accused of grossly misleading negative trial results for the coronavirus management drug Hydroxychloroqhine. (Conflict of interest, surely?)
The lead story in today’s France Soir – a long-respected and unaligned French daily – presents compelling evidence to suggest that the Whitehall/Cabinet Covid19 “advice” team cannot be trusted….and raises yet more doubts about BBC complicity in a false Coronavirus narrative.”
https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/explosive-more-uk-covid-experts-facing-serious-data-manipulation-charges/
http://www.francesoir.fsociete-sante/remdesivir-une-molecule-dinteret-therapeutique-tres-discutable-sur-le-covid-19-partie ( in French)
The [Lancet’s] claim that hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients has been used by rivals as a stick to beat the US President, who has himself been taking the drug and hailed it a 'game-changer' in the war on coronavirus**.**
Mounting doubts over the study's reliability culminated yesterday when the authors retracted their study from the Lancet medical journal, whose editorial standards have also been thrown into question.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html
“The Deputy Chief Investigator of the Recovery Trial, Prof. Martin Landray, gave an interview to France-Soir. What he revealed was quite remarkable.
Firstly, the mortality rate of the hydroxychloroquine patients was a staggering 25.7%.
The recommended hydroxychloroquine dose for an adult in the UK is no more than 200 — 400 mg per day. In France, 1800 mg per day is considered to be lethal poisoning.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
https://time.com/5840148/coronavirus-cure-covid-organic-madagasca
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vitamin-c-myth.html
9) The saturation of Gates into the narrative at every level. His hallowed and unquestioned presence in media as expert, the only Moses who can lead us out of this wilderness with his magic potions, release us from our prisons with his benevolence. His financial connections through BMGF to NIH, CDC, WHO, BBC, Guardian, CNN etc and of course every pharmaceutical company in existence....
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Amazing Polly (pretty much every video this year):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm19xYwJ2nQ
BBC compromised:

“Transforming lives through media”? Gates and the CIA? Can we give up the pretence that neutral Auntie speaks for - or represents - us and our best interests?
Charities and foundations - without transparency, oversight and apparently universally trusted. Call your genocidal plans ‘charity’ and not only will you look like a philanthrApist, but people will even donate to their own demise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
EDIT: For further information, I just found this webpage:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
UK Guardian compromised:
Hear the Guardian is regrettably letting 180 staff go this week. Hopefully BMGF can find them suitable homes...
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/22/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundations-sponsorship-of-the-guardian/
From the article:
“This story came from a Guardian sub-section called ‘Global Development‘.
But then I came across this 2010 Guardian story about how the Guardian has started up this new ‘Global Development’ site in partnership with… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So much information on Gates...almost “paralysed” with possibilities. Ideas?
10) Recent US and UK stories where people clearly dying of other things - cancer, suicide, motorcycle accidents etc are ascribed to COVID. Officially, George Floyd’s death should have been ascribed to COVID, since I believe he tested positive during autopsy. Might have led to a very different world...
https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-autopsy-coronavirus-protests-a9548386.html
HighImpactFix video about case number “massage” and motorcycle anomalies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olz03OPeijM&feature=youtu.be
11) Recent US and UK stories of the deceitful practices by which:
i) the case numbers are conflated with all death numbers on certain days
ii) Dying "of" vs "with" COVID
iii) anyone who dies after testing positive is a COVID death
iv) cases being reported and subliminally conflated with deaths by the media, when death numbers fell too low to keep the public sufficiently terrified to accept coming measures
v) case numbers merely made up or inflated by a factor of ten, in Florida’s case last week.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
Too many to include all here, but the recent Florida 'mistake' is here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7g8BgKAXE
If this is a genuine event, what possible reason would there be to commit fraud in so many ways to keep it looking genuine, besides the need to control demolish the world economy and vaccine-shill?
12) Event 201. Drill gone live. Nuff said.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
CORBETT REPORT:
https://www.corbettreport.com/mml2020/
Amazing Polly:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7O5RylrMUV8F/
13) The fact that there have been no surprises at all since the crisis began. Every next step had been telegraphed in the media well in advance. Everything began with the notion that a vaccine would be the only solution and the narrative has remained remarkably consistent to Event201.
14) Even with all of these statistical somersaults, the death numbers this year are not far from what they’ve been in previous years. Pneumonia and flu deaths are suspiciously down.

2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Compared with:

2019- Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
2019 Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/
MUCH, MUCH MORE DATA NEEDED HERE....
15) That in the space of four months, they have managed to capitalise on this crisis and remove so many rights from us permanently. An opportunity for which they’ve been waiting for years, COVID sped up the process and kept us otherwise preoccupied.
Here is my list of achieved or achievable hidden agenda:
In no particular order:
  1. Controlled demolition of the stock market/ global economy. Global reset etc
  2. Transhumanist/ AI rollout (post-human, Gates patents for human batteries linked with cryptocurrency (60606). https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/
  3. Vaccine adulation and promotion (Gates etc promising vaccine = release from captivity - pharmaceutical companies in league with WHO to drum up mandatory sales)
  4. Expediting the climate change agenda, conflating it with the virus as a call for world government and global sustainability.
  5. Plus RFID/ ID2020 tracking through vaccines (mark of the beast, without which no transaction/ employment will be possible)
  6. Demonisation and eradication of cash (total financial dominion)
  7. Mass unemployment and Universal Credit system linked to Social Credit.
  8. Bank (and corporate) bailouts – this time round it looks legitimate and necessary, no public outcry.
  9. Using and conditioning us to the concept of quarantining as a future method of control should there be any hint of unrest.
  10. Cultification of the NHS to the point of a unifying religion (clapping and donations and lionisation of medical staff during what must be the quietest time in their history)
  11. Legitimation of multiculturalism and immigration (race-baiting through NHS and volunteers, #youclapforusnow
  12. A shot in the arm for the MSM and government as a whole: no longer irrelevant and dying, people watching 24-7 since pandemic. Taking attention away from alternative media.
  13. Privatisation of NHS/ public services – corporations will step in to ‘save’ us (public gratitude replacing scepticism)
  14. Makes government look noble and heroic (wartime/ WW2 mentality fostered)
  15. COVID19 as cover story for 5G radiation/ environmental pollution/ vaccine damage etc
  16. Mass Surveillance – using 5G ‘for our safety’ to track and trace
  17. Opportunity to pass draconian laws against human rights (assembly, sectioning, travel, speech)
  18. Social alienation/ conformity as preference/ patriotic duty
  19. Prevention of assembly in order to protest draconian laws
  20. Depopulation in stages (elderly first, then with vaccines and suicides/ bankruptcy etc due to system collapse)
  21. Censorship of social media and social discourse in general
  22. Installation of 5G during lockdown to avoid scrutiny
  23. Effecting the transition of the workplace, shopping district and school to the home, ending community and all nourishing human interactions.
  24. The ‘new normal’ - social revolution and culture creation through social distancing/ queuing for shops/reinvention of the word essential/ mask wearing etc
  25. Destruction of small and medium sized businesses and the high street in general
  26. Fauci’s early dismissive comments about virus, herd immunity and futility of masks, before the script was revised.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
”You don’t need a mask.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHsEmlIoE4
To the NEJM, he described COVID in March as a flu, with similar numbers predicted to suffer.
“WOW! Dr. Fauci in New England Journal of Medicine Concedes the Coronavirus Mortality Rate May Be Much Closer to a Very Bad Flu”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/wow-dr-fauci-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-concedes-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-may-be-much-closer-to-a-very-bad-flu/
Why the u-turn? Surely we define our experts by their consistency.
F William Engdahl article:
https://fort-russ.com/amp/2020/04/shedding-light-on-the-dishonorable-record-of-dr-fauci-a-real-mengele/
Christine Grady (Fauci’s wife):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYen0g4TRU
17) Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries - The statistical chances (14%) of three members of the UK Cabinet (made up of 22 people), including the prime minister, actually catching it and one almost dying apparently, right before reversing his decision to let it pass.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-of-senior-government-figures-affected-by-coronavirus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51827356
A very intentionally dramatic start to our lockdown, announced by Johnson from his "death-bed", ensuring all were in the appropriate state of panic:
"Boris Johnson: Hospital doctors were ready to announce my death"
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-hospital-doctors-were-ready-to-announce-my-death/
18) Meanwhile, racism knocks the virus off the front pages and our minds for a few weeks, but we’re meant to go right back to taking it seriously when requested.
https://summit.news/2020/06/05/1200-public-health-experts-sign-letter-advocating-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-is-a-bigger-threat-than-covid-19/
19) The many proven fake media stories...of long lines for testing and hospital footage from NY, mannequins in beds etc
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-accused-by-project-veritas-of-faking-footage-in-michigan-coronavirus-testing-report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUBTtUTOII
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-video-operating-dummy-coron/partly-false-claim-video-shows-doctors-operating-on-a-dummy-to-exaggerate-extent-of-coronavirus-crisis-idUSKBN21P2Q8
20) International care home scandals - Deliberately mandating coronavirus carriers into crowded care homes to bump up death toll and concomitant hysteria, kill off elderly...murder?
"It is remarkable how many deaths during this pandemic have occurred in care homes. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in the 11 weeks up to 22 May in England and Wales — 25,000 more than you would expect at this time of the year. Two out of five care homes in England have had a coronavirus outbreak; in the north-east, it’s half.
Not all these deaths, however, have been attributed to Covid-19. Even when death certificates do mention it, it is not always clear that it is the disease that was the ultimate cause of death..."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
"The daughter of a 91-year-old gran who died of Covid-19 she contracted in a care home is demanding to know why her mum was “sacrificed” by ministers.
Retired teacher Anne Duncan died in Edinburgh’s Western General Hospitaltwo days after her family managed to force a move out of the care home in the city where they feared she would die alone.
Her daughter Linda hit out at what she called a “scandalous” policy to release coronavirus patients into care homes and called for her mum’s death to be investigated as part of a wider review."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/scots-gran-who-died-covid-22172074
Also, more than 40% of US ‘virus‘ deaths occur in nursing homes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/504885-over-40-percent-of-us-covid-19-deaths-are-linked-to-nursing-homes-nyt
21) (thanks to law of confusion!) Ventilators - All of the sudden, a clamour for them generated panic demand and buying. Cuomo desperate, while he sat in front of a warehouse wall full of them. Hegelian dialectics at play. Trump apparently withholding, Trump giving them out like Oprah, then the evidence that they were killing most people on them.
“A giant study that examined outcomes for more than 2,600 patients found an extraordinarily high 88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study
22) Testing inconsistencies:
Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds.
”The study's lead author, Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/half-of-cdc-coronavirus-test-kits-are-inaccurate-study-finds/ar-BB16S6M6
“According to the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis himself, it cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/05/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts/
Also, this about CT testing irregularities:
https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/covid-19/connecticut-says-it-found-testing-flaw-90-false-positives/article_91811362-a9b3-53ab-9485-00067ce9e0d5.html
Funny how all the “mistakes” err on the side of positive...
submitted by secretymology to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Warning: Blockchain difficulty adjustment affecting price movements

Below are notable difficulty adjustments when hash rate fell and block times become slower for Bitcoin.
  1. 26 Mar 2020 [difficulty adjustment -15.95%, avg block time 11min 54secs]. On the 28th price crashed from $6674 to $6138 ( -8%).
  2. 8 Nov 2019 [difficulty adjustment -7.1%, avg block time 10min 46secs]. On the same day price crashed from $9234 to $8783 ( -4.88%).
  3. The next big adjustment was around Nov to Dec 2018 and there were 3 big adjustments with high block times.

Current situation:
We are 1 day 10 hours from the next difficulty adjustment. Projected difficulty adjustment is -5.61% (https://fork.lol/pow/retarget), which could indicate a small dip. However, take note that the date of last adjustment was the 5th and the 3rd halving was on the 11th, between the 5th to the 11th there was increased hashrate from miners trying to mine the final week of 12.5btc that offset the really slow block times after the halving. Therefore it will be the next difficulty adjustment after the one on the 20th that will completely reflect the slower block times after the halving. Currently the median block time taken on the 17th was around 14min (-28.5% difficulty adjustment).
For people who do not understand blockchain, basically with the Bitcoin 3rd halving, mining profitability fell for a lot of miners and they probably turned off their miners therefore the blockchain mining time became considerably slower which is reflected with slow transaction speed and higher fees as seen currently. Bitcoin sellers moving their BTC from wallet to an exchange are faced with slow transaction speed and therefore the sell pressure of BTC fell considerably which will attribute to the current price increase. There is a correlation between sell pressure and blockchain congestion (the size of the correlation is undetermined).
There is going to be a race. A race between BTC price hiking high enough to attract more miners to reduce avg block times versus the closing window of roughly 2 weeks before the next difficulty adjustment. If the price does not jump high enough, the next difficulty adjustment in the first week of June could signal a huge dip.
I am not an expert. I just did some research on the above and wanted to share with fellow Bitcoin compatriots so that we can tread with caution and not lose our shirts. I do not plan to short BTC but I will exit my BTC positions if I expect double digit negative difficulty adjustment in early June.
Please visit the original post here https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/gm23pe/warning_blockchain_difficulty_adjustment/
There are pictures in the original post as well as 2nd halving evidence with pics. I could not post pics here. If possible please upvote the original post, a lot of people downvote it. Not sure why people downvote it, maybe veterans attempting to hide information from newcomers to fleece them of their shirt.

Update 1:>! As of writing, I have opened a small short position on Bitcoin. Stop loss around 10k, estimated take profit around 8500. The reason is because the difficulty adjustment in the next 20 hours, even though is just -5% roughly is still significant. I direct you to look into all the difficulty adjustments in the last 2 years and you will know how rare it is. The ones I caught were all listed at the very top of the post. Since it is my first time shorting BTC, I take this as a learning opportunity so that I will have some experience to face the bigger difficulty adjustment in the first week of June. Analysis into execution, even in failure I am happy.!<
Update 2: The difficulty adjustment (DA) happened roughly 6 hours ago and the sell pressure from -6% DA did not seem to be affecting the market much. However, please take a look now at the estimation for the next DA.
On https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/ it is estimated to be -25%.
On https://fork.lol/pow/retarget estimated to be -18%.
On https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time the median block time for the last day was 16.8min.
My original proposition that the true DA of the halving can only be realized in the next DA stands and that it will be considerable. The increased sell pressure from that DA will be highly significant. That is why there is a race by current miners to get the BTC price up high enough to attract more miners to not have the DA drop too much.
Update 3: Current BTC price at $9100 ( ~39 hours after DA). Then again BTC could have dropped from all sorts of reason. However the coincidence with the DA and with all the past DA is just too high to simply shrug off as irrelevant. Anyways past result cannot predict future ones, stay safe with the trading. Will no longer check on this post.
References:
Difficulty adjustment dates taken from https://btc.com/stats/diff
Bitcoin graph history for price movement taken from coinmarketcap.
Median confirmation time (block time) taken from https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time

Credits to people who assisted the analysis:
kairepaire for pointing out faster block times between 5th-11th.
babies_eater for https://fork.lol/pow/retarget
moes_tavern_wifi for https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/dashboard/
Pantamis for https://diff.cryptothis.com/
submitted by theforwardbrain to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Monero - The Elephant in the Room

The state of financial privacy in 2020
Note: You can read this in a friendlier format with images over on Medium - https://medium.com/@johnfoss/the-elephant-in-the-room-34e061f5912a
The erosion of personal privacy is gaining momentum since the coronavirus pandemic took hold. Worldwide, there have been numerous calls by governments and social commentators to increase the surveillance of citizens in hope of controlling the virus. Corporations such as Google and Apple, along with countries such as Singapore, Germany, Belgium, USA, and South Korea have been utilizing smartphone data in different capacities to monitor the movements of citizens.
Many believe the implementation of new surveillance measures will calcify and become the new norm, setting precedence for further encroachment.
Mainstream media has also begun supporting the notion of increased surveillance to serve social and financial needs. A recent Bloomberg opinion piece discussed the need for increased surveillance, pointing out the financial system we operate within is fractured and inefficient when dealing with wide spread social and economic problems.
Once again, government over-reach of citizens’ privacy is a considered solution to our problems.
Countries such as Sweden (which is expected to go entirely cashless by 2023) have been leading the charge in moving to a cashless world, and in Australia the government is preparing to ban cash transactions over ten thousand dollars in order to increase monitorization.
This road to a cashless society is being sped up by the coronavirus pandemic. There is correlation between countries where ‘cash is king’ and a high number of coronavirus infections. Many retail stores are now too afraid to accept cash due to possible virus transmission, with some outright refusing to transact with cash.
The erosion of privacy, and the gradual transition from cash to digital financial transactions leads us to murky waters. Will we be able to conduct private financial transactions five to ten years from now?
Throughout the past decade, unorthodox individuals turned to Bitcoin in order to transact privately. This led to the inception of popular online darknet markets such as the Silk Road. However, many of the darknet markets proved to be unreliable and short-lived. It soon became apparent to Bitcoin users that Bitcoin is not private, and many of those conducting transactions in relation to darknet markets were identified and prosecuted.
Blockchain analytic companies such as Chainanalysis gained traction and suddenly Bitcoin tumblers were found to be ineffective. Blockchain analytic companies take advantage of Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain, analysing data and tracking transaction outputs. The blockchain analytic company then sells this information to cryptocurrency exchanges and government organisations so they can link Bitcoin addresses to specific users. Many Bitcoin advocates tout Bitcoin can be used privately via the use of newer tumbling technologies, however this is a somewhat arduous process with no guarantee of its effectiveness. In December 2019 Chainanalysis demonstrated how they tracked transactions mixed via Wasabi Wallet that were associated with the PlusToken scam. Tumbling also leads to the possibility of coin taint, whereas certain Bitcoin may be perceived to be less valuable because they can be identified as being associated with nefarious activities, and as a result exchange services may confiscate coins when a user attempts to sell them.
While Bitcoin holds many desirable characteristics of sound money, many prominent figures within the Bitcoin space have repeatedly discussed on the need for default privacy and fungibility. However, as was seen in previous years’ block size dispute, the issue of privacy will come with great lengthy debate as stakeholders attempt to reach a consensus that does not impact upon the characteristics of Bitcoin.
As change within the social and financial landscape continues to accelerate, those seeking financial privacy may turn to Monero.
Monero is the elephant in the room.
Monero is a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin and shares many of the same characteristics of sound money, however it also provides default privacy. Unlike other privacy focused cryptocurrencies, privacy isn’t opt-in, so all transactions and wallet amounts are unknown and indistinguishable from one another. Every unit of Monero is valued equally as no matter its history. This allows Monero to be truly fungible, and eradicates any possibility of coin taint. It has proven this in a number of cases. For example, exchanges have been hesitant to list Monero due to KYC/AML compliance issues it raises because it is impossible to determine transaction history.
If Monero provides financial privacy solutions, why is Monero being ignored?
Firstly, while most deem privacy to be important, many are yet to find it necessary to adopt privacy technologies. There are many easy to use privacy solutions such as Signal or DuckDuckGo, however these are not widely used as users opt for convenience instead. As surveillance increases and data collected is harnessed to marginalize or punish users, it is like that privacy technologies will become extremely desirable. Additionally, acquiring Monero can be difficult or inconvenient for some, as cryptocurrency exchanges must comply with laws and regulations, and may perceive it to be a risk listing an untraceable cryptocurrency. This also leads to lower liquidity than other cryptocurrencies.
Monero remains a community driven project. Public figures such as John McAfee and Crypto Vigilante continue to advocate the use of Monero ahead of Bitcoin. Due to its humble and open-source nature, Monero isn’t widely promoted even though it maintains the third largest cryptocurrency community on Reddit after Bitcoin and Ethereum.
In respect to the technology, Monero’s hashrate has steadily been increasing over time, and the number of daily transactions taking place on the Monero blockchain are higher than ever. The Monero Research Lab continues its research in order to improve the protocol. Over the past few years these improvements resulted in reduced transaction fees, and enhanced scalability and privacy.
In just a few years from now, it is extremely likely traditional financial systems will not provide the capacity to transact privately. Banks will be required to ask questions regarding why certain transactions took place, and recorded transaction data will be sold to third parties. As the erosion of our privacy continues to accelerate, it won’t be long until Monero gains the use and recognition it deserves, and price reflects this.
Monero is what people think Bitcoin is.
Feel free to share or publish this article as you wish.
submitted by johnfoss68 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Conspiracy (an enthusiast's perspective)

I keep coming across comments, especially in this sub, from people claiming that Bitcoin was created by the CIA or some government agency as part of the plan for the NWO and cashless society. I want to share my experience and try to clear up the confusion surrounding this topic.
I first got involved with Bitcoin in late 2016 when I heard about it and got some while at a libertarian festival. Back then it was still very popular among the agorist community and was being promoted as THE silver bullet that was going to disrupt the global fiat banking system.
Putting preconceptions aside, a new user might ask, "what's so special about Bitcoin? We already have digital currencies."
Well, you only need to read the first page of the whitepaper to discover what the original intent of Bitcoin was. It most definitely was not intended to be a tool for central banks to subjugate the world to a centralized global currency. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the full whitepaper here.
When I first learned about Bitcoin, it forced me to learn about economics, then the Federal Reserve, then one by one the dominoes fell and down the conspiracy rabbit hole I went. In 2017 (actually it started a few years earlier, but I wasn't paying attention back then) there was a very heated debate in the Bitcoin community regarding scaling.
I'll try to break it down simply:
In the very early days, when Bitcoin was just a project being worked on by a few very technical people, no one knew about it. All it took was a handful of people running the software on their laptops to mine new coins. Since there was not much computing power on the network, it meant there could easily be a spam attack where a malicious user could join the network and generate many gigabytes of spam transactions that would overload and crash the network. To prevent this, Satoshi implemented a limit of 1MB per block, to protect the network until there was enough computing power to be able to handle larger blocks.
This measure worked, and Bitcoin grew exponentially.
Satoshi vanished in 2010, after WikiLeaks attracted unwanted attention to the project by accepting Bitcoin donations. He left clear instructions for his successors that the 1MB block size limit was meant to be increased once the network could support high levels of user traffic. At the time, there still was not much use, so it wasn't until around 2014 that blocks started hitting the 1MB cap and all of a sudden users had to compete (by paying higher transaction fees) in order to get their transaction mined into the next block.
Up until then, sending a Bitcoin transaction would cost $0.0001 (hundredth of a penny) or less, no matter if you were sending $0.10 or $1,000,000. Now, since block space was limited, fees started to rise, as miners would only include the transactions with the highest fees. Over the next couple years, transaction fees went up dramatically, at times reaching as high as $100 to send a single transaction.
The solution was obvious - raise the block size limit.
But this led to a heated debate, and this is where the conspiracy became obvious to those who were paying attention. Since Bitcoin was decentralized and open source, anyone could contribute, but certain people controlled the commit access to the github repo, and it became apparent that those individuals had been compromised, as any and all mention of increasing the block size was met with fierce resistance.
There was a misinformation campaign to discredit anyone arguing for larger blocks. The argument was that larger blocks would mean users could not run the software on their low-power personal devices and laptops; that by increasing the block size it would lead to mining centralization. Well, if you read the whitepaper linked above, you'll see that Satoshi predicted this. He knew mining would eventually be left to "specialized server farms" while normal users could use what he termed Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) wallets.
But this point was consistently shot down in the community, and especially on /bitcoin. There was a MASSIVE censorship campaign in the bitcoin subreddit that continues to this day where anyone who questions the official narrative or even asks a basic technical question is immediately banned. /bitcoin today is nothing but a cesspit of price memes and misinformation. Go to /btc for the uncensored discussions (but beware of trolls).
In 2017 the debate was finally settled, sort of. Now known as "Bitcoin Core" (the name of the official Bitcoin software), the developers implemented a change known as SegWit (Segregated Witness) which fundamentally altered the way the software validates transactions. It was implemented as a "soft fork" rather than a "hard fork".
I'll explain the difference.
In a fork, the network comes to a consensus on new rules that all participants must follow. In a hard fork, the changes are non-backwards compatible, so all users must update their software or else be left behind on a dead network. Hard forks happen all the time in software development, but in the case of SegWit, the developers refused to make any non-backwards compatible changes for fear it might alienate users. Again, another unfounded fear. "We can't ever upgrade the technical capabilities of the network (such as the block size) because some people might not go along with it."
All kinds of mental gymnastics were performed to justify their refusal to increase the block size, and there was nothing anyone could do about it except fork as an independent project. The 1MB block limit is now essentially set in stone for BTC. So in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard forked by increasing the block size limit to 8MB, along with some other changes.
Fast forward to December 2017 and Bitcoin was at its all time high of nearly $20,000. But fees were also astronomical and because of the 1MB block size limit, a huge backlog formed, and some people had to wait days or even weeks for their transaction to confirm. If anyone was trying to cash out into fiat and didn't want to pay a $100 transaction fee, by the time their transaction got confirmed the price had already crashed.
This event was largely responsible for the bear market of 2018. Everything that happened was predicted by those who knew what was going on.
A company called Blockstream had essentially wrestled control of Bitcoin from the original developers and shut them out or gained control over them, and started working on turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for their product called Lightning Network.
LN is a complicated topic that I don't want to get into, but essentially it's a framework that recreates all the same problems inherent in the banking system that Bitcoin was meant to solve. Blockstream's goal is to profit from creating, and then "solving" those problems by charging users fees for all kinds of custodial services.
In my personal opinion, it's obvious that the original Bitcoin project has been hijacked and repurposed into a tool for the central banks. The propaganda is being pushed in some conspiracy circles that Bitcoin was created BY the central banks in order to discourage people from researching the true history. What is now commonly called "Bitcoin" is not the original project, but a Trojan horse.
The project that most closely follows the original design is Bitcoin Cash, and that is where almost all organic development is happening, and personally I feel that it's picking up steam lately as more people wake up to what's happening in the economy right now. Unfortunately most people are still unaware of how fundamentally broken BTC is now and so as new users run toward cryptocurrency to escape the dollar collapse, most will fall straight into the trap and be stuck with BTC that they won't be able to use without paying exorbitant fees and/or submitting to the very same tracking system they are trying to get away from.
This is a very deep rabbit hole but I think I've written enough for now. I hope this info helps people make sense of what's going on with Bitcoin. I know it's confusing enough even without so much deception taking place so hopefully this helps.
Read the Bitcoin FAQ over on /btc.
submitted by PM_ME_YOUR_ALTCOINS to conspiracy [link] [comments]

The problem with segwit noone talks about

While we all know that segwit does help to reduce overall transaction fees the problem with it I'd like to focus on is reduced privacy on the blockchain.
Okay, so what's the problem exactly?
Currently there are 3 different Bitcoin address formats: legacy (starts with 1), segwit (starts with 3) and native segwit (starts with bc1q). Bitcoin's privacy relies sorely on the never ending mess of transactions and exponentially increasing amount of addresses (inputs/outputs). And because of the different address types the people use and because those address types are non-convertable it's very easy to spot which output is the actual transaction and which is the change transaction.
Let's take a look at this random transaction I found:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/20d9f68669379356f43e19845dcb2de87c21b1758abced883fef11f405887698
We can see 2 bc1q type addresses sending a payment to:
Can you see the issue I'm talking about? The 3AE address is the destination address while bc1q is the change address and most likely belongs to the original sender. This simple address format analysis took me literally few seconds.
It is not a problem when we do not know who's behind the address but once we target a specific person we can trace his transaction history a lot easier and with higher confidence compared to the times when only 1 address format was available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
block size limit reached -> high fees -> segwit introduced -> reduced privacy
submitted by Zaczer_o to btc [link] [comments]

One thing that concerns me

...will Bitcoin fall from its #1 spot in the incoming bull run?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever I look on the charts from let's say past month for:
It's visible that whenever there is a slightest spike 3-10% in price, the fee raises from ~5 sat/b to around ~70 sat/b (14x the usual). Most of the current blocks are filled to the top with transactions. What do you think will happen when we start seeing 15% or 20% price spikes?
It is clear that Bitcoin has reached its limit in 2017 and almost nothing has been done since then. There is an argument about segwit allowing for 2MB blocks. The reality is that the 2MB blocks are very, VERY rare and it's clearly not enough to satisfy Bitcoin in the incoming bull run.
Check out this Bitcoin block size chart.
Bitcoin lightning? It is good for some crypto geeks however an average Joe will not know how to setup the lightning channel. At the current state the user experience is just so bad. I can't think about BTCLN succeeding on the global scale.
I can agree about Bitcoin being digital gold however it is not ready for the every day use. I have a strong feeling the whole cryptocurrency community will flip on its head in 2021. For the first time in history we will be seeing Bitcoin on #3 or even #4 spot.
Bitcoin has wasted potential in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final words: Nothing is perfect, I know that. That's why we have a such variety in the altcoin's market with every new project trying to be better than its predecessor. It's all about improvement.
Team #bitcoin_cash #ethereum #monero.
submitted by Zaczer_o to btc [link] [comments]

Polkadot Launch AMA Recap

Polkadot Launch AMA Recap

The Polkadot Telegram AMA below took place on June 10, 2020

https://preview.redd.it/4ti681okap951.png?width=4920&format=png&auto=webp&s=e21f6a9a276d35bb9cdec59f46744f23c37966ef
AMA featured:
Dieter Fishbein, Ecosystem Development Lead, Web3 Foundation
Logan Saether, Technical Education, Web3 Foundation
Will Pankiewicz, Master of Validators, Parity Technologies
Moderated by Dan Reecer, Community and Growth, Polkadot & Kusama at Web3 Foundation

Transcription compiled by Theresa Boettger, Polkadot Ambassador:

Dieter Fishbein, Ecosystem Development Lead, Web3 Foundation

Dan: Hey everyone, thanks for joining us for the Polkadot Launch AMA. We have Dieter Fishbein (Head of Ecosystem Development, our business development team), Logan Saether (Technical Education), and Will Pankiewicz (Master of Validators) joining us today.
We had some great questions submitted in advance, and we’ll start by answering those and learning a bit about each of our guests. After we go through the pre-submitted questions, then we’ll open up the chat to live Q&A and the hosts will answer as many questions as they can.
We’ll start off with Dieter and ask him a set of some business-related questions.

Dieter could you introduce yourself, your background, and your role within the Polkadot ecosystem?

Dieter: I got my start in the space as a cryptography researcher at the University of Waterloo. This is where I first learned about Bitcoin and started following the space. I spent the next four years or so on the investment team for a large asset manager where I primarily focused on emerging markets. In 2017 I decided to take the plunge and join the space full-time. I worked at a small blockchain-focused VC fund and then joined the Polkadot team just over a year ago. My role at Polkadot is mainly focused on ensuring there is a vibrant community of projects building on our technology.

Q: Adoption of Polkadot of the important factors that all projects need to focus on to become more attractive to the industry. So, what is Polkadot's plan to gain more Adoption? [sic]

A (Dieter): Polkadot is fundamentally a developer-focused product so much of our adoption strategy is focused around making Polkadot an attractive product for developers. This has many elements. Right now the path for most developers to build on Polkadot is by creating a blockchain using the Substrate framework which they will later connect to Polkadot when parachains are enabled. This means that much of our adoption strategy comes down to making Substrate an attractive tool and framework. However, it’s not just enough to make building on Substrate attractive, we must also provide an incentive to these developers to actually connect their Substrate-based chain to Polkadot. Part of this incentive is the security that the Polkadot relay chain provides but another key incentive is becoming interoperable with a rich ecosystem of other projects that connect to Polkadot. This means that a key part of our adoption strategy is outreach focused. We go out there and try to convince the best projects in the space that building on our technology will provide them with significant value-add. This is not a purely technical argument. We provide significant support to projects building in our ecosystem through grants, technical support, incubatoaccelerator programs and other structured support programs such as the Substrate Builders Program (https://www.substrate.io/builders-program). I do think we really stand out in the significant, continued support that we provide to builders in our ecosystem. You can also take a look at the over 100 Grants that we’ve given from the Web3 Foundation: https://medium.com/web3foundation/web3-foundation-grants-program-reaches-100-projects-milestone-8fd2a775fd6b

Q: On moving forward through your roadmap, what are your most important next priorities? Does the Polkadot team have enough fundamentals (Funds, Community, etc.) to achieve those milestones?

A (Dieter): I would say the top priority by far is to ensure a smooth roll-out of key Polkadot features such as parachains, XCMP and other key parts of the protocol. Our recent Proof of Authority network launch was only just the beginning, it’s crucial