Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since January 25, 2019 (634 days old)
Karma Posts: 1 Comments: 8,518 Combined: 8,519
Active in


Storing value in a censorship resistant manner. Sure. Burying gold in the forest at some GPS co-ordinates would likely store value more reliably over time, for short term just putting a jar of USD would probably work well. But if the goal is to be able to go to some back alley to swap the thing for local cash it is more easier to use crypto than going on a forest expedition. Crypto is pretty convenient for hiding away wealth in case of fleeing a failing state when trying to get some savings out of the country. Yes. True. If the state just starts confiscating the legally owned assets and cash of people. I don't think smart money manages their own private keys even if they had exposure to the price of crypto. I also don't think there is enough prosperous failing states to keep a steady supply of crypto holder/buyers, back in 2013 the Cyprus savings account confiscation shenanigans from the bailout arguably caused some increase in the price of Bitcoin, but that was when Bitcoin was tiny both in price and volume. Which does not mean that the price of Bitcoin can't be sustained, I think it can, it only takes speculators speculating and enough people having some exposure, private keys are lost and there is some market activity. As long as there are people interested in crypto there will be a price.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 19, 2020 09:09:30

You think that was the kind of analogy he was working of? Maybe I overestimated him. There is some sort of relation between the price of gold and the overall production, but it is not very strong, it lags over many years and the total mining output has trended upwards the last 100 years mostly because of technological improvements and the growth over the world economy as a whole and from 1980 and onward mining happening more and more outside of South Africa. MS paint overlap of price and mining []( The 3k ton or so of gold mined per year, 3.46 ton in 2019, there about 1-2% increase in the supply of gold from mining each year, it is not going to account for most of the price even if there is some average increase in the mining production when the price spikes. The idea that the amount mined per year alone is what determines the price is really silly.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 19, 2020 08:45:27

Store of value? I mean, anything with a price that can be exchanged is some kind of store of value, but the price is not stable, so it is a poor store of value, at least not a stable store of value. I mentioned censorship resistant payment, that is useful for payments that traditional payment processors won't allow. It does work for begging and tipping strangers online without any personal details. The one thing that crypto does well for anyone that can convert their wealth into it is crossing borders with capital control or financial restrictions, so the dream scenario for crypto is someone stuffing their savings into Bitcoin, memorizing the seed phrase and then fleeing a failing state that would otherwise confiscate all their belongings at the border. That would still be a huge loss for anyone attempting to do it since it would be converting cash for Bitcoin for a premium on the street and only be able to convert the cash assets they had, but it would be better than losing everything when fleeing the country. For legal purchases from regular stores, online and offline, credit/debit works better as payment because of the consumer protections that they offer. So if store of value and potential to use as payment is the reason given for the value of crypto I would say that there is not very much value there. Obviously there are people who like it and use it, which is fine, people speculate on the price, for the investor types it is potentially uncorrelated which is attractive to some that want a small part of that.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 19, 2020 07:25:54

The people who want to use crypto for the censorship resistant property are likely planning on entering through some other more costly and inefficient censorship resistant method, like buying for cash on the street for a high premium or buying a lot of GPUs for cash in stores to mine at a negative ROI. They are likely going to use the censorship resistant crypto to exchange it for something else, something that traditional payment processors won't allow. The "I use monero for trade to avoid taxes and keep my trades secret and uncensensored" is not a real world scenario.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 19, 2020 05:02:05

>One of the reasons why the Jedi needs to be under the heaviest programming and mental enslavement is from their threat to the galactic empire. > >The Jedi dominates the cultural influence of any society. > >If they aren't properly controlled, this becomes extremely dangerous. No, No, Space-Liberals, this is not me saying that Jedi needs to be properly controlled, this is just explaining why the galactic empire does what it does. When I say "extremely dangerous" I mean extremely dangerous to the galactic empire, which is good. You know me, I don't actually support the galactic empire, you can trust me on this.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 19, 2020 04:15:33

Macroeconomic factors do have an effect on the price of gold, but strictly within his example of price elasticity of supply for gold he only demonstrated understanding about microeconomics, not macroeconomics.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 18, 2020 23:19:10

The whole situation with Assange is bizarre, a timeline of the events: []( The main conflict is the dispute over a condom breaking intentionally (or if it broke at all) followed by Assange refusing to take a STD test afterwards. He does not dispute the fact that he had sex with the women, nor do they dispute that they had consensual sex with him, the stated reason they pressed charges against him was to force him to take the STD test. In addition to this there is a charge for molestation. The rape accusation was strictly about the claim that he intentionally broke a condom and then refused to take a STD test afterwards. The whole investigation was dropped in November 2019. There is no evidence that it was a smear campaign, the legal defense of Assange claimed that there were other motives related to revenge and notoriety, but not that it was a smear campaign.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 18, 2020 06:44:35

Coinbase sells Zcash directly if the goal was just getting into a privacy coin. The question is about trading, not getting to a privacy coin.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 18, 2020 01:21:12

There is no point in trying to name and shame such sites because they are just mass produced and disposable, that site domain was registered a couple months ago and in a couple months that site will be down and some other site looking very similar to it will be up with a new name and the same advertising. It is best to just ignore it and not mention the name of the site. The person you talked with is just someone that is employed to chat with a ton of redditors and to copy-paste a script to get them to buy into scams that change name every day. These scammers all use the same template, they have the same method and techniques, because it works on 1% of people. Trying to bring the disposable site they have down is futile, because the moment it is down, they just do the exact same thing with a new site. The creators flood the site review with 5 star reviews from bots, then over time as people get scammed and complain, they shut it down and start a new one.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 18, 2020 00:16:02

There is no principle for Freedom of Speech anywhere on reddit. It is strictly against the site TOS, but most subs, this included, puts further restrictions on the use of language. Which is of course fine, any online community of a certain size that don't do that get shut down. So it only makes sense to talk about the viewpoint neutrality on restricted speech on the specific topic of a sub. Which this sub is pretty good at. Anyone can say anything they want about Bitcoin specifically with polite language, the comments might be buried and the user might be locked to posting once per 10 minutes (Reddit Rule, not this sub), but other than that this is about as free as it gets in discussing crypto. I don't think most people actually want freedom of speech in the services they use in the sense of everyone being able to express their views on the topic in any way the want, but they like to imagine that they do. People mostly want to hang around other people who think the way they do and express themselves in a similar way. If some user is sufficiently unpopular and difficult to deal with in a community they will eventually be banned, even if only temporarily, even in this sub, because the goal is to maintain a space for discussion first and foremost and the stated principles stop once they become practically infeasible. I think the "any bitcoin viewpoint goes" philosophy of this sub is great, because it creates a lot of lively discussion, but most people will get demotivated and leave once they hold the minority position even here, it is just that it is voluntary instead of mandated.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 23:51:44

It could be meaningful as a known cold storage address on a exchange moving. That could be someone stealing it, or the exchange exit scamming, or just the exchange moving the cold storage from one address to another, looking from the outside it is impossible to tell. For Bitcoin Holders the effect on the price is what is meaningful in this context, not what good or bad the usage of the Bitcoin does in the world. This is the same reason why there are headlines of "$1 Billion of Bitcoin transferred for $0.5" which does not mean that those Bitcoin was actually moved anywhere outside of the BlockChain it could just be that someone moved the coins from their Address#1 to their Address#2. If someone just moves from their own wallets to their own wallets it will have virtually no impact on anything related to bitcoin. But if the Bitcoin actually changed hands, then there could be effects on the price since it meant someone either bough a ton of Bitcoin. For very old addresses it is assumed that the Bitcoin is out of circulation due to lost keys or the key holders deciding to keep them forever, so when large amounts of old coins moves it can mean that there will be more Bitcoin selling (why else move them) or just that someone wanted to move their old coins for security reasons.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 17, 2020 18:10:21

Not just moving the Bitcoin from one address to another address for the same person. Large amounts of Bitcoin that has not been moved in 9 years that moves means that someone just bought it, someone is about to sell it, or they just move it from one address they own to another address they own. If they just move between their own wallet it does not move in a meaningful way.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 17, 2020 16:43:42

FIO is just a way to tie a address to some more human readable format. So if you have a ETH address for CrytpoKittens you can register that as Big\_Bubbler@Cryptokittens so that when you enter that into some exchange that supports it you will get the crypto sent to that address.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 03:26:21

Cashfusion have TOR integration yes. It was possible to use TOR with ElectronCash before, like with another non-custodial mixing service called CashShuffle by fiddling in the menu, but with CashFusion it was built in by default.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 01:43:43

Theoretically if you use your real IP and then broadcast a transaction from your node, then that transaction could be tied to your IP. Imagine for the sake of the argument that you have some Bitcoin not in any way tied to you, no KYC or anything like that, and you broadcast a transaction from your node (non-mining, I know, contradiction, what is called full-node today), while unlikely it could mean that your IP got tied to that transaction. The same could happen with a SPV wallet, but there is an additional layer there.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 01:39:21

Fraudulent Clicking Activity will not be tolerated. You don't have to mention the name of the service, it only helps it by spreading it, people remember the name but forget the criticism. You can go to the site trustpilot and leave a review on the site there, it will already be filled with pro-site bots but you reduce the concentration of it there.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 17, 2020 01:32:50

So what do a centrist leaning individual in a centrist leaning country describe themselves as?

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 22:33:33

Openly Libertarian people are willing to express a social taboo out in the open just by stating that they are openly Libertarian. That alone is a signal that they are willing to say things that they think, no matter how taboo that is. Techno Libertarians can't even state the first principle of freedom of information without pissing 99% of regular people off.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 22:28:41

No hope for centrists in that poll.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 22:11:30

*Journalism is dead. Journalism remains dead. And we have killed Journalism.* There is some standard semantic games in the press release. > due to consensus mechanisms between nodes, nobody can connect to a ***centralized database***, change some values or remove some data. This is technically true, *technically* \- what happens instead is that the central database (company, or attacker with temp access/control) can add information to the certificate on the decentralized database (sending a transaction), which they then can't remove, but they can add further data later as a correction, which is basically the same as removing it, invalidating it. "Nobody can change some values or remove some data" is another word for a append-only database. Immutable public permissionless ledgers just means that the whole history of errors, intentional or not, and attempts at correcting them is stored until the blockchain is pruned.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 21:27:36

I must have miscommunicated because it is a bit convoluted. Unfortunately the data on statistia is behind a paywall. The claim that Bitcoin-com is a source for is a article where Bitcoin-Com about the reasons for why some they asked who are using are using crypto, but that is not related to the data, I did not read that. I should instead just linked the image, that was what I wanted to share. The percentage that is shown in the graph represents this. 1. Only people who take the survey. (like all other surveys) 2. Only people within a certain age range, ie 18-65 3. Not weighted for age ect, (over/under representation of demographics) 4. Only respondents that answer yes to the question of having heard of crypto is then asked if they have used/owned crypto. 5. The resulting percentages are for comparison using the same methods. 6. Statistia data is behind a paywall, unfortunately, it is a data aggregation company for quick heuristics. The median age in Nigeria is 18, compared to the about 38 in the US. That skews the age demographics comparatively even before bias in the survey takers, then there is the portion of those over 18 that actually take the survey, and of them only those who say they have heard of cryptocurrency is asked if they have heard of it, and of that percentage that have heard of it only those are counted towards the actual final percentages. So a country where 1% of the total adult population have owned Bitcoin, if everyone is asked and just 5% have heard of Bitcoin, then the percentage of people who owned Bitcoin would be 20% in that survey. Ie. 20% of those who had heard of Bitcoin had at some point owned it, which is presented as 20%. This is the standard in such surveys. This is of course far from ideal, but quality data is very expensive so those kinds of surveys are meant to cast a wide net around the world with the same methodology and compare countries to each other on a coarse scale where the assumption is that the biases on the methodology is at least relatively consistent. It is as far as I can tell the best available survey data in crypto world wide. More direct data is just the amount of Bitcoin buyers/sellers and volume for cash, []( Or the trading volume: []( I don't see any evidence of actual Nigerians going out to buy Crypto directly and doing private key management as I stated, at least not increasingly, what happens is that companies step in as intermediates that has crypto somewhere in the operation or marketing for services that are below even credit/debit cards. M-Pesa alternative as an example, but with some crypto gimmick. Or people responding to incentives to register for exchanges like crypto giveaways to do KYC.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 21:09:38

Liquidate in this context literally means turning into cash or cash equivalent. You need to replace that word with something else.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 17:54:44

I am not the person, but the statistics about respondents over 18 that have heard of crypto having at some point owned or used crypto is comparatively high in Nigeria. []( More direct information is from KYC data from the BlockChain company which does incentivize users signing up with crypto. The reasons stated is to evade capital control and taxes, like income taxes on remittance, and because the perceived barriers to hold and transfer foreign currency. The actual trade in the real world happens in the local currency through third parties, so in practice someone sends local currency to a company that then uses crypto as a intermediate with their partners in other countries as an example. It is not people walking around paying each other crypto directly or putting private keys under the bird bath, it is custodial services that has crypto at some point trying to mimic the previous success of M-Pesa. []( []( What does ***not*** happen is people with bank accounts and retail investment accounts becoming their own banks. This is a step below having credit and debit cards to begin with, depositing cash to a physical company counter to add credit a SIM-card to transfer IOUs over SMS using some company. The crypto-user numbers are also inflated by all the cases where people think they buy crypto but are not and any scams that use crypto to get funds from victims.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 17:45:41

The blockchain part of it is unnecessary and it does not solve the problem that it sets out to while creating some more problems. The company site has user accounts already which they could let customers register their watches, the only thing the site would have to do without touching blockchain is making it possible to transfer ownership between users. The blockchain part is not necessary, if the company wants all history of all watches to be visible it can be done on the site already. The new problems are that the private keys can be lost, stolen, or even resold directly to counterfeiters who want to assure customers that the fake watches they make are actually real. Counterfeiters can also create their own counterfeited ERC certificate to go with their counterfeited watches. If the company is able to assure people that their watches are real with blockchain they can do it without it as well, just as well. The imagined problem this solved is someone hacking into the company site and altering the serial numbers or user data without anyone noticing to be able to sell a fake watch as real. Not a real concern. It could of course be a good strategy if it is a effective marketing campaign. If ETH is still around in 50 years it would be interesting to see such certificates referenced in some antique show.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 16, 2020 16:32:31

Ah! No. I forgot a word. Sorry. Here is what I meant to say. > To your general point about the flaw that Bitcoin usage imposes a cost on the infrastructure without creating any value for the players or anyone else, true as that is, outside of tax revenue from the mining and capital gains, there is **no** direct incentive for countries to invite miners, but they don't have to, because no matter how parasitic bitcoin mining is to the local infrastructure it works on comparative advantages alone so it will always reach some equilibrium unless there is a effective and enforced global ban on holding and/or mining. You see how the paragraph makes more sense now. There is no direct incentive for countries to invite miners, but since Bitcoin mining is parasitic it will just seek out the comparative best country. Countries don't invite miners, miners invite themselves into countries, specifically whatever country that the miners can extract the most energy for the least cost. Norway originally *did* allow Bitcoin mining to have the same preferential rate on energy use as all other high energy industry, but they then made a exception to the rule to get rid of the miners because the politicians realized that it would bring in virtually no employment or tax revenue and unlike Iceland which embraced mining Norway can both store up some unused energy because of water reserves and export excess energy anyways. The official reasoning from the government was that Bitcoin mining was not green, but that is rich coming from a oil rich country. Norway did not *ban* mining, but they did not have to, they knew that just removing the subsidy would be enough. As you say, a lot of the tolerance for Bitcoin mining comes from not knowing exactly how extractive it is. To your point about every country in the world taxing Bitcoin mining, if they do that Bitcoin mining will still go on, just in the countries with the lowest tax rate and/or the countries where corruption is large enough and bribery is a option.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 15, 2020 22:45:32

The stocks can't be stolen if you actually have legal ownership of them. They should be insured up to some amount even in the case of the brokerage firm going under. It is the same principle as with money in the bank, insured up to X USD no matter what. The stock is as safe as the money in the bank. The one and only thing crypto can protect a person from, in a functioning country, if stored properly in a sensible faraday cage, is it being stolen from identity theft. But funds stolen by identity theft can as a rule be recovered after the legal expenses which someone can guard partially against by having insurance against identity theft. The main difference between the crypto market cap and a the market cap of a company is that the investors in aggregate of a large company actually do have stakeholder rights, a say about how the company is run, right to accurate information from the company, legal insurance on the stock, and each stock do represent something real in the real world, even if it is overvalued. There are regulations which while not perfect and all-seeing and all-powerful approaches a ideal of minimal market manipulation and reasonably fair rules. With crypto the aggregate holders have no legal rights and underlying the crypto is literally nothing. So that is where it is different. There is price speculation in everything, but in crypto there is nothing but price speculation. (Yes, technically there is blockchain games, scams, frauds, extortion, begging, tipping, merchants, literal crypto casinos, ect) But as far as what set the price, it is nothing underlying it and no legal rights other than paying a yearly fee for a insured custodian. Which creates the seeming paradox of, yes, adding up all the individual Bitcoin holders net crypto wealth at this moment is approximately the market cap, but as a group, in aggregate, they own nothing other than the privilege of exiting at the current price at the current moment for any moment.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 15, 2020 19:32:22

Who actually price it ***in*** BTC? Not priced in USD then converted to the current exchange rate of BTC. Just priced in BTC as fixed BTC price that don't change as the USD price of BTC goes up and down. I have seen one example in the wild of native crypto pricing, it was a artists selling print copies, so the margin was super high.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 15, 2020 19:08:51

>Who typically wins at the poker table? A majority of the people? Or just one guy who manages to out-smart/mislead/manipulate everybody else? Correct. That is one part where the poker analogy fits. That is what I stated. The rake (mining reward, fees crypto/exchange) is also mostly irrelevant to the people who speculate in Bitcoin, other than for marketing purposes. I don't think the poker analogy for the price specifically actually fits beyond the fact that wins tends to be concentrated, there is a net cost to all the players and wins comes from the losses. My point was not that the Bitcoin network itself or the participants are in any way comparable to a game of poker, just that the mechanism of the price ultimately comes from bets going from winners to losers in entering and exiting and there are external costs that means that the amount lost in total for the players are higher than the rewards. To your general point about the flaw that Bitcoin usage imposes a cost on the infrastructure without creating any value for the players or anyone else, true as that is, outside of tax revenue from the mining and capital gains, there is direct incentive for countries to invite miners, but they don't have to, because no matter how parasitic bitcoin mining is to the local infrastructure it works on comparative advantages alone so it will always reach some equilibrium unless there is a effective and enforced global ban on holding and/or mining. Countries, like Norway, already have moved the proverbial (mining) poker table out of the parking lot of Ceaser's Palace, by removing preferential treatment in energy costs, which is enough to make it cost prohibitive. If the state can't extract enough taxes from the users and the crypto don't provide any additional revenue, it is likely that additional barriers to entry are put up, but I don't think it will happen suddenly, in part to save face for those who approved it locally in the first place.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 15, 2020 19:02:34

The core of what the person you respond to is saying is *not* a narrative. That gains comes from losses and that there is a net cost in the ballpark of the mining rewards. It is an attempt at explaining the price specifically in terms of the total sum of crypto investors as a whole. It is true for this price, it will be true for $100,000, $100,000,000 and $100, it is true for *any* price. It is true even if the price is in Big Macs per Bitcoin, at least until extreme cost savings in Big Mac production happens. If you think of this in terms of narrative you are fundamentally misunderstanding what is argued because, yes, if the argument the person is making was true, which it is, it would be the same thing at $100k. Exactly. That is the argument.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 14, 2020 03:10:29

This is likely true, Bitcoin has gradually gained legitimacy as a “alternative investment” over time and it is possible to see a indication of this just in the growth of the greyscale trust. The buyers of Bitcoin are increasingly not people who actually want Bitcoin, they just want to be exposed to the price through financial instruments and there can be a cascading effect where there is a increasing number of companies wanting to be exposed to the price. The companies and organizations that now enter will exit at some point in the future so it is not as if the companies are buying up Bitcoin as a act of charity, they are not emotionally invested in Bitcoin and they won't lose they private keys, as soon as they sense that the price peak of Bitcoin getting close the same cascading effect will go the other way. Which does not mean that the price will come crashing down below what it is now, but it does mean that the sellers on the way down will be the large companies/organizations and the buyers trying to catch the falling knives will be regular people thinking they are getting cheap Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 14, 2020 01:18:29

The apple exercises brings me back to elementary school. I think anyone that is willing to reason honestly about where the price comes from sees that it is like a poker table with a rake. *Most* players *could* in theory win more than they lose even with a rake, if the losses are concentrated and the gains are small but widespread. In reality the gains in such games tend to be concentrated and losses widespread, even with no rake, and there is no reason to expect anything different in similar speculation on price. A myth in Bitcoin is that the original investors (not silk road users) of Bitcoin had modest means and that they sold their Bitcoin as the super rich bought in later. That it was a wealth redistribution that made most participants better of even with the net total loss since every super rich person entering let thousands of regulars exit at a gain. The reality is more likely that high-income IT people bought some early as a lucrative investment, some people running black/grey markets ended up with some, while the regular people ran to buy around around the end of the price bubble. There is no evidence that I found that the redistribution mechanism of Bitcoin reduced wealth inequality for those participating as a whole.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 14, 2020 00:52:13

The question is not if a Bitcoin transaction can stay beyond 2 weeks or even if they can stay indefinitely, they can in theory by being stored in non-default mempools and being rebroadcast. The question is if a Bitcoin transaction can be dropped completely if enough time passes and there is enough traffic in the real world. Is there any guarantee that a Bitcoin transaction 1 sat/byte will not under any real world circumstance be dropped? Has any 1 sat/byte transaction ever been dropped? Is the probability of a 1 sat/byte transaction being dropped in the future virtually zero due to nodes specifically set up to hold transactions indefinitely even in periods of extreme traffic? That seems to be the contention.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 13, 2020 13:48:28

True. But if someone buys crypto on a exchange and plans on never actually withdrawing the crypto they might as well buy a peg to the price. Buying the peg to the price of Bitcoin instead of just the Bitcoin makes sense for someone that is investing if they can get it in a account with deferred taxes, especially if there was something safe like a ETF.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 13, 2020 12:33:26

>Paraphrasing: If you average out how much electricity Christmas lights use per year it gets close to Bitcoin. That was one thing he said in the video. That sounded unbelievable so I looked up, it is technically true that the electricity spent on Christmas lights are in the same ballpark as Bitcoin. At least until LED lights grow in popularity which will drop the energy used by 90%+. It is not that strange considering that the US uses about 20% of the global electricity and that Christmas lights adds on average some percentages in a month. While Bitcoin used about 0.3% in 2019. But put that way almost anything can be brushed aside, the average American spent $60 on Christmas Decorations alone in 2019, so around 10 Billion in total, but that does not make everything else in the world that is a net waste of $10 Billion trivial.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 13, 2020 01:19:28

>Ethereum - Had a 60% pre-mine, and claims to be turing complete despite the fact that this isn't true. You are *not* wrong, but this is a bit of a nitpick (and nitpicking of me to nitpick) The programming language *is* turing complete, which is often what is referred to by turing complete, but there are constraints on amount of computation due to the gas limit, so in that sense it is not turing complete. Real world computers are not truly turing complete either because of limited memory, but at least with regular computers there is no hardcoded limit in the amount of computations before the computer explodes and for all practical purposes they are turing complete. The claims ETH makes about being turing complete is strictly within the programming language as far as I can tell.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 13, 2020 00:06:04

As far as I can tell there is no major food delivery that takes Bitcoin, there is a site that will place a order for you in exchange for you (pizzaforcoins) handing over your personal information and Bitcoin, but I don't think that is a good idea. You will likely spend less time and energy just going through the 45 minute bank thing than actually trying to order food with Bitcoin directly. Unless you know someone that will order you food in exchange for Bitcoin or you have some way to sell Bitcoin locally for cash and pay with that you probably wont be able to convert your Bitcoin to a food delivery without relying on some third party site without guarantees.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 12, 2020 19:39:02

You are a native advertising account pretending to be a regular account so I understand why you get confused about why someone in a Bitcoin sub is only making a comment about Bitcoin specifically.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 12, 2020 12:42:14

No. No. I am not saying that *I* disagree. I am saying that the person you responded to is saying that they disagree, not that they don't comprehend. But I realized my mistake, I did not search for the spam word, you know the one, it starts with E and ends with T. This is like a running joke here now. Just pay for ad space. Don't flood subs with ads disguised as trivia and honest questions, speaking of uncivilized.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 12, 2020 11:41:51

Not lost as in "can't understand" but lost as in "disagree".

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 12, 2020 10:45:28

That Seinfield Scene is very fitting, nobody knows if the Bitcoin is actually moving in a meaningful way or just shifting.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 12, 2020 08:00:08

True. But if this happens at a point where block rewards are negligent, 10+ halvings from now, when the block reward is 0.006 Bitcoin per block, the fork with 1 Bitcoin per block will get the majority of the hashrate even with 1% of the price while also being 0.0025% supply inflation per year. But it would not have to be as drastic as that, it just just be that the next halving after 2060 don't reduce the block reward, that would be 300+ Bitcoins mined per year, it would take 3000 years to get another Million Bitcoin. I don't think that is a hard sell if there are serious issues with securing the POW with fees alone.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 10, 2020 21:10:43

What do you expect the revenue per TB/day to be? The cheapest 8TB hard drives is in the $150 price range. MTBF is 5 years. Do you think Chia will get above the $0.01 per TB per Day needed to break even over the average lifespan of the HDD at that cost and lifespan? I hope Chia don't become big enough to give out huge mining rewards every day because it is going to drive the price of Hard Drives up like GPU mining did for GPUs.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 11:19:19

When 90% of the supply is lost, just move the decimal place one place and we are back to 21M. SFYL. The 4% of circulating supply being lost every year does mean that 99.9% of the supply will be lost in 176 years. But that is assuming that Bitcoin does not just add more Inflation eventually.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 10:47:37

For anyone wondering what the heck the P in POP is stands for, its Participation. It is POS, with extra steps. Coin holders can get together and create one of many representatives (nodes) which is what validates the transactions and nodes then select which other nodes they trust. This is a variant of what Stellar does with the Federated Byzantine Agreement, but the gimmick here is that while Stellar has real world organizations that set up nodes and select which other nodes with real world organizations to trust this aims to let anonymous coin holders do the same without anything in the real world. Which does open up for the same problems as POS, except, the idea here is that it is harder to find who to bribe and more convoluted to convert majority coins into the ability to directly control the network. This is in response to a imaginary problem of a actual state running a federated byzantine agreement where the state selects all the nodes, something they brand as Proof-Of-Authority. Which is not a real issue in the real world, but authority sounds bad and participation sounds good.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 09:42:39

DeFi is strictly within Crypto-Space which is already outside of the realm of everyday people. It is almost exclusively in the realm of gambling and risk. The tame example 5% return on a Stablecoin per year - *if all goes well*. Putting up $100 of some volatile crypto to get $50 of some other crypto to do something else with - *hoping that the volatile crypto don't drop*. For people who already trade tokens it is quicker and easier to use - *which is basically gambling.* DeFi reduces the leverage from exchanges and shows statistics of trade that are harder and more expensive to fake. \--- All the above is just crypto quality of life or additional options for risk, not actually solving any problem for everyday people, and it is strictly within ETH and assuming low enough fees. Defi lowered the bars of entry to liquidity and trade between eth tokens for better or worse. One thing that DeFi like Unsiwap does within the small niche that is BlockChain-Games is that it allows for easy price discovery and trade between players of game currency that are earned and spent in those games.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 09:25:20

At the point your collateralized DeFi-loan defaults you effectively spend the ETH at the price it happens so you would likely owe taxes on the capital gains on either the amount burrowed or the actual price of the ETH at the time of the default. In either case you would lose money that what you could potentially save in taxes. It is possible for someone to collateralize $100 of ETH to get $75 in USDC without any taxes, but only as long as there actually is a loan. When the loan defaults it effectively becomes $100 of ETH traded for $75 in USDC.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 08:25:19

I wondered if I should add in the "except losses, and burn addresses, and minting new coins, and sending to the genesis block, human error, forgotten but not lost", but to keep it short I did not because in the context is means demand for consumption because this is about supply shocks and those lost coins do not make for more demand from those who lose it. People are not buying Bitcoin to lose it, there is no activity that is in demand that need to consume Bitcoin. This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a recent estimate that more Bitcoin is already lost than mined because the average coins lost per day is on average 1500 per day while the amount mined is on average around 900. But it is not correct to think of those lost coins as excess demand.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 10, 2020 07:40:48

Users here, like everywhere online, take liberties with language to describe who they perceive to be their opponents. I used to trip up on this whenever someone here used pyramid-scheme or ponzi-scheme to describe Bitcoin, which of course was not meant to be literal but metaphorical in that the price comes from future investors alone without anything underlying it and it spreads through word of mouth and by having current holders argue that others should buy it as well. I assumed the use of those terms were because there was some lack of knowledge about how the price is set or the motivations for those who argue for crypto, but the users using it do for the most part know that, it is just that leveraging the negative associations with those schemes is easy and effective. It is the norm basically everywhere for that reason, not exclusive to this place. It is the same with the words scammer or shill, which is sometimes used for those who disagree about crypto being on net bad for the world and especially if there is encouragement to buy crypto or attempts to make crypto seem as legitimate as traditional investments. So everything related to crypto is a scam, everyone defending it is a scammer or a shill. Not everyone uses the language that way, but it happens often enough, it is not meant to mean what you imagine the definition of those words are meant to mean. There is also a lot of hyberbole and satire in comedy, which is a huge part of the sub, the tagline is comedy gold. Which if taken literally can sound pretty bad, extremely uncharitable interpretations is done on purpose for comedic effect. There is a lot of different people here, so it is not fair to paint with broad brushes, but I think most people here are reasonable and willing to reason about anything related to crypto as long as they feel like someone is trying do sell something or push something. From time to time there are actual advertisers trying to sell products here, which is pretty funny in itself.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 17:38:02

Hard to find non-echo chambers on reddit, and most users would rather downvote than respond to something they disagree with. That is the nature of the beast. Unless a sub is specifically set up to be neutral about some topic that a lot of people want to discuss with standards of what is allowed like the old askScience sub it is going to tend towards echo chambers. I think this sub is valuable even in it's echo chamber state destined by how online gathering places form in general because it acts as a counter balance to the pro-crypto subs, which of course are also echo chambers. I don't see any way around becoming a echo chamber. I dislike the fact that reddit don't allow subs to turn of negative votes and puts inn penalties like 10 minute per comment limit on users that get downvoted, people of course don't follow reddiquette and downvote what they disagree with, which would be no issue of downvotes had 0 effect on the account other than signaling. Back in the old user interface on buttcoin the downvotes were invisible for this reason. This place is a reaction to something in the world, which, set aside anything about prices or valuation, it argues is a net cost, based on the morals and values of the people here and how they perceive crypto and the effect it has on the world. Some just have had bad experiences with crypto supporters in the wild and want to vent and others just want to get a non-marketing non-pr newsfeed of stuff related to crypto. Which this place does well.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 15:05:20

No complaints about the article or the arguments in it, Bitcoin transaction volume always seemed like something that was tending towards the MasterCard+Visa level, especially since it is not strictly limited to pure economic exchange. Whatever net value transactions of any kind is on the network will become the total POW incentive. It just seems (to me) that BTC is not planning on actually living off fees to begin with since the block limit is counterproductive to establishing the revenue needed in the far future.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 9, 2020 14:25:14

I think I am the minority about this, but it seems increasingly likely that BTC will add some fixed inflation before increasing the block limit? Something based on the coins not moved over X years so that the circulating supply of Bitcoin always remains under 21M, a sort of redefining of the old only ever 21M. Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash having the same average total fees all other being equal would make Bitcoin more unstable since the revenue in "fee markets" are more volatile than a transactions per day over time. But just adding even the most marginal of fixed block rewards would sidestep the whole issue. It is clear from the whitepaper that Bitcoin POW incentive can go from block rewards to fees over time and having a higher volume of transactions is better for stability as block rewards tend towards zero. But I just don't think that BTC have any reason to actually let the block reward follow the plan. If there is a point in the future where BCH and BTC have a similar price with minimal block reward, like 10 halvings, both will be incentivized to add some inflation, any inflation, just to dominate POW and be more stable than the other chain. I know this is unorthodox and I have no evidence to back it up, but right now future changes to inflation looks more likely than changes to the block size which throws the whole fee-against-fee philosophy right into the bin.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 9, 2020 14:21:42

Yes. He saw into his crystal ball and decided that he had to go to Spain to make the prophecy of his arrest come true. I can't read his mind but I am reasonably sure that John McAfee knew that the US government was after him for tax evasion, he stated that he knew several times in the past and have been "on the run" in a boat for a long time. John McAffe is a known intentional non-truth teller, he faked his own arrest in August as an example, but I do think this sounds plausible: >“Today, January 22nd, the \[Internal Revenue Service (IRS)\] has convened a grand jury in the state of Tennessee to charge myself, my wife Mrs McAfee and four of my campaign workers with unspecified IRS crimes of a felonious nature,” It seems clear that he is actually wanted by the US for tax evasion and that he knows it.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 14:00:34

As long as there is $5 wrenches there can never be public use, just secretive use in private rooms for private purposes.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 13:51:02

The comment was in response to the original comment about a new asset class that have better returns than any other the last decade - ***and continues to do so*****.** So the point about the ATH is related to the statement that Bitcoin continues to outperform. Which is a hard pill to swallow about 3 years after the last ATH which saw a over 80% drop from the ATH. Bitcoin is extremely volatile, that means that it is always possible to point to some point in the past and say that Bitcoin has done extremely well compared to now. But the claim that it continues to be the best performing is a bit on the nose. There has to be some sort of criteria that is not just picking a date in the past of a extremely volatile asset which has 1000x more trade volume today than 4 years ago. Bitcoin can be $1,000 in 30 years and it will still be one of the best performing assets the last 40 years starting from the assumption of Bitcoin starting out at $0.01. It is pretty clear when comparing different crypto to each other. The NANO price has outperformed Bitcoin by a factor of 10x since it was launched, in that the NANO/BTC price is now 10x higher than Bitcoin. So by definition, however well Bitcoin performed the last 3 years, Nano, had performed even better. It is a nonsensical argument. Buying something just because it is at a ATH is not a good idea, but something being at a ATH does mean that it technically have performed better the last years than something that has been down from the ATH for a couple years.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 13:47:23

Good to hear, and good to see you back.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 9, 2020 13:23:43

Sure! I completely agree. That makes sense. The interest groups in Bitcoin, which are real, developers, exchanges, miners, holders ect, they all are in a adversarial relationship where they have knives behind their backs and smiles on the face putting up a façade of having "Bitcoins best interest" in mind. You are of course correct that they only have their own interest in mind and if Bitcoin was a real animal they would take Bitcoin back behind the barn as soon as they thought they could earn more from taking it out than keeping it alive.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 13:16:42

Maybe, but it did end up in the press in the UK and there were comments about the bank having to pay for the loss, I have not verified it. I read some of the comments on TrustPilot about the page and the victims tell a story that is similar to this only that they initially put in 1k-10k and got pressured to put in more while given the ability to withdraw some of what they put in to build trust and then when they were unable to withdraw they got told that they just needed to put in more and more. The site is down now, and I could not find a archive of it. But if it is the standard setup there is a chance that referring others is part of it and that would explain how the scammers would hand out such large amounts based on a small deposit. If this person has a lot of money/credit and have actually fallen for similar scams in the past, and the company contacted him directly, then it could be a slim chance that they actually did give out the 9k knowing that it would have a very high likelihood of giving extremely good returns. That is just pure speculation from my part. But the story as it is told is weird.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 13:13:23

"hate-based subreddit targeting an asset class" is a funny sentence that can be put towards criticism in general. "antiMLM is hate-based subreddit targeting a business model" I wonder if MLM participants go there to make similar comments. I think the person you respond to have done the research, especially the technical aspects of it, you can read one summary [here]( I hope you stick around and participate here because it makes the place livelier and the goal of this place is not to be a echo chamber. This is reddit, so people will downvote what they disagree with, but if you can stand that you can find out the reasons for why there are people here who do understand what crypto is, how it derives the price and how it works down to the nitty gritty details, and still don't like it.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 13:07:23

I mean, what does "bitcoins best interest" mean, what is "bitcoins interest", the other interest groups like holders, exchanges, developers(?). Nobody owns Bitcoin, there is no CEO or comparable stakeholders. Talking in terms of the best interest of some country or company makes sense, but I don't see what the best interest for Bitcoin is. Maybe I am approaching it wrong.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 12:55:36

If they actually did transfer £9000 based on a £190 deposit alone I would wager that they had the ability to reverse that in case the victim did not "reinvest it". If he did actually get £9000 non-reversible and without strings attached after just depositing £190 he likely referred someone else and got a portion of what they lost.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 12:33:06

Bitcoins interest here meaning the current Bitcoin holders interest?

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 10:39:10

You mean the CCP or just governments in general? CCP gets things done fast, just not necessarily good things.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 9, 2020 10:33:04

A failed government most likely means unhappy people on average, and the places in the world with the most happy people, on average, is in the successful governments. I did not say that Fiat means Successful government or that the measurement for what counts as a successful government is happy people, or that lack of fiat means Unsuccessful government. My statement was about situations with conflicts and relative advantages. > It is *not* that *free money guarantees success,* it is just that it on average outcompetes the alternative, it gives an advantage all other being equal. Setting aside morals, whoever is able to burrow from the future will have a advantage right now in conflicts, and the winner gets a advantageous position. If the question is: What kind of government have the happiest people on average? Then the answer seems to be that most people prefer to live in countries with higher taxation and higher spending all other being equal. Places like Denmark, Finland and Switzerland. Countries with low taxation and low spending often have effective taxation through costs imposed on the citizens that are effectively tax, like forcing them to sell their goods at under market value and then resell it on the open market for a profit. And being able to effectively raise large amounts of real taxes to begin with already requires some kind of minimum standard in income, wealth and infrastructure.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 9, 2020 10:30:36

I am just glad he did not access the Trump account with a fake declaration of war fake and/or fake nuclear launches. That person already had 300 Bitcoin from previous shenanigans even after 100 was confiscated by the FBI, if anything he should focus on getting those converted to cash before trying to obtain more of them.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 20:07:12

Set aside all other places in the world and just assume that the US produces and consumes everything within the borders with the same technological progress. It would still be the case that productivity and GDP would grow faster than wages based on automation alone. It would not be as extreme but increased productivity per laborer due to improvements in tools that aid productivity is a net increase in supply of labor which all other being equal causes a lower price of labor. It is possible to add up all the benefits and costs of some aspects of globalization, and the trend in the US has been that the bottom 25% see more costs than benefits while the top 25% sees more benefits than costs, so it does become a class issue of sorts. The upside and argument for this being good for the world is that the relative difference between nation states decreases, the poorest countries tend to grow faster than the richest in percentages, but the downside is that the wealth and income gap within countries also tend to increase faster which causes instability. Part of the equation in the last decades is the currency manipulation from China, the fact that they have been classified as a developing economy getting preferential treatment in trade while also pegging the Chinese Currency to USD and using the surplus from the trade to buy up US Bonds driving down the interest. This also has some benefits for the US as a whole but the distribution of the cost and benefits are skewed. Globalization does create more wealth and less inequality between nations while also creating more inequality within nations and potentially larger scales should conflict break out. Trade-offs all the way.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 8, 2020 19:39:41

I am cautious about getting my hopes up for trades wanting to maintain trade secrets because that is the kind of thing that will be packaged into some more corporate friendly product like BlockStream Liquid or XRP or whatever else is perceived to be clean which is not perfectly private but which provides good enough obfuscation. Corporations don't have souls or morals, they gladly kick puppies all day if it was profitable, but they at least need to appear clean, so I don't think Monero will be greenlit for hiding trade secrets in general. Using some crypto will be presented as helping whatever that crypto is associated with.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 18:40:08

My theory for why Adam is so irrationally hot for #EatingApples is because he has / had a romantic relationship with Eve, CEO of Snake Labs

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 18:24:45

Satoshi deciding to finally move and sell the 1 Million Bitcoin on the market would be a supply shock, same if the code is changed to 10,000 Bitcoin per block out of the blue. Halvings are neither shocking nor a actual reduction in the supply since Bitcoin is not consumed and there is virtually no demand for the Bitcoin itself other than speculative demand which is also future supply. Quick price bubbles in Bitcoin are arguably demand shocks, but both supply and demand shocks are temporary. If Bitcoin is on a eternal safe uptrend there is no hurry to enter since it is always possible to do it tomorrow and the difference from year to year will be marginal.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 18:20:14

I did not say real GDP and Spending *per Capita*, just total real GDP/Spending. The total US population has gone up 60% since the 70s so that explains some of the increase in GDP and Spending, but most of it comes from productivity growth. Your instincts about *something* going is correct, there has been growth in real GDP per capita *and* labor productivity since the 1970, but the real median wages have remained about the same since then- basically flat. This is called the great decoupling. Labor productivity is higher than the GDP which is higher than the wages of private employment which is higher than the median family income. The gap have consistently widened over the last 50 years. It is some combination of computerization, globalization, collective labor bargaining power, access to the labor market, demographics, and general policy. Labor has prices set by supply and demand and higher productivity does not directly translate to higher real wages, it used to, but it has not for the last 50 years, at least not for the people in the middle and below. The economic growth is real, there is real goods and services being produced, real infrastructure and wealth, the tax revenue is real and so is the spending. It is just that the supply of labor outstrips the demand for the actual production of those goods and services so that how that wealth is distributed is more concentrated.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 8, 2020 17:49:16

One lesser known fact about Bitcoin is that it has absolutely dominated the dark market, at least until recently, and that the dark market crypto revenue have steadily increased from 2014. But the market for Bitcoin speculation has grown even faster, so the percentage of dark market activity has declined as a portion of total activity. Chainalysis 2019 Crypto Crime Report did make the point that privacy coins, mainly monero, is on the rise on dark markets, and 2020 or 2021 could become the year where there is a switch. Bitcoin being dominant in dark markets has been a sort of shield for monero, since it proves that getting rid of privacy coins won't impact crypto crime, but if Monero becomes the One-And-Only coin used in dark markets it will have a even harder time not getting banned from ownership and it will make it hard for the squeaky clean department that just want privacy for non-sketchy reasons.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 15:00:37

That is what sets the btc and bitcoin sub apart. Polite criticism means downvotes on btc and ban on bitcoin. Both subs ban crude language. Not much fun to be had in such environments. It used to be a bit livelier back before the BSV/BCH split on btc at least. I remember that there was more actual conversations there, strictly BCH related with some off topic tangents, but still. Monero, or privacy coins in general, is what seems to make the most sense for actual use, public ledger is a privacy nightmare, and that is the one thing (other than evading laws) that crypto was supposedly going to address. The problem I have seen with Monero in terms of marketability is that "should have used Monero" used to respond to the most heinous criminals that get busted who used crypto. The civil liberties angle is completely overshadowed by the "If you are a criminal, this is the coin for you".

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 13:56:37

This could become the second split on BCH which is a split from BTC, so I think it would be a third "generation" split if both sides survives. Split being a bit subjective. If one side just dies right away it was hardly a split.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 13:41:37

Those bots just gets weirder and weirder, they look up data on the user in the post/comment history and score the sentiment, it is something that most people would think of as creepy. There is now backstories and fantasy taxonomy in them. I *don't* think those bots look good from the perspective of outsiders. The "User less than XX days" is also used to sort people. The bot+account age just causes users to create new blank accounts, wait until they are old enough, then start to comment there. It does not drive away "trolls" or "sockpuppets" it just drives away regular users. I can see how the CS word got you banned, you can basically levy any sort of criticism, false or correct, as long as you don't use any swearwords, innuendoes, lewd language, sensitive topics ect. Basically everyone that I have seen been banned for non-spam reasons used "crude language" but the people who don't are practically immune. It is really weird.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 13:27:24

The cost of hashing power if it is possible to rent, but it does not seem feasible on BTC since the majority of the machinery is already under control by a small group. Unless the current major machine owners decide that they can get more in shorting than the decrease in revenue and reduction in machine prices they won't do it. If the derivate market stays the same size over time and halvings go on as planned, it will eventually be feasible just because the total mining revenue will be tiny.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 13:11:19

Did Roger Ver specifically ban you, or was it one of the other moderators? Was there any reason given? It looks like basically everything is allowed in that sub, except the worst swearing, being antagonistic, being off-topic, criticizing in a way that is seen as attacking ect. But other than that it should be free from banning.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 12:54:30

What is relevant is the federal budget as portion of the GDP, which have remained relatively stable long term. The real GDP has increased 4x over the same period that the federal spending increased 4d. Spending has been higher than tax revenue pretty consistently, but that gap has also remained relatively consistent on average. This consistent gap has mean that the Debt to GDP has increased gradually since the 1970, and there is some upper practical limit to where it become unsustainable. It is 107% now and if it goes above 118% it will be the highest it has been since after WW2.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 8, 2020 06:43:31

In this case it not compounding and over a limited period. 15,000 today for 270 per day for 300 days + 30 crypto. Effectively daily non-compounding interest of 1.8% daily. That was just one example, they had different amounts and commissions.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 05:18:44

I also disagree about people online not being able to be good. I said the concentration of idiocy is high. Good people sometimes have nothing better to do for some periods of time so they are online as well. The people who actually earn significant money is less than one in a million, the ones that rise to the top and find a way to profit of it.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 8, 2020 05:00:28

The fee cost of Bitcoin is measured in Satoshi per Byte 0.00000001 BTC per Byte. That is what you can adjust in the wallet. You can check a estimate of the required Satoshi per Byte (sat/byte) here: []( Right now 114 sat/byte is reasonably certain to get in the next block. You can see a visual representation of pending Transactions here: [,24h](,24h) That should give some idea of what have mined in the recent past and how long it can take for different fees to get through. As long as a transaction is not dropped it should eventually get confirmed at 1 sat/byte. It can take days or weeks, but it should eventually happen if you got that amount of time. Bitcoin is about $10,000 and there is 100,000,000 Satoshi in a Bitcoin, so if a Transaction is 300 bytes and you pay 1 sat/byte, it should cost (300 / 100,000,000 \* 10,000) about $0.03+. The 114 sat byte should be about $3.6. The fees can be a bit different depending on the size of the transaction, but that should be a ballpark for a faster/slower transaction right now.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 16:02:21

I would not give me to much credit for getting it quickly. I already believed that people tend to accuse others of what they are guilty of themselves just from experience, like I think most people do. And of course, it is the same with those who don't accuse others directly but announce to have the moral high ground. Decent people, actually decent, like the kind of people that one can rely on in the real world tend to not claim to be better than others or that they have higher moral values and virtues, and they don't spend time or energy on attacking others, especially not online. I mean, we are online. Everyone with better things to do are not here, so it is good to keep it in mind. Don't become discouraged by the concentration of idiocy here, from me included of course. There is one other reason why some people agitate and try to stir up movements against others, and that is just because there is a lot of money and status in it, unfortunately. Those who do that do not need to be guilty of what they accuse of since it is motivated by money.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 15:08:18

I see. So you are making a statement about how humans are in general. People basically accuse others of what they are guilty of themselves.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 14:06:07

Just to make my own position clear. It is not acceptable to go after anyone based on their legal occupation. If something is not right about some occupation the right way to address it is through regulation, not going after the people fulfilling the obligations of their work. The state having a monopoly on legitimate violence, which I think is a great idea. Laws and Law Enforcement is the best we got. It is not perfect and can never be, but the alternative to laws and law enforcement is worse than people image.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 13:31:58

The kind of person that just wants to go after people, that kind of person has been around since forever. Is there in your opinion something that has happened over the last 10 years that is different other than the rise of social media and stuff like twitter? Like when crime rates went down in the 90s the news about violent crime increased, so while becoming safer people actually felt more worried and anxious. Is this something similar, something common being more visible? I did not know you were thinking specifically about anti-police, but exactly what is are those going after the police claiming to go after? Is it the argument not that police is a organization that is a extension of the kind of things that "hating hate" originally went after? Instead of saying X is hateful, it is police enforces the will of X. I think everyone supports discrimination in the abstract, just not discrimination based on protected characteristics, which police is not.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 13:26:50

I already read that, it was what I referenced. This specifically: > On YIELD, you simply deposit funds, choose an investment plan, and - that’s it!  That is advertising that you don't allow users to actually trade DeFi tokens without fees, it is just depositing money to the app, select a plan, which is mentioned elsewhere as conservative/moderate/aggressive. This is exactly what I said. On the front page you even have the market robot. > Are what make **YIELD** tick under the hood. Our market-monitoring bots assist a team of world-leading Yield Farming experts in curating safe, yet highly yielding DeFi positions This is exactly the same as other High Yield Investment Programs in crypto, it follows the same template, same structure, but this time it is DeFi instead of regular exchanges. You understand that, if you are actually running a platform to do actual trades on DeFi in aggregate, that what is advertised is not that, it is advertised as a high yield investment program.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 11:53:27

There was no direct involvement of Bitcoin or crypto in this particular case, right? (Not that we know of)

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 11:29:54

I already read all of your promotional material, including the whole timeline on your twitter. But nowhere is there any mention of letting users actually trade on Defi. The only option users have is, deposit money, then select between Low-Medium-High aggressiveness, I assume that is for the trading bot? If you actually offer a service that aggregates trades and execute them in bulk on DeFi to save fees, then advertise it as such. Right now it is advertised as: Deposit money with us, and we will give you more money back, trough a trading bot on DeFi.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 11:05:59

I like this quote from the fbi-gov site about hate crimes: >Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties. Being tolerant is about allowing things that one personally is against without trying to impose penalties on the people who believe it or practice it. Those who are genuinely tolerant let others be, even those who evoke strong negative feelings. I am sure that "hate" does not mean what you think of as hate, it is hate for thee but not for me. Hating those who hate is somehow not hate, like multiplying two negatives. Of course it is really not a statement against hate or harm in principle, it is specifically about deciding what is justifiable hate and what is justifiable harm, only unjustifiable hate is actually hate, justifiable hate is presented as compassion (a really distorted and corrupted form if you ask me, but still, that is how it is how it is advertised).

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 11:03:22

Was it a long time since you saw that? Reddit seems pretty good about weeding out places that allow that sort of thing since is not allowed on the site. Posts that seems WS friendly is not a lot to go by. Is it coded posts with hidden symbols or references that someone has to be be attuned at to pick up? Or is it just plain support for WS? Basically everything can be posted on inactive parts of reddit, but if something actually get traffic there is absolutely zero tolerance for that content. At least that is my impression. I would be curious to see the next post with traction you see that is WS friendly. Maybe I just don't know what to look for.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 10:47:23

So mvp is the name of the app. Or you mean the app is the "MVP". Is your marketing material misleading on purpose? If people use custodial services to trade on DeFi, it's **NOT** DeFi. It's just a exchange at best. The advertisements of your product is: Deposit Mone/Crypto to our APP, and we will give you extremely high returns back! (Those returns come from DeFi bot) That is just a transparent Scam pretending to be DeFi.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 10:39:43

What do you mean try the mvp? What does mvp stand for in this contex? I don't have definite evidence that this is a scam of course, since it is not even out yet, but it raises every flag in the book. It is a "trading bot" that gives unreasonable high returns, but the twist is that this bot, it runs on DeFi!

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 10:32:09

But this is NOT even DeFi. It is just a basic HYIP with a "Defi" theme. Saying that since Bitcoin is the first Bitcoin then everything even tangentially related to Bitcoin, including scams that have nothing to do with crypto other than collecting funds is not very sensible.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 10:27:31

All right, I looked it up. It is just a scam high-yield investment program also known as a literal ponzi scheme.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 10:22:49

How is it related to Bitcoin?

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/btc on October 7, 2020 10:20:01

Opportunistic advocates try to force people of influence into taking sides, and they use every tactic in the book. I think most people generally dislike seeing the sort of treatment that the NHL player was put through. There is a common curtesy to leave people alone and to let them remain silent. Everyone knows that it is possible to smear anyone, even someone perfect, with lies and rumors if necessary, so that is why we should leave that in the realm of actual politicians and not try to do that to regular public persons. I have noticed that it is relatively common to go after people who have demonstrated through their actions the opposite of what they are accused of. There is nothing that disqualifies someone from becoming a target. I was not aware of the "phrase of the day" thing, is that on reddit or on some other online forum? People have to say the phrase or get banned? I believe you, but it sound so weird. I have not seen it myself, but I am not active on social media (just this account) and you know how I communicate.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 09:32:32

Regular people can get in hot water for expressing their views or even making jokes that are not understood to be jokes on social media. Even just being accused of having said something in extreme cases. Do regular people actually get pestered for what they don't say online currently? Like if someone just don't respond to questions from strangers or makes no comment, is that something that something that does result in complaints to their employer? I hope that does not happen, it would be a real downer if it did. People should at the very least be able to remain silent, that is a pretty basic right. Going after people who don't say something, is that not admitting that there is not enough people that do say something to go after? Like there is a supply and demand issue in finding people to go after.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 08:33:14

Or just to have a checkbox "I confirm I know first withdrawal will require full KYC for every customer" that would stop a lot of unnecessary hassle.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 07:51:21

Which I imagine is why there are barriers to entry in general. There has to be some sort of justification for why retail investors are allowed into something where net losses are guaranteed for the group as a whole. Technically the "retail investor" group could have more gains than losses compared to the other investors, but I doubt it.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 07:49:04

>**If** all it takes for me to make a (1) dollar is to invest $0.30 I am always going to take that opportunity. I will sign with both hands : "Yes let me put in my 30 cents and give me a dollar" Yes. If your actual model of the intrinsic value is correct and not based on insider information. The argument u/spookman makes is that it is ***virtually impossible*** for a investor to make a model which creates a intrinsic value that is better than a random guess in crypto due to the environment that crypto is in. Crypto fails to live up to a threshold where it is meaningful to talk about intrinsic value to begin with. (correct me if I misrepresent you). Your argument is that you actually are able to figure out what the intrinsic value is and when you see something dropping 70% under the intrinsic value you swoop in for the virtually guaranteed gains (assuming your model is correct and no unforeseen changes). Absolutely everything in the world is profitable - for those who is able to actually create a good enough model of reality and accurately set the intrinsic value to capitalize on it, it won't be correct 100% of the time, but it is basically having a positive expected value per bet guaranteeing that repeated bets will be a net gain.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 07:40:32

You see how a service allowing deposits without KYC but then require it for withdrawals is something that looks sketchy and how it would be commented on here. It could be industry standard for all I know, but it is really weird. Registering the to the site is just enter "Username+Password" then verifying a mail, click "I am over 18/accept privacy/send me promotional mail". Adding a checkbox "I am not a citizen in of one of these countries: US++" would go a long way.

Commented by /u/greengenerosity in /r/Buttcoin on October 7, 2020 07:09:33