Reddit User Account Overview

/u/

/u/guyfawkesfp
Redditor Since September 2, 2018 (671 days old)
Karma Posts: 5,439 Comments: 1,262 Combined: 6,701
Active in


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ezb8j3/it_is_with_great_pleasure_i_announce_freedom/

The Bitcoin network has been stuck at a major roadblock for some six years now. Bitcoin is failing to both technically scale and socially scale (adoption). This is due to an inability to find consensus. As wonderful as the Bitcoin protocol is, it has not solved the social challenge of agreeing on how to move forward… At least that is how it is perceived. The Bitcoin protocol is actually working exactly as intended. The inability to scale both technically and socially is not the fault of the protocol, but rather our misunderstanding of it. You see, developers have been pigeonholed into believing that base protocol is directly correlated with adoption… It is believed that over the long run adoption will map 1:1 with base protocol improvement. This is the thought process that is failing Bitcoin. Bitcoin protocol development never has and never will materially determine consensus. Consensus is a bit more complicated than that. When thinking about Bitcoin consensus, we need to think much bigger than Bitcoin. We need to understand how global money achieves consensus. How does Bitcoin achieve world domination – More specifically, what are the consensus rules that economically force 8 billion people to use Bitcoin? To understand how Bitcoin achieves global domination, it helps to look at how other companies have done the same. Take the case study of Netflix overtaking Blockbuster. Any user still on the legacy Blockbuster protocol was economically punished through higher fees. It was through this process Netflix economically forced consensus of its protocol. The lesson to be learned is that Bitcoin scales through economic superiority. Users will adopt Bitcoin, if and only if, they are economically punished for not doing so. So what are the consensus rules to economically force global Bitcoin adoption? To define these rules, we must first understand the inefficiencies present in the current fiat system. Once we understand these inefficiencies, we can design Bitcoin to supplant fiat. This brings us to the second failure of the Bitcoin community. We have not correctly identified the weakness in fiat for which Bitcoin should exploit. Most Bitcoiners believe the primary cost of fiat is inflation. Working backwards from that, most Bitcoiners believe Bitcoin will force adoption by simply having a finite supply. They call it sound money. While that may come to fruition over a long time horizon, there exists a much greater chink in the fiat armor. The primary cost of fiat is not inflation, but rather extortion. Every trade in the current economy incurs 40%+ extortion cost. If Bitcoin can enable extortion-resistant trade, that will serve as the consensus mechanism to economically force global adoption of Bitcoin. Anyone failing to adopt extortion-resistant money, will pay twice as much for everything. Any blockchain failing to scale to meet this demand, will be run over. **For this reason, we can conclude extortion-resistance is Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism.** That begs the question, is extortion-resistant money possible? The answer to that question is yes, and the solution is called Freedom Network. Freedom Network enables two peers, with no prior relationship, to efficiently exchange a physical product/service without any middlemen. Bitcoin removes the banking middleman, and Freedom Network removes the business middleman, in doing so creating a completely peer-to-peer trade. By removing all middlemen from trade, the mafia has no economic means to enforce its arbitrary rules on the transaction, thus saving the user 40%+ on trade. Users will join this system not out of ideological persuasion, but because they personally profit from it. \--------------------------------- The first implementation of Freedom Network is launching on top of the Bitcoin Cash blockchain on February 11. The first implementation is called “Free the Plebes.” I cannot speak to the probability that Free the Plebes will be the dominant Freedom Network implementation, but I can assure you the dominant Freedom Network implementation will crown the winning blockchain. For extortion-resistance is Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism. Regardless of what skills you have, there are many ways to not only participate in Free the Plebes development, but potentially profit from doing so. There are currently five ways to directly profit from Free the Plebes with differing risk-reward profiles: “Mining” Bonuses – (Paid out from FNS username domain subscriptions) 1. Refer users to Free the Plebes 2. Refer developers to Free the Plebes 3. Develop Freedom Network applications User Bonuses 1. Consume Services (Save 30%+) 2. Offer Services (Be your own boss) \--------------------------------- The above serves as fair notice that the FNS username domain, as well as mining incentives will launch on February 11.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 10:32:57

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/

**Advantages of Dev Fund** 1. The opportunity cost of redirecting hashpower to the Dev Fund is essentially zero. 2. If the Dev Fund results in onboarding a significant number of users, then it is worth it (easier said than done). **Disadvantages of Dev Fund** 1. We can say with virtual certainty investing money into full node implementations will attract exactly zero additional users. The BCH bottleneck is obviously use cases, not node infrastructure. 2. If BCH really maxes out its current node infrastructure due to on-chain activity, this implies the price will have also increased 10X - 50X, making infrastructure funding a trivial matter. 3. The Dev Fund may lead to another contentious hard fork/split in the community. 4. Making this drastic of a change over $6 million seems like a high-risk, low-reward situation. All four of the plan's signers and BCH marketcap have a good chance of losing significantly more than $6 million if the Dev Fund is implemented. 5. If BCH was really $6 million away from a breakthrough, all of these guys would have self-funded it already. The fact that they haven't shows they don't believe this $6 million is going to make much of a difference and they don't know which projects are worthy of investment. 6. Funds like this usually end in waste or corruption. **Neutral Points on Dev Fund** 1. A chain with near empty blocks is essentially useless, and is not/cannot be decentralized. 2. If an entity has the power to implement a Dev Fund, whether they choose to or not, does not change the underlying decentralization of Bitcoin Cash. You are just choosing to ignore the centralization that already exists. 3. Doing nothing can and probably will lead to failure. The current trajectory of BCH does not look great. BCH is in need of a significant paradigm shift.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 26, 2020 12:00:50

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eilbof/bch_has_existed_for_25_years_and_is_doing_02/

It has been 2.5 years. BCH is 3% of BTC. The blocks are virtually empty. The market has spoken, and BCH is not executing on its mission --> To bring censorship resistant money to the world. Many will see this post as some super secret undercover troll infiltration operation. Hopefully some will consider the argument being made: Virtually all BCH developers are working on 1. Wallet Software 2. Node Software 3. Base Protocol Improvements It is important to understand base infrastructure has never and will never onboard users. **Base infrastructure makes room for more users, but it does not onboard them.** This is a very important distinction to understand. New users will join BCH for useful applications, not infrastructure. Given that BCH has not seen any material adoption in its short 2.5 year history, maybe it is time for developers working on infrastructure to consider building out actual use cases. The base protocol is good enough for the time being. BCH has more full node implementations than it does applications -> This is the definition of insanity

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 13:02:04

https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/cx40ot/the_allegory_of_the_slave/

Historians have made a recent discovery detailing a long lost ancient civilization that structured itself entirely through religion. It is surprisingly well documented but not well understood. For one reason or another, it has not garnered much attention from the media. Leading historians predict this civilization began around 9102 BC. The ancient civilization derived all direction and societal structure from the sacred God of **Ycarcomed***.* This God promised its people a fair, just system for living life on an imperfect Earth. So long as the people submitted to the almighty God, the people would be taken care of. The fundamental challenge facing any God is the oracle. The oracle is the imperfect human tasked with interpreting God’s Will and writing it on paper. In today’s modern religions, this is most similar to the Bible or Quran. This creates a problem. How do the people of Ycarcomed know the oracle is not lying? How do they know the oracle has scribed God’s Will, and not his own? To address this problem, the founders of the ancient civilization came together and drafted what they knew as the **Noitutitsnoc***.* This document became the sacred text to be referenced as God’s Will. The next challenge facing any religion is implementation. It is one thing to identify God’s Will. It is another thing to implement his vision in society. To address this challenge, the ancient civilization created what was known as the **Tnemnrevog***.* Much like a Church or Mosque, this organization was in charge of administering day-to-day ceremonies of the society at large. It helped feed the poor, educate the young, heal the sick, and most importantly spread the good word of God. In order to claim legitimacy, the Tnemnrevog needed God’s approval. To solve this problem, the holy text called for a sacred ritual known as the **Gnitov** Ceremony. This was widely believed to be the most holy ceremony a commoner had the honor of participating in. At this ceremony, God would bestow upon the Tnemnrevog his sacred blessing. In this community, the teachings of God were learned in early childhood. The first lessons began at the age of five and continued on until adulthood. These lessons were known as **Loohcs.** Every session began with a prayer where the children collectively saluted their devotion to God. In this daily gathering, the children learned about the teachings of God while socializing among their peers. The most important part of the program was orienting the children to the idea that most of the day would be spent worshipping God. All sessions were mandatory for all children. While the children were being oriented to society, the adults were expected to worship God. Every day the adult community members committed four hours of their time to worship. This practice was known as **Sexat***.* It was widely believed that without widespread daily worship to God, chaos would quickly ensue. For this reason, daily worship was mandatory for all grown community members. Originally the Tnemnrevog was prescribed by the holy text to establish guidelines for the community to follow. It did not take long before the organization’s passive guidelines became binding decree. Any commoner found to be violating “God’s Will” as determined by the Tnemnrevog, would be required to participate in the **Nosirp** ritual. This ritual cleansed the dissenters of God so they could rejoin society as a purified member. Nosirp was a village isolated from the rest of society. At this village, dissenters of God could not speak to their friends or loved ones. They were confined to a tiny room to repay their debts to God. The ritual could go on for decades at a time before participants were allowed to rejoin society as a purified member. While many of the commoners cherished the Nosirp ritual, no one wanted to participate in the time-consuming practice themselves. In the beginning of the civilization, Nosirp was reserved for only the most egregious offenders of God. By the end of the civilization, millions of peaceful people found themselves in Nosirp not for violating God’s Word, but instead for violating the Tnemnrevog’s interpretation of God’s Word. While the Nosirp Ritual was reserved for punishing local dissenters of God, the Tnemnrevog desired to spread their influence to foreign lands. To spread the word of Ycarcomed, the **Secrof Demra** was created. The fierce group traveled across the land killing anyone who refused to submit to the God of Ycarcomed. After returning home from their long journeys, the Secrof Demra were rabidly praised by the community for spreading the good word of God. After many generations had passed, society was no longer living under the God of Ycarcomed, but instead the arbitrary rule of the Tnemnrevog. The Tnemnrevog’s true source of power came not from the God of Ycarcomed, but rather the Secrof Demra and the Nosirp Ritual. The divine God of Ycarcomed had become nothing more than an illusion for the Tnemnrevog to cloak its arbitrary authoritarian rule. \-------------------------------------------------- Hint: Look back through the article for the bolded words and read them backwords (from right to left). Story also linked here: [https://medium.com/@guyfawkesfp/the-allegory-of-the-slave-7fcdcc497884](https://medium.com/@guyfawkesfp/the-allegory-of-the-slave-7fcdcc497884)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Libertarian on August 29, 2019 13:28:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/

**0. Context for Proposal** It seems to me there is a certain level of complacency that BCH is the only viable alternative to BTC. Whether that is true or not, there are at least 25 other viable BTC alternatives, and many more chains on the way. It is also entirely possible BTC increases the blocksize in the future. In any event, simply having larger blocks does not make BCH the de facto replacement to BTC. Before we move forward, we must acknowledge the elephant in the room. BCH is not doing very well. The blocks are nearly empty. BCH is at \~3% of Bitcoin at the time of this proposal. I know many of you will say this is due to Blockstream, Core, Trolls, and a whole list of other nefarious reasons. That’s fine. Believe what you want. I believe BCH is doing poorly because we have failed as a community. In either diagnosis, the only way BCH is going to do better is if WE THE COMMUNITY do something about it. Obviously this proposal is not ideal, but given the situation BCH is in right now, I think it is a valuable trade off. **1. "Cash Fund" Proposal** At current market rates, Bitcoin Cash is scheduled to invest \~$200 million on hashpower every 12 months. Depending on market rates, this could easily become many billions over the coming years. I believe this is a misallocation of resources. I believe the block-reward should instead be directed towards development of BCH applications and BCH protocol. If/When the BCH marketcap passes the BTC marketcap, then we go back to mining as usual. Until BCH marketcap surpasses BTC marketcap, I see little downside to investing block-rewards in development instead of hashpower. **2. How to Secure the Chain without hashpower?** Many will argue hashpower is important in order to secure the chain and maintain “Decentralization.” While this is true for a majority hashpower chain, it is not entirely true of a minority chain. BCH hashpower is \~3% of BTC’s. BCH is not really secured by hashpower. BCH is mostly secured by exchanges collectively agreeing on what the “Valid chain” is regardless of hashpower. The BCH chain can alternatively be secured by anchoring in periodic checkpoint hashes into the BTC chain. This enables BCH to leverage the hashpower of the BTC chain, while freeing up the BCH block-reward to be invested in application/protocol development. Many will argue this method requires “Trusted parties” to sign off on the ledger. This is somewhat true, but it does not materially differ to how BCH is secured today. Today the exchanges are essentially the “Trusted parties” signing off on what the valid BCH chain is. This is because BCH has 3% hashpower compared to BTC. **3. Implementation** There are many implementation challenges associated with such a proposal. That can be discussed later. The purpose of this post is to see if there would be interest in such a change. **4. What do you think will benefit BCH more?** 1. Investing $200 million/year on hashpower 2. Investing $200 million/year on development \--------------------------------------------------------- If you **(yes you the person reading this right now)** believe this could improve the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem, then I encourage you to post in [r/btc](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/) why you support the **Cash Fund** proposal.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 12:50:30

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/coz18b/i_make_the_following_cash_fund_proposal/

**0. Context for Proposal** It seems to me there is a certain level of complacency that BCH is the only viable alternative to BTC. Whether that is true or not, there are at least 25 other viable BTC alternatives, and many more chains on the way. It is also entirely possible BTC increases the blocksize in the future. In any event, simply having larger blocks does not make BCH the de facto replacement to BTC. Before we move forward, we must acknowledge the elephant in the room. BCH is not doing very well. The blocks are nearly empty. BCH is at \~3% of Bitcoin at the time of this proposal. I know many of you will say this is due to Blockstream, Core, Trolls, and a whole list of other nefarious reasons. That’s fine. Believe what you want. I believe BCH is doing poorly because we have failed as a community. In either diagnosis, the only way BCH is going to do better is if WE THE COMMUNITY do something about it. Obviously this proposal is not ideal, but given the situation BCH is in right now, I think it is a valuable trade off. **1. "Cash Fund" Proposal** At current market rates, Bitcoin Cash is scheduled to invest \~$200 million on hashpower every 12 months. Depending on market rates, this could easily become many billions over the coming years. I believe this is a misallocation of resources. I believe the block-reward should instead be directed towards development of BCH applications and BCH protocol. If/When the BCH marketcap passes the BTC marketcap, then we go back to mining as usual. Until BCH marketcap surpasses BTC marketcap, I see little downside to investing block-rewards in development instead of hashpower. **2. How to Secure the Chain without hashpower?** Many will argue hashpower is important in order to secure the chain and maintain “Decentralization.” While this is true for a majority hashpower chain, it is not entirely true of a minority chain. BCH hashpower is \~3% of BTC’s. BCH is not really secured by hashpower. BCH is mostly secured by exchanges collectively agreeing on what the “Valid chain” is regardless of hashpower. The BCH chain can alternatively be secured by anchoring in periodic checkpoint hashes into the BTC chain. This enables BCH to leverage the hashpower of the BTC chain, while freeing up the BCH block-reward to be invested in application/protocol development. Many will argue this method requires “Trusted parties” to sign off on the ledger. This is somewhat true, but it does not materially differ to how BCH is secured today. Today the exchanges are essentially the “Trusted parties” signing off on what the valid BCH chain is. This is because BCH has 3% hashpower compared to BTC. **3. Implementation** There are many implementation challenges associated with such a proposal. That can be discussed later. The purpose of this post is to see if there would be interest in such a change. **4. What do you think will benefit BCH more?** 1. Investing $200 million/year on hashpower 2. Investing $200 million/year on development \--------------------------------------------------------- If you **(yes you the person reading this right now)** believe this could improve the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem, then I encourage you to post in [r/btc](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/) why you support the **Cash Fund** proposal.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 12:45:29

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/coxoz6/i_make_the_following_cash_attack_proposal/

**0. Context for Proposal** It seems to me there is a certain level of complacency that BCH is the only viable alternative to BTC. Whether that is true or not, there are at least 25 other viable BTC alternatives, and many more chains on the way. It is also entirely possible BTC increases the blocksize in the future. In any event, simply having larger blocks does not make BCH the de facto replacement to BTC. Before we move forward, we must acknowledge the elephant in the room. BCH is not doing very well. The blocks are nearly empty. BCH is at \~3% of Bitcoin at the time of this proposal. I know many of you will say this is due to Blockstream, Core, Trolls, and a whole list of other nefarious reasons. That’s fine. Believe what you want. I believe BCH is doing poorly because we have failed as a community. In either diagnosis, the only way BCH is going to do better is if WE THE COMMUNITY do something about it. Obviously this proposal is not ideal, but given the situation BCH is in right now, I think it is a valuable trade off. **1. "Cash Attack" Proposal** At current market rates, Bitcoin Cash is scheduled to invest \~$200 million on hashpower every 12 months. Depending on market rates, this could easily become many billions over the coming years. I believe this is a misallocation of resources**.** I believe the block-reward should instead be directed towards development of BCH applications and BCH protocol. If/When the BCH marketcap passes the BTC marketcap, then we go back to mining as usual. Until BCH marketcap surpasses BTC marketcap, I see little downside to investing block-rewards in development instead of hashpower. **2. How to Secure the Chain without hashpower?** Many will argue hashpower is important in order to secure the chain and maintain “Decentralization.” While this is true for a majority hashpower chain, it is not entirely true of a minority chain. BCH hashpower is \~3% of BTC’s. BCH is not really secured by hashpower. BCH is mostly secured by exchanges collectively agreeing on what the “Valid chain” is regardless of hashpower. The BCH chain can alternatively be secured by anchoring in periodic checkpoint hashes into the BTC chain. This enables BCH to leverage the hashpower of the BTC chain, while freeing up the BCH block-reward to be invested in application/protocol development. Many will argue this method requires “Trusted parties” to sign off on the ledger. This is somewhat true, but it does not materially differ to how BCH is secured today. Today the exchanges are essentially the “Trusted parties” signing off on what the valid BCH chain is. This is because BCH has 3% hashpower compared to BTC. **3. Implementation** There are many implementation challenges associated with such a proposal. That can be discussed later. The purpose of this post is to see if there would be interest in such a change. **4. What do you think will benefit BCH more?** 1. Investing $200 million/year on hashpower 2. Investing $200 million/year on development \--------------------------------------------------------- If you **(yes you the person reading this right now)** believe this could improve the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem, then I encourage you to post in r/btc why you support the **Cash Attack** proposal.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 10:57:26

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/

Many have correctly identified the problem of government and the corporation. What is missing is a sound game theoretical design to manifest a peer-to-peer solution in an adversarial environment. If we are going to achieve the peer-to-peer vision, we must do so through economic persuasion. Neither government nor the corporation is going to willfully give up its power. If we are to succeed, we must create a new solution which makes the old obsolete. Fortunately there is a way to do this. The core value proposition of all business models is trust/identity. All businesses match a buyer and a seller and collect a fee for doing so. The reason we are reliant on centralized businesses is because we cannot establish trust among two peers without going through a centralized intermediary. If we solve this problem, then we have made the centralized business obsolete. A system of peer-to-peer trust can be rather easily built on the blockchain. Users register their identity to a designated Bitcoin address and link all of their profile characteristics/data to this identity. Attestation from peers is used to build a public profile. Using this public immutable profile, instead of the individual broadcasting trade requests to a single monopoly provider like Facebook, Uber, eBay, Netflix, etc, the user broadcasts trade requests to thousands of competing matchmakers. Each matchmaker recreates a complete copy of the network. All prospective counterparties can verify the trustworthiness of each other on the blockchain. They need not trust the monopolized intermediary to verify each other's reputation. By solving peer-to-peer trust, you have eliminated the very thing that allows corporations to attain monopolies -- the network effect. By eliminating the network effect of trust, the centralized business is made obsolete. By making the centralized business obsolete, government is indirectly made obsolete. Government has no power without the centralized business implementing its decrees out of fear of getting shut down. It simply cannot control an economy of billions of individuals transacting peer-to-peer. By making the centralized business and government obsolete, the cost of trade is reduced 40%+. This is because the cost of the middleman, regulation, and extortion is removed from trade as it cannot be enforced in a peer-to-peer framework. Users will join this system not out of ideological persuasion, but because they personally profit from it.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2019 17:59:59

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/

I think all Bitcoiners universally agree that Bitcoin will not have reached its full potential until it is used for most transactions globally. It is very logical to work backwards from that end goal and realize that Merchant Adoption is a huge stepping stone in that direction... Universal Bitcoin adoption requires universal Merchant Adoption - Everyone agrees on this point. The problem lies in the roadmap to achieving universal Merchant Adoption. The status quo solution (in BCH community) for spreading adoption is "Spend & Replace" at merchants. The idea is that you simultaneously spend $20 of Bitcoin at a merchant, and replace it through Coinbase. The theory is the more you spend Bitcoin at merchants, the more merchants will accept Bitcoin. The more merchants that accept Bitcoin, the more attractive it is to use in payment, thus a positive feedback loop occurs. This is all perfectly logical reasoning. The "Spend & Replace" solution falls short for 2 reasons: 1. What incentive does Average Joe have to adopt "Spend & Replace" Bitcoin evangelism? Average Joe is still purchasing the exact same product, at the exact same price. In addition to paying the exact same price for the product, Average Joe is significantly inconvenienced. Joe has to send fiat to Coinbase. Buy Bitcoin on Coinbase. Transfer the Bitcoin to his very confusing Bitcoin wallet. After transferring to his Bitcoin wallet, the Bitcoin may go up or down 20% before he spends it. Why is Joe going to go through 5 extra steps, and endure Bitcoin price volatility, all to purchase the exact same product at the exact same price as a credit card? 2. In virtually all cases, the merchant is not actually adopting Bitcoin. The merchant is simply syncing a point of sale exchange to convert your Bitcoin to fiat. This can be done 100% on the user's end without involving the merchant at all. Even when involving the merchant, the merchant never touches the Bitcoin at any point in time. What most people call "Merchant Adoption" is really just synchronized sales of Bitcoin to give the appearance of "Merchant Adoption." The merchant at no point is ever holding Bitcoin. This form of Merchant Adoption is really just feel good adoption. \--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not advocating that people stop Spend & Replace. If you want to Spend & Replace, more power to you. I am simply making the argument that spend & replace is: 1. Not an attractive use case to Average Joe 2. Even if Average Joe finds it attractive, it's not actually increasing "Merchant Adoption" \-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we are going to persuade Average Joe to adopt Bitcoin, it must save him at least 10% over legacy services, or else he isn't going to switch. The only two use cases of Bitcoin which can enable Joe to save 10%+ over legacy services are: 1. Free Trade without extortion 2. Free Trade without arbitrary rules My proposal is described here: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnRdVeGoPkkdk2lXtdjDfy7c0z1ZlmRE/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnRdVeGoPkkdk2lXtdjDfy7c0z1ZlmRE/view?usp=sharing) Would love to hear other proposals.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 15:49:24

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/

In the current economy, most trades incur \~40% extortion/regulatory cost from mafias and another \~15% fees from businesses. It varies depending on the situation. If we can eliminate the middleman, say Starbucks for example, then we eliminate both these costs. Mafias cannot efficiently extort P2P trade without a middleman. A dapp is simply a routing protocol that allows 2+ people to trade without a middleman. Starbucks can be recreated as an open P2P protocol. Here is what a Starbucks dapp might look like: 1. Suppliers - Suppliers sell Starbucks ingredients in an open market as specified by the protocol. 2. Baristas - Baristas assemble ingredients from suppliers and make drinks for consumers as specified by the protocol. 3. Location - Locations compete to host baristas at the best rate as specified by the protocol. Baristas can work at a 3rd party location, or host their own Starbucks location at their house. 4. Certification/Reviews - Trusted companies/peers attest to the validity of Suppliers/Baristas/Locations claimed by the operators. 5. Matchmaking - Starbucks/Barista locations are broadcasted to competing Indexes. Consumers can then choose a barista/location based on price/location/reputation/trusted certifications. Mafia extortion will be eliminated through the Cyclist's Doping Dilemma. Any entity unwilling, unable, or politically opposed to cutting out mafia extortion/high fees will be replaced by those who will... In other words: cheat or finish last. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whitepaper: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 08:56:41

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/a1ipsk/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/

This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing. \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **1.** **Central Theory Assumptions** 1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade 2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers 3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60% 4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant 5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result. **2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?** 1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin 2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation 3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers) **2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?** 1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID) 2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider. 3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID. 4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants. **2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?** There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition: 1. **Competing Blockchains:** If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain. 2. **Competing Server:** Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain. 3. **Competing Indexes:** Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network. 4. **Competing Protocols (dapps):** Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols. 5. **Competing Moderators:** Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all. 6. **Competing Clients:** Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network. 7. **Competing Users:** Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price. ![img](9xshngpkoa121) Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip\_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4\_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on November 29, 2018 11:16:07

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/

This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing. \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **1.** **Central Theory Assumptions** 1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade 2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers 3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60% 4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant 5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result. **2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?** 1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin 2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation 3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers) **2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?** 1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID) 2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider. 3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID. 4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants. **2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?** There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition: 1. **Competing Blockchains:** If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain. 2. **Competing Server:** Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain. 3. **Competing Indexes:** Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network. 4. **Competing Protocols (dapps):** Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols. 5. **Competing Moderators:** Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all. 6. **Competing Clients:** Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network. 7. **Competing Users:** Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price. https://i.redd.it/oyl8hvq81a121.png Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip\_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4\_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 09:13:12

https://www.reddit.com/r/Polycentric_Law/comments/a1hl0f/peertopeer_trade_makes_government_obsolete_if_we/

This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing. \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **1.** **Central Theory Assumptions** 1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade 2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers 3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60% 4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant 5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result. **2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?** 1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin 2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation 3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers) **2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?** 1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID) 2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider. 3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID. 4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants. **2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?** There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition: 1. **Competing Blockchains:** If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain. 2. **Competing Server:** Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain. 3. **Competing Indexes:** Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network. 4. **Competing Protocols (dapps):** Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols. 5. **Competing Moderators:** Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all. 6. **Competing Clients:** Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network. 7. **Competing Users:** Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price. https://i.redd.it/ak11mvaq0a121.png Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip\_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4\_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Polycentric_Law on November 29, 2018 09:03:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/

This theory has taken me the better part of a year to refine. The theory takes significant time to fully understand. Anyone who is willing to learn/question/critique the theory I am happy to do discuss with you as long as you are willing. \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **1.** **Central Theory Assumptions** 1. A peer-to-peer economy removes the centralized middleman from trade 2. By removing the centralized middleman, it becomes economically impractical for mafias to surveil and extort trade among peers 3. Peer-to-peer trade involving no middlemen or mafias would reduce the price for the same products and services by 40%-60% 4. 99.9% of people in society, when given a choice, will choose the product/service that is 40%-60% less expensive, assuming all other variables remain constant 5. If a hypothetical peer-to-peer economy can be created at scale, then a mostly voluntary society will be created as a result. **2. What is Needed to Create a Peer-to-Peer Economy?** 1. Permissionless Value Transfer (Bitcoin 2. Permissionless User Identification/Reputation 3. Permissionless Matchmaking (Efficiently match producers with consumers) **2.1 How to Create Permissionless Identification?** 1. A Bitcoin address represents the user's ID (not for payments, just ID) 2. A human readable name system is layered on top of Bitcoin address ID creation. Names can be freely registered with any competing provider. 3. Users are free to submit or not submit hard documentation to competing identity verification companies who will attest to the user's real world identity, to their Bitcoin address ID. 4. Users link all reputation, broadcasts, content, server address info, and payment addresses to their Bitcoin address ID for discovery from other network participants. **2.2 How to Create Permissionless Matchmaking?** There are 7 layers of competition. The blockchain is at the center of the network, and users are at the perimeter. If at any point a network participant falls subject to censorship from mafias, or attempts to monopolize a component of the network, it will be replaced through open competition: 1. **Competing Blockchains:** If a blockchain's defining characteristics of permissionless value transfer and data storage are compromised, then competing forks will replace the compromised chain. 2. **Competing Server:** Servers compete to offer censorship resistant hosting service at the best price. Servers are a localized extension of the blockchain. 3. **Competing Indexes:** Indexes sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (and its linked servers) and organize information in a searchable format. Indexes can be thought of as 'miners' of the network. 4. **Competing Protocols (dapps):** Dapps are open protocols within the network. Anyone is free to participate, not participate, or create new protocols. 5. **Competing Moderators:** Moderators identify spam, scams, and trolls in the network. Users report bad actors to the moderators. Spam/scams/trolls cannot be removed from the network itself, but moderators prevent them from being observed in the user's client. The user is free to choose any moderator in the network or none at all. 6. **Competing Clients:** Clients compete to offer the best user interface to the network. 7. **Competing Users:** Users compete to offer the best products/services/content at the best price. *Processing img 9btv0n7uo4121...* Any dapplication representing an intangible network (business) can be created as an open protocol within Freedom Network. All dapp broadcasts, content, and information will be published to the blockchain (or linked servers) for discovery by all users in the network. Indexing services sift through broadcasts made to the blockchain (or linked servers), to provide an easily accessible index for querying. Users query the indexes, and then make requests directly from peer to peer for desired content/trade. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Use cases (dapps) of the network are outlined here [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip\_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4\_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ip_NEsPuzxIjABd50GNfJ3wn4_q7d1ZS/view?usp=sharing)

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 15:32:41

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9jd5h6/a_youtube_channel_posting_1_video_per_day/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 7 of 26 **Whitepaper:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view) Join our Discord for more info (link on pg 1 of whitepaper) \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P2P content publishing has many implications for the broader entertainment industry. Imagine a world in which sports, news, tv programming, movies, music, emerging e-sports industry, etc, all drop their legacy distribution providers and go directly to the consumer. For all content, viewers will have the option to offset cost through advertisements, or directly pay for the service. P2p micropayments (App 3) open the floodgates for content creation. For example, if a content creator makes one post a day, 10,000 views/post, and earns 0.005 Big Macs/view, he earns 18,000 Big Macs/year. Current distribution models such as YouTube and web publishers earn a small fraction of that. Users can be charged on a view count or time viewed basis. Now anyone can make it as a small journalist, educator, or mini-reality star.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 27, 2018 10:05:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9is0x8/next_generation_social_media_will_give_the_user/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 6 of 26 **Whitepaper:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view) Join our Discord for more info (link on pg 1 of whitepaper) ​ Next generation social media will involve one universal account identifier using the Freedom Handle. There will be one general publishing protocol, various publishing formats, and many competing clients. All will exist in one application using Freedom Handles. **Universal Freedom Handle:** Instead of maintaining dozens of different accounts, emails, and passwords, all social media accounts will link to one Freedom Handle. **One Publishing Protocol:** The user will publish, broadcast, and store all content, on its own. No walled gardens, no direct intermediaries, no censorship. **Publishing Standards:** The market through emergent consensus will shape differing publishing standards such as FreeTube, FreeBook, FreeGram, FreeChat, Freeter etc. One format may support 140 text characters, another may only support 10 second videos, and a third may support images. All formats will be dictated by the market. **Competing Clients:** Clients will create their own algorithms, and follow their own rule sets. Users will link content to the blockchain using their Freedom Handles, and clients will compete to source content to their users. Competing Clients can choose to comply with or fork publishing standards. Let’s say every morning Alice must let the world know she purchased Starbucks coffee. On the front-end, Alice will simply snap and post. On the back-end, Alice will link her picture to the blockchain using her Freedom Handle. She will upload her photo to her own personal cloud. Her cloud will source the seed file as requested. Clients will source user updates from the blockchain or be directly notified from Alice’s cloud. Next, clients will filter Alice’s content based on their own algorithms. Clients will demand Alice’s coffee pictures from competing server farms. The server farms will stream data to the users as demanded by the clients. The more demand the photo has, the more server farms will host the photo. **Revenue Model** By default, all costs of the system will ultimately be passed on to the viewer of content through micropayments (App 3). The poster of content can elect to charge above cost, at cost (default), subsidize costs, or pay the viewer to see the content. The viewer will have a spectrum of options. It can either pay outright for all costs, a revenue neutral approach with some ads, or it can elect to maximize revenue by selling its soul. We propose simple transitional tools be made so users can easily transfer all legacy social media accounts to their new Freedom Handle. This would essentially fork legacy social media so users can finally opt-out. This will be a default optional request in the client’s setup as outlined in “App 1, Step 6.”

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 25, 2018 09:16:34

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9gb2fa/ln_requires_the_merchant_to_preload_payment/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 3 of 26 Whitepaper: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lo9wem2FX93n31btT9wUtNODfKr3ZYiK/view) **Escrow Backed IOU Micropayments** Escrow Backed IOU's open many doors when it comes to online micropayments for content. Micropayments allow users to pay exactly for the content they are viewing instead of relying on intrusive ad-based revenue models. Additionally micropayments can act as DDOS/spam disincentive. Escrow backed IOU’s will function as a simplified, trusted version of Lightning Network. For many applications it will be an advantageous trade-off to issue escrow backed IOU’s. Escrow backed IOU’s provide semi-peer-to-peer, instant 0 cost transactions. Let’s say Alice plans on generating 1000 transactions with 100 different merchants for a total sum of one Big Mac. Alice will pre-load her account with one Big Mac on chain with the escrow agent. When spending, Alice will issue escrow backed IOU’s to the merchants. These IOU’s require the merchant to trust Alice’s escrow provider. Alice will be permitted to spend up to the amount in her escrow account. Alice will have a pre-determined amount of time to settle her IOU’s. Settlements will be made directly from Alice to the merchant, with one distinction. Instead of Alice generating 100 outputs in an on-chain transaction to each of her merchants, she will consult the escrow agent and make a single payment, to one merchant, for her entire tab, with the longest outstanding IOU of the escrow provider. Upon IOU settlement, the third party releases Alice’s escrow to once again be used as collateral for new payments. If Alice does not settle within the time allotment, then her escrow is released by the trusted third party to the merchants. The merchant will consult a third party service to provide reputation for escrow providers enabling the merchant to easily accept thousands of different escrow providers. **More Censorship Resistant Than Lightning Network** In order for LN to work, users must find a route across the entire network. This inevitably leads to centralization. Merchants are NEVER going to open thousands of direct channels with consumers. That would require them to lock up an impractical amount of capital, on top of being a giant headache. Merchants are simply going to open a couple channels with hubs in LN. Using "Escrow backed IOU's" enables the merchant to open an unlimited amount of trusted payment channels without locking up precious capital. This enables the merchant to easily make thousands of connections resulting in a more decentralized network and hence a more censorship resistant network. A quality which Lightning Network can never achieve. As escrow backed IOU's only make sense for tabs under the size of a Big Mac, trusting the escrow provider with funds is not a real concern (anything larger than a Big Mac would just be done on-chain). The escrow provider is only trusted with transaction details (privacy). As outlined above, Escrow backed IOU's will be significantly more decentralized and hence more private/censorship resistant than the alternative LN for microtransactions. Please read the Freedom Project whitepaper to discover more innovative ideas and our proposal for mass adoption on Bitcoin Cash.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 16, 2018 10:44:56

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fsay4/lightning_network_is_not_even_the_best_available/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 3 of 26 Whitepaper: [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf](https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf) ​ **Probabilistic Payments** Probabilistic payments are similar to how Bitcoin mining rewards are distributed. In mining, transactions are settled every 10 minutes in winner take all fashion, instead of settling every hash. In the long run miners are compensated equally on a per hash basis. The same concept can be applied to micropayments. Alice wants to pay Bob 0.001 Big Macs. Alice cannot pay Bob as the network transaction fee is 0.002 Big Macs. Alice and Bob instead agree upon a game of chance. Alice will pay Bob one Big Mac, if Bob can correctly guess Alice’s chosen number from 1-1000. 999/1000 times the transaction does not occur, however, 1/1000 times Bob receives 1 Big Mac. The expected value ends up equaling 0.001 Big Macs for the payment. This structure comes with the tradeoff of volatility, however, Alice and Bob benefit from increased privacy in that most transactions settle off chain. A rudimentary protocol is described and linked here r/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Nanopayments **Pooling Micropayments** For micro transactions, volatility will not be a concern, for larger transactions an additional layer can be built on top of probabilistic payments. Like miners, Alice and Bob can join pools to hedge volatility. Alice or Bob can optionally open a payment channel with a third party and broadcast all their probabilistic payments to the pool. In this event Alice could pay the exact amount to the third party in their payment channel, and Bob could receive the exact amount from his respective third party in his payment channel. This comes with the tradeoff of reduced privacy to the related pool operators and the need to pre-fund payment channels. There are three advantages to this system: 1. Alice and Bob are still compatible if one uses payment channels and the other does not. 2. All pool nodes are indirectly connected through the laws of statistics. This eliminates both the routing problem and network effect problems as seen in Lightning Network. 3. Pools can easily operate at any scale, limiting centralization.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 14, 2018 10:09:12

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fj2ny/a_simple_spend_replace_solution_would_allow_the/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 2 of 26 Whitepaper: [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf](https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf) **Model** There will exist market makers and users. Market makers will act as the escrow agent and counterparty to the user. Users will indicate to the market maker a public key for which they desire a price peg. The market maker will regularly scan the blockchain for balance changes of the public key and automatically update positions as necessary. The user will be in sole possession of the private key for the given public key. The user will send a fraction of the desired peg to the market maker to be held as collateral against price volatility. The market maker will charge a daily rate for the price peg as determined by market conditions. This rate can be both positive and negative. Furthermore the user will be charged for changing position sizes. All fees will be netted against the user’s escrow. If at any time escrowed funds move below a desired range, the user will be prompted to replenish the escrow. If at any time escrowed funds exceed the desired range, the market maker will automatically send excess funds back to the pegged public key. Open competition will keep market makers honest. Users can create a list of trusted market makers for which orders will automatically be matched against. Replenishing and withdrawing escrow will involve nothing more than simply signing a transaction. By pegging value to the public key, the user can easily transact without going through the headache of making matching transactions in a parallel system. Additionally, the counterparty risk is reduced to the extent of the escrowed funds. There is also no web account which can be hacked. All position changes, escrow deposits, and escrow withdrawals will require signed transactions in doing so inheriting the security of the underlying wallet infrastructure. **Spend & Replace** The user will indicate a desired Bitcoin threshold level. Any time the Bitcoin balance drops below the threshold, the market maker will assume a position which matches the desired threshold level. Let’s say Bob has five Bitcoin. He designates his Spend & Replace threshold at five Bitcoin. He purchases a Lamborghini for one Bitcoin, and now has four Bitcoin in his spend & replace account. The market maker will instantly see the updated balance on the blockchain, and reserve one Bitcoin for Bob at the Big Mac price when Bob purchased the Lamborghini. Bob finally gets around to replenishing the Bitcoin two weeks later but BCH/BM increased 50%. Fortunately the market maker agrees to sell Bob one Bitcoin at the price when he purchased the Lamborghini. Bob still has five Bitcoin and did not have to spend any additional Big Macs despite a price increase. **Accounts** The following will be explained when setting up the client in “App 1, Step 8.” Within the Freedom wallet there will exist three core accounts. Users at the touch of a button can move funds between their Standard Bitcoin, Big Mac pegged, and Spend & Replace accounts. Replenishing escrow will involve pushing 2 buttons. All excess escrow will automatically be sent back.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 13, 2018 11:41:20

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fbh7x/a_simple_seamless_stablecoin_is_crucially/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 2 of 26 Whitepaper: [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf](https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf) **Model** There will exist market makers and users. Market makers will act as the escrow agent and counterparty to the user. Users will indicate to the market maker a public key for which they desire a price peg. The market maker will regularly scan the blockchain for balance changes of the public key and automatically update positions as necessary. The user will be in sole possession of the private key for the given public key. The user will send a fraction of the desired peg to the market maker to be held as collateral against price volatility. The market maker will charge a daily rate for the price peg as determined by market conditions. This rate can be both positive and negative. Furthermore the user will be charged for changing position sizes. All fees will be netted against the user’s escrow. If at any time escrowed funds move below a desired range, the user will be prompted to replenish the escrow. If at any time escrowed funds exceed the desired range, the market maker will automatically send excess funds back to the pegged public key. Open competition will keep market makers honest. Users can create a list of trusted market makers for which orders will automatically be matched against. Replenishing and withdrawing escrow will involve nothing more than simply signing a transaction. By pegging value to the public key, the user can easily transact without going through the headache of making matching transactions in a parallel system. Additionally, the counterparty risk is reduced to the extent of the escrowed funds. There is also no web account which can be hacked. All position changes, escrow deposits, and escrow withdrawals will require signed transactions in doing so inheriting the security of the underlying wallet infrastructure. **Stablecoin** The market maker will peg the value of all Bitcoin within the public key to a stable unit of account such as the Big Mac. Alice has five Bitcoin. She doesn’t understand it, and just wants to buy her Starbucks coffee in the morning. She elects to peg her Bitcoin to the Big Mac to lock in her value. Whether BCH/BM goes up 50% or down 50%, she does not care. She will have the same amount of Big Macs either way. **Accounts** The following will be explained when setting up the client in “App 1, Step 8.” Within the Freedom wallet there will exist three core accounts. Users at the touch of a button can move funds between their Standard Bitcoin, Big Mac pegged, and Spend & Replace accounts. Replenishing escrow will involve pushing 2 buttons. All excess escrow will automatically be sent back.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2018 16:37:49

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9fb6rm/a_simple_seamless_stablecoin_is_crucially/

**Freedom Project** \- Application 2 of 26 Whitepaper: [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf](https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf) Discord: [https://discord.gg/z2bZEq2](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=https%3A%2F%2Fdiscord.gg%2Fz2bZEq2&v=l03ddsRDyLs&event=video_description&redir_token=ODVFp3_EzQhz6Hx9b6yR1ADnGyZ8MTUzNjg2ODg5OUAxNTM2NzgyNDk5) **Model** There will exist market makers and users. Market makers will act as the escrow agent and counterparty to the user. Users will indicate to the market maker a public key for which they desire a price peg. The market maker will regularly scan the blockchain for balance changes of the public key and automatically update positions as necessary. The user will be in sole possession of the private key for the given public key. The user will send a fraction of the desired peg to the market maker to be held as collateral against price volatility. The market maker will charge a daily rate for the price peg as determined by market conditions. This rate can be both positive and negative. Furthermore the user will be charged for changing position sizes. All fees will be netted against the user’s escrow. If at any time escrowed funds move below a desired range, the user will be prompted to replenish the escrow. If at any time escrowed funds exceed the desired range, the market maker will automatically send excess funds back to the pegged public key. Open competition will keep market makers honest. Users can create a list of trusted market makers for which orders will automatically be matched against. Replenishing and withdrawing escrow will involve nothing more than simply signing a transaction. By pegging value to the public key, the user can easily transact without going through the headache of making matching transactions in a parallel system. Additionally, the counterparty risk is reduced to the extent of the escrowed funds. There is also no web account which can be hacked. All position changes, escrow deposits, and escrow withdrawals will require signed transactions in doing so inheriting the security of the underlying wallet infrastructure. **Stablecoin** The market maker will peg the value of all Bitcoin within the public key to a stable unit of account such as the Big Mac. Alice has five Bitcoin. She doesn’t understand it, and just wants to buy her Starbucks coffee in the morning. She elects to peg her Bitcoin to the Big Mac to lock in her value. Whether BCH/BM goes up 50% or down 50%, she does not care. She will have the same amount of Big Macs either way. **Accounts** The following will be explained when setting up the client in “App 1, Step 8.” Within the Freedom wallet there will exist three core accounts. Users at the touch of a button can move funds between their Standard Bitcoin, Big Mac pegged, and Spend & Replace accounts. Replenishing escrow will involve pushing 2 buttons. All excess escrow will automatically be sent back.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2018 16:03:58

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9faz32/a_seamless_simple_robust_stablecoin_is_vitally/

**Freedom Project - Application 2 of 26** Whitepaper: [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/...](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=4T9ly-bi3Jo_krIOKqB6pCuiTL98MTUzNjg2NzM3OUAxNTM2NzgwOTc5&event=video_description&v=l03ddsRDyLs&q=https%3A%2F%2F4html.net%2FViewerPDF%2F%23%2Fsource%2FFree.pdf) Discord: [https://discord.gg/z2bZEq2](https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=4T9ly-bi3Jo_krIOKqB6pCuiTL98MTUzNjg2NzM3OUAxNTM2NzgwOTc5&event=video_description&v=l03ddsRDyLs&q=https%3A%2F%2Fdiscord.gg%2Fz2bZEq2) **Model** There will exist market makers and users. Market makers will act as the escrow agent and counterparty to the user. Users will indicate to the market maker a public key for which they desire a price peg. The market maker will regularly scan the blockchain for balance changes of the public key and automatically update positions as necessary. The user will be in sole possession of the private key for the given public key. The user will send a fraction of the desired peg to the market maker to be held as collateral against price volatility. The market maker will charge a daily rate for the price peg as determined by market conditions. This rate can be both positive and negative. Furthermore the user will be charged for changing position sizes. All fees will be netted against the user’s escrow. If at any time escrowed funds move below a desired range, the user will be prompted to replenish the escrow. If at any time escrowed funds exceed the desired range, the market maker will automatically send excess funds back to the pegged public key. Open competition will keep market makers honest. Users can create a list of trusted market makers for which orders will automatically be matched against. Replenishing and withdrawing escrow will involve nothing more than simply signing a transaction. By pegging value to the public key, the user can easily transact without going through the headache of making matching transactions in a parallel system. Additionally, the counterparty risk is reduced to the extent of the escrowed funds. There is also no web account which can be hacked. All position changes, escrow deposits, and escrow withdrawals will require signed transactions in doing so inheriting the security of the underlying wallet infrastructure. **Stablecoin** The market maker will peg the value of all Bitcoin within the public key to a stable unit of account such as the Big Mac. Alice has five Bitcoin. She doesn’t understand it, and just wants to buy her Starbucks coffee in the morning. She elects to peg her Bitcoin to the Big Mac to lock in her value. Whether BCH/BM goes up 50% or down 50%, she does not care. She will have the same amount of Big Macs either way. **Spend & Replace** The user will indicate a desired Bitcoin threshold level. Any time the Bitcoin balance drops below the threshold, the market maker will assume a position which matches the desired threshold level. Let’s say Bob has five Bitcoin. He designates his Spend & Replace threshold at five Bitcoin. He purchases a Lamborghini for one Bitcoin, and now has four Bitcoin in his spend & replace account. The market maker will instantly see the updated balance on the blockchain, and reserve one Bitcoin for Bob at the Big Mac price when Bob purchased the Lamborghini. Bob finally gets around to replenishing the Bitcoin two weeks later but BCH/BM increased 50%. Fortunately the market maker agrees to sell Bob one Bitcoin at the price when he purchased the Lamborghini. Bob still has five Bitcoin and did not have to spend any additional Big Macs despite a price. **Accounts** The following will be explained when setting up the client in “App 1, Step 8.” Within the Freedom wallet there will exist three core accounts. Users at the touch of a button can move funds between their Standard Bitcoin, Big Mac pegged, and Spend & Replace accounts. Replenishing escrow will involve pushing 2 buttons. All excess escrow will automatically be sent back.

posted by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2018 15:40:15
Top
/r/btc/comments/hkljag/bitcoin_cash_has_the_best_user_experience_for/fwv224j/

BTC is a placeholder for when one of these other coins gets its shit together. No need to jump the gun trying to pick bottoms on shitcoins, when you can still get the winning coin at 5:1 or even 10:1 against BTC after it has actually onboarded users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 21:30:14
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/hkjn6j/if_someone_violates_the_nap_can_i_keep_them_as_a/fwuda30/

If you seek to impose your subjective moralism on others, don't get mad when they do the same to you.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on July 3, 2020 17:22:14
/r/btc/comments/hkljag/bitcoin_cash_has_the_best_user_experience_for/fwtzqdr/

With all due respect, no one uses any of this shit. It is just one big casino. The backstory just serves as the flashy lights, music, and theme to get the gamblers to play their game of "Greater Fool's Theory."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 15:17:11
/r/btc/comments/hkbja1/2_questions_about_bch_block_time_why_the_block/fwt9vtz/

>If someone hits you in the face, do you say "I can't blame you for that since my face was so easy to hit"? If you stand there and continue to let them hit you in the face every 10 minutes for two years, then yes it is your fault.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 11:31:19
/r/btc/comments/hkh00e/20_reasons_why_every_btcenthusiast_needs_to/fwsp3j2/

>I personally trade all of the BAT I earn from ads straight to BTC If you want to sell your time to me for $0.10/hour, I will happily employ you. I will even pay you overtime if you are into that.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 07:50:32
/r/btc/comments/hinngd/everybody_has_a_scaling_plan_until_they_get/fwieuf1/

Being unprepared for potential customers is certainly a risk. The question is does the risk of being unprepared in the hypothetical future, outweigh the risk of BTC/ETH/\[insert coin\] launching their rocket (and never looking back) before BCH even finishes building its rocket?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 16:11:21
/r/btc/comments/hinngd/everybody_has_a_scaling_plan_until_they_get/fwiaxu6/

I agree. An idea is only as good as its implementation... For which I suck at doing at least 1 of the 2. I'm just trying to share alternate perspectives. They could be wrong perspectives, but hopefully people are at least aware that they exist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:40:28
/r/btc/comments/hinngd/everybody_has_a_scaling_plan_until_they_get/fwhprxj/

BCH isn't even in the ring. That's why they are spectating in the crowd. 1. ETH txns/day = 1,100,000 2. BTC txns/day = 325,000 3. BCH txns/day = 14,500

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:54:43
/r/btc/comments/hinngd/everybody_has_a_scaling_plan_until_they_get/fwhh7wf/

> their scaling plan does not include humongous blocks as BCH does That's exactly the problem. BCH keeps planning how to scale, but never actually steps in the ring to onboard the users. Adoption is scaling, and ETH is \[currently\] winning on that front.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:46:39
/r/btc/comments/hinngd/everybody_has_a_scaling_plan_until_they_get/fwhggxb/

Yes, the BCH developers keep making plans about scaling, but never actually "Step in the ring" and actually onboard the users to verify their plan.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:40:35
/r/btc/comments/hi3b8m/i_have_a_really_good_feeling_about_bitcoin_cash/fwf5y0a/

> Expensive is irrelevant to what I was saying. The reason you can't easily send money cross borders is because the governments block it. Bitcoin is circumventing the government restrictions --> anarchy > Border guards confiscated it Or in other words, the government confiscated it. Bitcoin circumvents government confiscation --> anarchy

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 19:33:29
/r/btc/comments/hi3b8m/i_have_a_really_good_feeling_about_bitcoin_cash/fwee0i3/

Why do you think sending money overseas is so expensive in the first place? >Just read a big article this morning about how much perfectly legal money is confiscated. Who confiscated this perfectly legal money again?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:40:53
/r/btc/comments/hi3b8m/i_have_a_really_good_feeling_about_bitcoin_cash/fwedalv/

Ok, name the use cases for when Bitcoin is better than fiat

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:35:12
/r/btc/comments/hi3b8m/i_have_a_really_good_feeling_about_bitcoin_cash/fwec6a1/

Bitcoin is only useful when used in the context of anarchy. For all other situations fiat is superior.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 15:26:11
/r/btc/comments/hhwz1w/1_there_is_now_100_million_worth_of_btc_tokenized/fwdogx2/

At least everyone can inexpensively verify their custodial Bitcoins on the main chain!!!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 12:21:42
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwdm7gz/

> What exact definition of "security" are you using? Security is defined as how the defining features/properties of the chain are actually secured. For example the article evaluates how features like the 21 million limit, initial coin supply issuance, blocksize limit, etc, are actually enforced/secured. I am not making the argument that Bitcoin is insecure. I am making the argument that proof of work is not the active ingredient in securing Bitcoin -- and proposing what is actually securing Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 12:01:50
/r/btc/comments/hhqif1/intro_to_the_permissionless_software_foundation/fwbt995/

Wow, this is incredible Chris! Going through it now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 22:18:57
/r/btc/comments/hgz137/blockstream_liquid_utxo_rotation_issue_affected/fw79nr8/

It took this clown three years to build a 2 of 3 multisig, and he didn't even do it right... lol

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 27, 2020 16:48:22
/r/btc/comments/hg9k94/life_pro_tip_how_to_get_more_bitcoin_cash_for_free/fw4na56/

1. Buy BCH at [local.bitcoin.com](https://local.bitcoin.com/) for 1-5% \*under market (offer the liquidity) ;)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 22:25:17
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw48s21/

Ethereum isn't done. It broke proof of work.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 19:57:55
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw4694k/

The paper is still operating under the false assumptions that miners have influence, and that Bitcoin code magically spits out of a volcano somewhere that has never been influenced by humans. 1. Miners cannot attack the chain, because they don't have any power. They are irrelevant. Miners always follow users, users do not follow miners. All miners do is solve the "fair issuance" of the initial coin supply problem. 2. All nodes are run by humans. They come to consensus over the Internet, the same way they would if they were standing in a room together. There is no difference except for the efficiency at which they communicate. \----------------------- Bitcoin is a very simple system. This is how it works: 1. Users broadcast transactions 2. Other users accept or decline these transactions 3. Users query each other to make sure they are all on the same page. 4. If users are not on the same page, the network splits 5. If the network splits and remains split, then it splits. (Nothing wrong with that) Each user makes a tradeoff of compatibility versus features. All incentives in Bitcoin are derived from this fundamental tradeoff. Miners have no influence over Bitcoin consensus. \------------------------- Let's evaluate the BTC/BCH fork from the above perspective in 2017. In the BTC/BCH fork, there are three general groups of users: 1. 1MB users (\~5% of the userbase) 2. 8MB+ users (\~5% of the userbase) 3. Speculative users (\~90% of the userbase) The 1MB and 8MB user groups desired two distinct rulesets which were incompatible with each other. This has the inevitable outcome of a fork. Over the course of several years, the 8MB+ group eventually agrees on the incompatible ruleset that is now known as Bitcoin Cash, which forked on August 1, 2017. Only 10% of the users had incompatible rulesets. 90% of the users did not care one way or the other. The speculative users were compatible with 1MB, and they were compatible with 8MB+. They did not care either way. The only thing the speculative users cared about was that they all chose one chain or the other together. The exchanges chose to give the 1MB fork the BTC/Bitcoin brand. The reason we didn't see 50% of exchanges give the 1MB chain the Bitcoin brand and 50% of exchanges give the 8MB chain the Bitcoin brand, is because the speculative users wanted to maximise compatibility -- or in other words they didn't care which chain was called Bitcoin -- just that everyone agreed one of them was called Bitcoin and the other wasn't. The exchanges chose to give the 8MB+ fork the BCH/Bitcoin Cash brand. This signalled to the 90% of speculative users (who DGAF either way), that the 1MB chain is Bitcoin and the 8MB chain is an altcoin. Had the exchanges gone the other way, we can predict with strong confidence the 8MB chain would be considered BTC/Bitcoin today and the 1MB chain would be considered the minority fork. The reverse case has empirically been proven by ETH/ETC.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 19:33:19
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2u737/

>If people agree on blocksize, then they'll stay in consensus" is immediately broken by the fact that people *do not* agree on block size, which is the entire point of trying to find the "right" block size! If a user is not willing to fork over it, then the user implicitly agrees with the blocksize. If they disagree with the blocksize, then they fork. If they aren't willing to fork, then they don't disagree. The blocksize limit does not change this. >Again, the risk is that this split could happen at any time with no warning, permanently harm both sides of the fork, and could be due to an attack or simply natural. Users do not accept chains that are attacks. If they cannot distinguish an "attack" from a valid chain, then the "attack" is probably a valid chain. If it splits because the users do not agree, then it's a split -- But this split was going to happen whether the blocksize limit was explicitly defined or not. >Which is okay, especially since everyone enjoyed an announced, intentional, and explicit split, without risk of replay attacks, etc. That's taken away if you just 'float' the limit and let the wind take it where it may. True, but the risk of an unannounced contentious split still exists. Explicitly defining the blocksize limit does not remove the ability for an unannounced contentious split. You will assert that if there is no explicit blocksize, then the network may accidentally split due to disagreement. If they split over disagreement, it was going to happen anyways. The blocksize limit does not prevent this.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 12:49:21
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2r34k/

>Specifically, there may be a point at which 50% would think a block is too big, and 50% think it's okay. That violates the fundamental assumption of my thesis. The fundamental assumption of my thesis is that if the users generally agree on the blocksize, then they will be able to stay in consensus. Of course you are saying, that the users will not always agree. Eventually there is a 50-50 tipping point. This is true -- But not relevant to my thesis... If the users are at a 50-50 tipping point, they are going to fork anyways. A blocksize limit is not going to prevent this fork. Proof of work certainly isn't going to prevent it either. For example: BCH split off with much less than a 50-50 tipping point. At the time of the split it was roughly a 90-10 tipping point. The blocksize was explicitly defined at 1MB at the time of the split, and yet the two sides were still unable to reach consensus. \-------------------- Or a simpler way of stating it is -- The blocksize limit is downstream of user consensus, user consensus is not downstream of a blocksize limit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 12:24:55
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2ieik/

It seems to me we are going in circles a bit, so I will attempt to summarise the positions for which we can agree to disagree. The primary distinction in our positions is as follows: Contentious splits is being defined as a split in which a significant number of users are permanently split on opposing sides of a fork. 1. I believe if people generally agree on the consensus rules, but happen to have an accidental chainsplit (due to collisions or formatting errors), they will be able to efficiently communicate to come to an agreement and collectively choose one chain or the other. While technical chainsplits will occur, the risk for contentious chainsplits remains negligible. 2. You believe if people generally agree on the consensus rules, but happen to have an accidental chainsplit (due to collisions or formatting errors), they will be unable to efficiently communicate resulting in significant risk of a contentious split. In order to mitigate this risk, you believe both an explicit blocksize limit and proof of work is needed to facilitate efficient communication. You believe that despite the users generally agreeing on what the rules should be, an explicit blocksize limit/proof of work definition is needed to mitigate the risk of accidental contentious splits.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 11:14:28
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2bddc/

>The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what. Both you and Satoshi are still missing the human element. The longest chain is the one with the most users. If the chain technically splits, the winner is the one with the most users, regardless of hashpower. No one cares about proof of work. No one is forced to follow proof of work. People only agree with proof of work, if they don't disagree on anything else. The second they disagree on something else, proof of work gets thrown out the window. If everyone agrees, then proof of work is not needed. Proof of work is only useful for when people contentiously disagree, at which point it has been proven time and again proof of work is not binding. People fork off, regardless of the proof of work. \---------------------- >Again, you're utterly ignoring my points about uncertainty, permanent split risk, and attack vectors that come out of the "let's just throw away the limit and see what happens" approach. Orphans are decided by users. Forks are decided by users. Hypothetically, if BCH in 10 years has more users than BTC (thus implying more accumulated proof of work than BTC), by both your definition and Satoshi's definition BCH would be considered the longest and valid chain. But make no mistake, hashpower had nothing to do with making BCH the longest chain. Hashpower followed the users to BCH. The users enforced the longest chain, hashpower simply followed them. You are the one that is ignoring the uncertainty and permanent split risk. The 1MB limit caused a contentious split. Exactly as you describe. The BTC/BCH chains have been split for 3 years, and everyone is still waiting to see which one will be considered valid. You don't see it this way, because you believe the 1MB chain is valid and is not at risk of being orphaned off by BCH 10 years later. The market is explicitly pricing in this uncertainty cost by giving BCH a 2.5% chance of regaining the lead over BTC.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 10:13:13
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw25uu2/

>However, once a chain splits for any significant amount of time, there’s no way to merge them. One will just die or remain split forever. It’s difficult to “undo”. > >I’d say any change that significantly raises the risk of permanent, unintentional splitting is an “urgent” matter. BTC has thousands of permanently split chains that were never able to remerge, you recognise these chains as orphans. An orphan is a non-contentious accidental chain split. You are still missing the human component. You are viewing chainsplits from a strictly technical perspective. If a technical chainsplit accidentally occurs due to a collision/formatting error, both sides are incentivized to come to agreement on which side is the valid chain. Neither side wanted a split, thus neither side cares which chain is adopted. If 50% of the network incidentally splits to differing sides of a fork, they will realise this and come to a solution in a matter of seconds. They aren't going to have a war over which side is the "true" chain because neither side cares. This is what happens on the BTC chain everyday when valid blocks are orphaned. Orphans are non-contentious chainsplits. >I thought you said rules weren’t real. Anyone is free to make a chain with a higher limit. The free market will determine whether that chain gets overwhelming consensus and is still considered “Bitcoin”. Correct. Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero are all competing to be considered "Bitcoin." Bitcoin mass adoption implies billions of transactions per day. BTC isn't even 0.00001% of the way there. The "Bitcoin" race is in the first 3 feet of a 26 mile marathon. Sure, BTC has a huge lead after the first 3 feet, but there is still 26 miles to go.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 09:20:47
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw13p5w/

>You still haven’t explained why getting rid of the block size limit in the code would be useful. Let me frame the argument a different way: There is no need for an "explicit" blocksize limit, because blocksize is not an urgent consensus rule. If BTC miners hypothetically mine a month's worth of 8MB blocks on the BTC chain, it's not like the chain is forever broken for the 1MB camp. The 1MB camp can always make a 1MB fork of the chain after the fact (including a month's worth of 8MB blocks). Now Luke Jr might have a heart attack, but for all the other small blockers the chain will still function perfectly fine. Dissenting blocksize forks can coordinate with each over the span of weeks, months, or even years. Blocksize cannot permanently break the chain, thus it is not an urgent consensus rule. Now for rules like coin supply, double spends, or coinbase rewards, the users will want more explicit black and white rules because these changes are difficult to undo (and thus urgent). Blocksize is not urgent, thus it is not critical to explicitly define. By removing the explicit blocksize limit, the chain is free to discover blocksize equilibrium through economic calculation. This is impossible to do with an arbitrary binding blocksize limit. BTC has no way of knowing if 1MB is the economically efficient tradeoff. Or at least BTC has no way of knowing without risking the loss of all of its users to competing chains. u/nullc

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 00:27:44
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw0fnk6/

>You still haven't given an argument why the block size limit should be thrown out or not part of the code. I am not making an argument for why the blocksize limit should be thrown out. I am making an observation of how there is no explicit blocksize limit in Bitcoin today. Basically what it comes down to, is you believe software/code is a node/the network. I believe tangible people are nodes. I believe people use software to communicate their interests. When my node talks to your node. My node is expressing my desired consensus rules. Your node is expressing your desired consensus rules. We may both still be running Bitcoin-Core, but Bitcoin-Core is not the node. I am a node, and you are a node. We (as nodes) elect to use software that communicate our interests. Every single node in the network is a person, not software. Thus anytime your node talks to anyone, it is ultimately talking to a person, not software. These people (nodes) can set their software to any value they want. Nothing can stop them. There is no hardcoded 1MB blocksize limit in my brain. I can set it to whatever I want. If 90% of the ERNs on the BTC chain decided tomorrow to increase the blocksize to 24MB, it would be done. Not only would the miners not block the change, they would accept the 24MB chain and continue mining on it. I know this to be true, because we have already seen it play out on Ethereum. By your definition Ethereum Classic is the original chain. The miners did not and could not protect ETC, because the miners are not authoritative. You confuse the miners as being authoritative because they always mine the leading chain, but make no mistake, the miners do not determine the leading chain, they follow it. The users extend the chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 20:18:56
/r/btc/comments/hfsiy8/us_senators_introduce_lawful_access_to_encrypted/fw068ob/

It is a good thing they inserted the 'lawful' part in the title. Otherwise I would have thought it was unlawful.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 18:50:43
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw05qt0/

>They are enforced because the **code** represents the already-agreed consensus The BTC code represents the already-agreed consensus *of the users still on the 1MB chain*. It does not include all the users that reconfigured their node's blocksize limit to 8MB (BCH), or the users that left the chain altogether (ETH/LTC/XMR/etc). >\[ Why don't you support a defined maximum miner fee in sats/byte? \] > >Because it makes no sense. It doesn’t affect other users or nodes. It doesn’t make my coins worth any less, nor does it force my node to download junk. That is a tradeoff you are willing to make so you have configured your node to strictly enforce the 1MB limit. Other users don't want to pay $50 for a transaction to subsidise your hobbyist node. So these users reconfigured their node to 8MB blocksize limit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 18:46:13
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzsgpe/

With respect to minority Bitcoin forks, that's fair. With respect to BTC, you are getting very close to the line of user defined consensus vs proof of work defined consensus. But if a chain like Ethereum/Litecoin/Monero is using a completely separate proof of work algorithm, then it is segregated and thus has the same security assumptions as BTC's proof of work. All three of ETH/LTC/XMR have proven that proof of work is secondary to human consensus. I'm not seeing the distinction that makes this an invalid argument against proof of work.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:55:12
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzrfv7/

>Nodes will communicate to each other how large of a coinbase reward they are willing to accept > >By removing the explicit 21 million bitcoin limit, the network can benefit from economic calculation in determining the right maximum issuance limit. You joke, but this is actually how these limits are enforced. A node cannot force another node to set their limits at a given level. Each individual user sets their limit based on the tradeoff of compatibility versus desired ruleset. The article makes the argument for how blocksize can be dynamically determined just as miner fees are dynamically determined. Why don't you support a defined maximum miner fee in sats/byte? How can the nodes come to consensus without a strictly defined limit?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:47:23
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzoyrr/

u/Contrarian__ 1. Or the Ethereum DAO hack reversal, 2. or the BCH/BSV fork, 3. or the almost IFP on BCH 4. or the 10 upgrades on BTC chain 5. or the semi-annual upgrades on BCH chain Proof of work is like the 1st amendment. It works 99% of the time when everyone agrees with each other. But the 1% of the time people disagree with each other, no one follows it. If it doesn't apply when people disagree, then it doesn't really exist at all.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:27:40
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzmnh9/

>So why not have a block size limit in the code? I see the problem. The definition of "blocksize limit" is unclear. 1. BTC has a "hard-blocksize limit." -- This means anytime a block exceeds 1MB, nodes orphan/fork off the block without any other consideration. 2. The article makes the argument for why no explicit "hard-blocksize-limit" is needed. Nodes will still communicate to each other how large of a block they are willing to accept, but they will not necessarily orphan/fork if their intended limit is not satisfied. This limit will also be inclusive of a nodefee/byte calculation. \---------------------- The key distinction being, BTC's 1MB blocksize limit was not determined through economic calculation, but instead arbitrary declared out of fear of the unknown. The article makes the argument for why no explicit hard-blocksize-limit is needed, and why the chain will still be secure without a hard-limit. (Nodes will still communicate desired limits, they just may not necessarily fork over them). By removing the explicit hard-limit, the network can benefit from economic calculation in determining the right blocksize limit. Which is currently impossible on the BTC chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:08:55
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzieq3/

>\[ If a block contains valid proof of work and also contains a double spend, it would get "orphaned off." \] > >No it wouldn't. It would never get accepted in the first place due to the code rejecting it. Code *is* user consensus. Code is how users communicate with each other. Code (user consensus) orphans off a block with valid proof of work -- thus we can conclude user consensus supersedes proof of work. >\[In Bitcoin, there are no actual rules.\] > >Oh boy... It's not that there aren't "Rules," per se, it's that all rules are subjectively determined by users without respect to proof of work. There is no true "correct" ruleset is what I am saying. Every user picks his own ruleset. >There's a big difference between this and saying that having an explicit block size limit in the code is useless. Usually the concern among small-blockers, is that if there is no explicit blocksize limit defined in the protocol, then miners can just mine humongous blocks that no one can afford to receive/index and eventually centralize the network into 5 nodes. The article makes the argument for why this would not be possible (even without an explicit blocksize limit)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:35:23
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvze6wl/

>Huh? Double-spending makes blocks invalid due to the code. Or are you asserting that a re-org could be a "double spend", and that they are impossible somehow, or that they'd get "orphaned off" automatically? If a block contains valid proof of work and also contains a double spend, it would get "orphaned off." An orphaned block is basically a non-contentious miniature hard-fork. Non-contentious defined as a fork occurred in which 100% of the network pick one side. In Bitcoin, there are no actual rules. Code is an inanimate object, and thus cannot determine blocks to be valid or invalid. Code is simply a tool through which users efficiently communicate to the rest of the network which blocks they will accept, and which blocks they will decline. Each user chooses his own ruleset. In choosing the ruleset, the user must make a tradeoff of how many users he is compatible with, versus how he would like the network to run. Bitcoin consensus is achieved by each and every individual user choosing which ruleset he will accept blocks under. Forks occur when two incompatible rulesets are present. All of this happens without any respect to proof of work. Proof of work is non-binding because users can choose any ruleset without respect to proof of work. >What if a block is accepted by 50% of the network, and the other 50% rejects it as invalid? What will break the tie? Whichever chain gets extended will be considered valid. If the split is over a non contentious incidental collision, then both sides are incentivised to figure out which side will be considered the valid chain. Neither side wanted a split, nor was trying to create a split, so it will be easy to pick a side and move forward as long as everyone still agrees to the same ruleset. If both sides do not agree to the same ruleset, and the split is over a contentious new ruleset, then the chains will fork into two distinct blockchains as both sides are now incompatible with each other. >Let me remind you of Satoshi's opinion: "So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep Yes this is true. Parties that agree to the same ruleset will make great effort to ensure they can efficiently communicate with each other. This communication still happens in lockstep if ERNs supersede proof of work. \------------------------------ I am not proposing an alternative system to proof of work, I am explaining how Bitcoin actually works today. Proof of work is and always has been secondary to user consensus in Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:01:24
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/he2qpp/critical_path/fvwp2y8/

All businesses sell the same thing, and that is trust. Businesses do not sell products. Businesses sell trust. Employees sell products. Businesses sell trust. There is a difference. Employees will still make and sell the same products the same way they have for thousands of years, but this process will be done independently of a centralized business. In the future, most products/services will be publicly specified/commoditized such that anyone can build them. In the future, people will compete strictly on the quality of their product/service, not on trust/market position. Right now, businesses compete almost exclusively on trust/position, and a little on their underlying product/service.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 24, 2020 20:29:03
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvwgu07/

The problem is everyone is so brainwashed, they can't see what it is useful for.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 18:51:14
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvweva0/

The three letter agency that takes 40% of your money from your monthly paycheck.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 18:33:50
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvwbm4b/

How many trolls build applications on top of Bitcoin Cash again? freetheplebes.com

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 18:05:47
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvwaz09/

Bitcoin is the second most important invention in human history. The problem is everyone is so brainwashed, they can't see what it is useful for. It's very simple: * If Alice sends $100 to Bob, Bob gets $60 and the mafia gets $40. * If Alice sends 1 Bitcoin to Bob, Bob gets 1 Bitcoin and the mafia gets nothing. * Bitcoin eliminates extortion from the economy. But for some reason no one can see this. All they care about is buying their damn groceries and saving 3% per year "Inflation" on their cash balance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 18:00:25
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/he2qpp/critical_path/fvw94zr/

On-chain reputation can be built by any beginner developer over a weekend. The difficulty is bootstrapping the network effect from nothing. It would be relatively simple to do, but unfortunately no one is aware of the power of on-chain reputation. So right now it's just me. We have recently released a minimum viable product at [freetheplebes.com](https://freetheplebes.com), but development is not my area of expertise, so the website is a little rough.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 24, 2020 17:45:19
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/he2qpp/critical_path/fvw8o9c/

Yes, let's apply this framework to Uber for example 1. Instead of submitting our reviews to Uber's private database, we put them on-chain so everyone can see them (without going through Uber) 2. Once the reputation is on-chain, then the Uber driver broadcasts to thousands of competing matchmakers (instead of just Uber) 3. The consumer pays the driver via Bitcoin. They match outside of Uber's platform. 4. Since the trade is directly p2p (Bitcoin + no Uber), there is no way for the mafia to know the trade occurred, much less extort it even if they do know it occurred. It's unprofitable to extort $15 taxi rides one at a time. 5. Since there is no extortion/Uber fee, the cost of the taxi ride is reduced 40%+. The consumer adopts this application, not because he believes in anarchism, but because he wants to save 40%. \---------------------------- The only reason you pay Uber, is because they know who the good taxi drivers are and their locations. Once this information is stored publicly on-chain for everyone to see, you have no reason to pay Uber. Everyone has the same information. Once we get rid of Uber, there is no way for the mafia to actually enforce extortion. Take this same process, and apply it to all markets.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 24, 2020 17:41:27
/r/btc/comments/hesosb/what_bitcoin_cash_urgently_needs_to_become/fvui9jj/

> Using it as `[censorship resistant]` cash is the whopper of all usecases. And to that I can agree. Otherwise it does not benefit the user in any form

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 08:58:30
/r/btc/comments/hesosb/what_bitcoin_cash_urgently_needs_to_become/fvtb8r4/

What about building use cases?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 23:05:02
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvronkv/

u/Late_To_Parties >This is a straw man. I have seen exactly 0 people here or in any crypto community that think the only application is to prevent inflation \------------------------------------------------------ u/Remora_101 >It will either come when people get smart and take responsibility ( en mass) or when FIAT will stop working aka rapid inflation. > >edit: Also that's really all that bitcoin is unique for. So in other words you agree with the 95% of people in BCH that believe Bitcoin in and of itself is the only application (for replacing fiat)... implying the only useful thing is to build node software

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 14:27:08
/r/btc/comments/hehhw1/this_is_the_real_bch_problem/fvride5/

It has been 11 years, billions in investment, thousands of developers, a shitstorm of media attention, and we still have virtually zero non-speculative adoption. There are only two possible conclusions to be made from that observation: 1. Bitcoin does not enable new use cases (beyond zero inflation) 2. No one is aware of what those use cases are \--------------------------------------- >This is a straw man. I have seen exactly 0 people here or in any crypto community that think the only application is to prevent inflation If someone has figured out the use cases, where are they? Where are the users?? It has been 11 years.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 13:36:54
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/he2qpp/critical_path/fvr0yuz/

Exactly! Once the employee can prove his reputation without the need for a third party, there is no longer a need for the business. If there are no businesses, there is no way for the mafia to actually enforce its arbitrary rules/extortion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 23, 2020 11:15:41
/r/btc/comments/hef2bw/perhaps_the_financiers_of_abc_clones_should_focus/fvqv41a/

This is true. I think part of the problem is 95% of BCH community thinks Bitcoin in and of itself is the one and only application. They think Bitcoin's role is to simply replace fiat, so we no longer pay inflation. What the BCH community is failing to see are the use cases that Bitcoin enables for which fiat is unable to support. The BCH community is not even aware that these use cases exist, thus, they erroneously conclude the only thing worth building is node software.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 10:25:03
/r/btc/comments/hec0cb/breaking_every_single_711_cvs_rite_aid_in_america/fvqku7y/

Assuming there is a killer application for which a frenzy of users need retail amounts of crypto for, this is the onboarding mechanism that will lower BTC into its grave. The $10+ fees will essentially force new users to buy Ethereum/Bitcoin Cash instead of BTC. Before the new users have even entered the ecosystem, they will have already been converted without anyone needing to explain why.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 08:43:55
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fvqjeho/

I think you are confused with how businesses/networks scale. There is not a single business in the history of the world that was ready for global scale before they even onboarded their first user. Businesses/networks onboard the first 100,000 users and have those 100,000 users pay for the next 1 million users of infrastructure. Then they onboard the next 1 million users who pay for the next 10 million users of infrastructure. So on and so forth. Infrastructure is expanded and paid for as needed. What you are advocating for is the first network in the history of the world that would be ready for global adoption before it has onboarded a single customer. >Adding more users is not a way to improve the ability of BCH to take on more users. Adding more users creates both the financial incentive and ability to build more infrastructure. Without the financial incentive/ability you cannot artificially create global scale. We are talking entrepreneurship 101. This is not controversial stuff to anyone who has ever scaled a successful business and certainly nothing near the delusion of calling someone a "Social engineering agent."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 08:27:02
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/he2qpp/critical_path/fvoxy21/

You are right. Philosophy without implementation is useless. Below is the critical path to anarcho-capitalism: 1. OnChain Reputation = No need for middlemen 2. No need for middlemen = p2p trade 3. p2p cash + p2p trade = NoExtortion + NoRegulation + NoFees 4. NoExtortion + NoRegulation + NoFees = 40% savings 5. 40% savings = Mass adoption of Anarcho-capitalism Alice will never understand anarchism, but she definitely understands that 40% savings is better. Alice becomes an anarchist, not out of ideological persuasion, but because she personally profits from it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 22, 2020 20:14:00
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvolxoz/

Here is compromise #2, but this goes back to your reading disorder: > If the IFP did not result in a chainsplit, I would be agnostic to it On the contrary you believe you are the voice of reason for demanding a chainsplit if no "compromise" can be found on the IFP (after the compromise of the miner voting already shot it down). Or in other words, you are a virtue-signalling hypocrite.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 18:22:52
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvo6kkl/

Obviously you have trouble reading: >the only way in which I can justify the cost of splitting the chain over the inclusion of the IFP is if the IFP funds the development of censorship resistant user applications. Not only have you offered zero compromise, but you also moved the goalposts after the IFP miner vote failed and now support a chainsplit. The only one not compromising is you. Stop virtue-signalling.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 16:11:47
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvnt1i5/

> SO when you answered that you were willing, you were only willing up to a point Where's your compromise in this? You said you are willing to fork over it. I never said such a thing. You aren't willing to budge at all while expecting others to do the same. The definition of a hypocrite.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 14:20:49
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fvmymnm/

Bitcoin already scales as is. Anyone that gets in the way gets forked or booted off the network. No communist central planners are needed. The BCH devs are trying to solve problems that don't exist. The reason Core got away with 1MB blocks is because there are no businesses dependent on inexpensive transaction fees. If there were a couple dozen businesses with a couple million users all dependent on inexpensive transaction fees, they all would have immediately switched to Bitcoin Cash instead of watching their businesses die. The reason they never switched to BCH is because they never existed to begin with. If you are really interested in scaling, the fastest way to do so is to build actual businesses that bring actual users. This perpetual "Perfect protocol" tinkering nonsense doesn't add any value to anything.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 09:59:43
/r/btc/comments/hdi440/a_message_to_the_leaders_of_bitcoin_cash_from_vin/fvlnbrs/

>I have the uncomfortable vibe that there is some hidden agenda behind his videos. Vin sees ABC is going to seize the coinbase and wants in on the action...my precious

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 23:07:49
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fvllyvh/

All I am saying is why don't we get to 1 million active users first, before we split the chain five times over completely hypothetical scaling problems? We can get to 1 million active users easily with the current software.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 22:52:57
/r/btc/comments/hdddjw/why_dont_we_all_try_to_descalate_the_situation/fvl4osz/

BCH is falling to the same problem that BTC Core did -- that's the developers just want to endlessly tinker around with the protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 19:50:39
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvl3cxj/

> Can you envision an IFP that you would agree to? yes, I actually proposed a coinbase funded plan in r/btc a year before the IFP actually came out. These are my fundamental assumptions 1. If the IFP is going to be activated, it will cause a material split. I support splits too, but only when the value exceeds the cost. 2. If the value of the IFP is to exceed the cost of a material split, it must result in the onboarding of a significant number of users. 3. In my book, even if we hypothetically invested $1 trillion into BCH node infrastructure, it would still not have onboard a single user. Node infrastructure makes room for more users, but it does not onboard them. This is a key distinction on a chain doing 0.3 transactions/second. 4. Furthermore, you will insist I am dodging the question here, which I am not. It is very important to understand the opportunity cost of the IFP in determining the cost of splitting the chain over the IFP. BCH has more than enough capacity to do a 100x in price. If we do a 100x in price, there will be more than enough funding for node infrastructure. Node infrastructure is the natural byproduct of adoption. Adoption is not the natural byproduct of node infrastructure. The IFP is trying to solve a problem that doesn't even exist in the first place. Under those four assumptions, the only way in which I can justify the cost of splitting the chain over the inclusion of the IFP is if the IFP funds the development of censorship resistant user applications. Bitcoin's only compelling use case over fiat is censorship resistance. Thus censorship resistant applications are the only thing that is going to onboard users. That's also assuming the implementation of the IFP can even overcome the age-old problem of arbitrarily allocating a pool of funds. \-------------------- That being said, both of our opinions on this matter are irrelevant. Our only relevant opinion is which chain we choose to adopt: ABC Side: Amaury has proven time and again he does what is best for ABC maintaining power (that's perfectly fine), just not a chain I want to build on. I don't have a problem building on a chain with the IFP, but I do have a problem building on a chain controlled by someone who's number one priority is staying in power. BCHN Side: BCHN would likely be the minority fork in a split. I would have to evaluate how much of the ecosystem is still intact, or whether I should leave to another ecosystem altogether.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 19:37:13
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvkz0mk/

>Is it your position that once a vote, or what you perceive as a vote, has the results you desire, then no future vote on the same, or similar, topic/issue can be had? This was directly answered above, as quoted below >Then under all three of those assumptions (none of which I agree with) in my book the fairest procedure would be to require a recurring vote for the issue. **In my book the fairest procedure would be to require a recurring vote for the issue.**

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 18:53:48
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvkyj5y/

>I am not against a temporary IFP (as an extreme measure) to bootstrap a blockchain that has almost zero adoption. > >I just don't see how funding a node implementation is going to onboard any users. I definitely don't think splitting the chain over funding more node capacity is worth it. If the IFP did not result in a chainsplit, I would be agnostic to it, but I'm not seeing how an IFP activation does not result in a chainsplit. This directly addresses what my perception of the IFP is, and implies how to make a better IFP from my perspective But if you need me to spell it out for you: Yes I am willing to discuss means in which to make an IFP more acceptable. \----------------------- Now I have two questions for you: 1. Are you willing to split the chain over the inclusion of the IFP? 2. Who do you believe is the instigator in such a split, the chain that does not add the IFP, or the chain that adds the IFP?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 18:48:59
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvkrtjm/

Just saw the edit: I am not against a temporary IFP (as an extreme measure) to bootstrap a blockchain that has almost zero adoption. I just don't see how funding a node implementation is going to onboard any users. I definitely don't think splitting the chain over funding more node capacity is worth it. If the IFP did not result in a chainsplit, I would be agnostic to it, but I'm not seeing how an IFP activation does not result in a chainsplit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 17:44:44
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvkqmgc/

I don't think arbitrary voting really works for anything. I especially don't think it works well in Bitcoin. But if you do believe in the following assumptions in arbitrary miner voting: 1. The receiving dev teams won't pay off miners to allocate them funds. 2. The interests of the miners (on a 3% minority chain) are aligned with the interests of the users. 3. Both sides of the vote will adhere to the outcome when there exists alternative methods of reconciliation. Then under all three of those assumptions (none of which I agree with) in my book the fairest procedure would be to require a recurring vote for the issue. \---------------------- It seems likely to me ABC proposed the miner vote (with no intention to honor it) as social cover for activating an unpopular feature. It seems contradictory to me that IFP people supported the miner vote, but now are looking for alternative avenues of activation now that they now the miners don't support the IFP... Voting only works if both sides adhere to the outcome, otherwise it is just a tool of propaganda... which it appears ABC just used the miner vote as propaganda.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 17:33:43
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvkn6oj/

I'm assuming you already know this, but ABC enabled miners to vote on the IFP for activation at the May 15th "upgrade." My understanding is the miners would have activated the IFP after reaching a 66% signaling threshold. The outcome was that the miners unanimously voted against the IFP. Now it appears, the IFP people do not accept the results of the miner vote and want to activate it anyways. (which really just further proves the uselessness of voting in any application) As they say, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 17:02:09
/r/btc/comments/hcmyvr/prediction_abc_will_unilaterally_pull_another_ifp/fvklwqk/

Didn't we just have a miner vote on it, or was that just for show?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 16:50:22
/r/btc/comments/hcffx3/seems_like_bch_community_will_experience_similar/fvi8juk/

ETH is just a casino with clever marketing.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 23:45:23
/r/btc/comments/hcffx3/seems_like_bch_community_will_experience_similar/fvi8by9/

>Isn't the move to PoS architecture partly to give incentives for the operation of nodes that are capable of the larger blockchain and hardware requirements. > > > >If that is the case, then bumping up the gas limit would make sense, assuming they are going to go through with the ETH 2.0 PoS switch. Should we also create PoS Starbucks nodes to incentivize the production of coffee? Or do you think customers paying Starbucks directly for their coffee would work?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 23:42:55
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fvc0v0i/

>Preparing for massive future growth would allow us to solicit that. As it is we can't ask for massive adoption as we are not ready. These are the kinds of statements that make me think Bitcoin is just one giant Tulip mania. It has been 11 years. No one uses this shit for anything, and everyone in this sub is still convinced mass adoption is just around the corner.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 19, 2020 09:02:29
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv9f8iz/

Wow this is rich coming from George.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 15:21:52
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv9dhl3/

The protocol is good enough. It's time to build. Stop forking the chain. I don't care who's fault it is. I really don't care. Stop forking. Just stop the forking.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 15:07:14
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv9bfgl/

If there is anything we can say is certain in crypto, it is that the fighting is never going to end. All I am saying is why don't we build on what we have now, see how far that takes us, before we pre-emptively split the chain into a thousand pieces over theoretical changes that aren't going to make a shit of a difference either way.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 14:49:17
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv9a7u8/

> I need several hundred thousand dollars in investment to realize my adoption plan, and why would VCs risk their capital investing into a chain that does not have adequate protocol development? There is a mountain of empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. We have seen hundreds of millions if not billions in investment from VCs to ICOs across many different blockchains. It has all amounted to nothing. This failure had nothing to do with the base protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 14:34:17
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv90dkb/

Protocol improvements are downstream of businesses/users. The reason ABC is unable to raise funds, is because there are no businesses/users capable of profitably funding them. ABC has given us more than enough runway to build useful applications. ABC just needs to be patient waiting for the businesses to catch up with the protocol. If we 1000x the userbase, there will be more than enough money to fund ABC.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 13:08:37
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv8xf9n/

I'm not saying permanently freeze the protocol. I am just saying until we have a decent userbase, there is really nothing to be gained from any protocol improvement. We can still improve the protocol off-chain, it's just not doing anyone any good to have a Civil War over it every 6 months. It's definitely not attracting any businesses. If we fork again, the game is probably over for everyone.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 12:44:52
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv8q2gf/

It has been 11 years. No one uses Bitcoin for anything. This is a much bigger problem than a handful of protocol improvements.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 11:44:19
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv8ncjk/

After reading these responses, I don't know how anyone could conclude a fork is not coming.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 11:21:25
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv8n9bh/

You are falsely conflating node development with adoption. If/when a cryptocurrency achieves mass adoption, it will be because of businesses building useful applications. Protocol development has almost nothing to do with it. Protocol development is the natural symptom of businesses onboarding users. Protocol development does nothing to onboard users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 11:20:40
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv8khzz/

>Anyone who proposes to cease protocol development entirely, is not seeing the full picture. Bitcoin Cash is doing 0.3 TPS. No amount of additional features is going to change that.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 10:57:11
/r/btc/comments/hatqr0/imho_there_is_no_problem_with_a_hf_every_6_months/fv85eoj/

The powers that be (assuming they even know what Bitcoin Cash is, or exist at all), don't need to do anything. The BCH community kills itself just fine. No additional help is needed.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 08:28:06
/r/btc/comments/harwfp/emin_gün_sirer_reveals_fundamentals_of_a_perfect/fv6xig3/

Why don't we get to 100 daily active users first before we worry about scaling.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 22:29:23
/r/btc/comments/hatqr0/imho_there_is_no_problem_with_a_hf_every_6_months/fv6vodu/

BCH has more implementations than it does applications... Facepalm

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 22:10:55
/r/btc/comments/hb360a/pavel_durov_telegram_ceo_apple_and_google_impose/fv6n4lv/

I think Pavel is confused on how regulation works

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 20:47:42
/r/btc/comments/h9wpbd/is_it_becoming_obvious_that_some_state_actor_is/fv2rod5/

The only thing worse than a troll, is someone who blames their problems on someone else. A million trolls couldn't do the damage this community's willful ignorance does to itself.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 21:16:17
/r/btc/comments/h9wpbd/is_it_becoming_obvious_that_some_state_actor_is/fv08dr3/

Bitcoin has not gone anywhere because we as a community have not identified any profitable use cases for Average Joe. It's that simple.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 08:46:21
/r/btc/comments/h7jzz7/you_can_have_a_market_for_blockspace_without_full/fuspgag/

The miners will mine whatever blocks maximize their profit. In a hypothetical future with zero block reward, and no blocksize limit, the only downward pressure on blocksize is the non-mining nodes. 1. The mining nodes would be incentivized to include every transaction (with any fee) into the block regardless of blocksize 2. The non-mining nodes would be incentivized to only include transactions for which they can profitably receive and index 3. Let's hypothetically say the 7 mining nodes try to propagate a block that is unprofitable for the say 3000 non-mining nodes to receive/index, then the 3000 non-mining nodes will likely orphan off the unprofitable block regardless of proof of work. 4. If the miners keep trying to build on the orphaned chain, they will not have any users because all the users are attached to the 3000 non-mining nodes. The users do not trust the 7 mining-only nodes. 5. The 3000 non-mining nodes will only accept blocks if the miners compensate them for receiving/indexing them (consensus). Thus the miners will be incentivized to pay off the non-mining nodes to accept their blocks. 6. Of course, the miner needs to make a profit, so the user will pay the fee to the miner, who pays the fee to the non-mining nodes. 7. Thus we can make two important conclusions on an unlimited blocksize blockchain: First, the sender will be required to cover the cost of broadcasting/indexing the transaction across all nodes. Second, the market will naturally find \*a sufficiently secure\* equilibrium on the number of non-mining nodes, without the need for an impossible to determine arbitrary blocksize limit. 8. We can also conclude that miners do not secure the chain's social consensus. Miners only secure the chain from technical Denial of Service attacks. The miners will mine to the extent that it takes to overcome Denial of Service. There are probably less costly ways to achieve this without mining, but mining works good enough.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 09:04:00
/r/btc/comments/h7jzz7/you_can_have_a_market_for_blockspace_without_full/fur6z93/

No matter how much proof of work the miners have, the users do not have to accept their blocks. Proof of work is non-binding. If a miner tries to propagate a block that is out of consensus, it gets orphaned off, not because of proof of work, but because the network rejects it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 20:33:24
/r/btc/comments/h7jzz7/you_can_have_a_market_for_blockspace_without_full/fun61nn/

The only thing miners do is solve the "Fair" initial distribution of coins problem. In a mature network, miners won't be very relevant in Bitcoin. When broadcasting a transaction, the sender will have to incentivize a sufficient number of nodes (any node, not just mining) to accept the transaction in the next block. Thus the sender will inevitably have to cover the cost of broadcasting/indexing the transaction across whatever the market determines to be a "Sufficient" number of nodes. The market is incentivized to maintain as many nodes as is necessary for most participants to be reasonably certain on the integrity of the ledger. Given this will be a very diverse set of interests, it should be reasonably secure.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 12, 2020 17:50:21
/r/btc/comments/h7jzz7/you_can_have_a_market_for_blockspace_without_full/fulcsw4/

If only one node can afford to receive/index a hypothetically bloated block, then the block will definitely get orphaned as no one wants to trust a single node. In order for the block to not get orphaned, the block must be propagated to a sufficient number of nodes, such that everyone agrees to move forward and extend that chain. Under that relationship, it seems likely that in the hypothetical mass adoption future (with little/no block subsidy) much of the mining fee will go to nodes for accepting/propagating transactions.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 12, 2020 08:55:21
/r/btc/comments/h137sh/pentagon_documents_reveal_the_us_has_planned_for/ftrcy9r/

They are going to have to plan a little harder

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 21:32:01
/r/btc/comments/gztxit/ava_coin_is_going_to_be_launched_in_july_it_will/ftljivr/

How does AVA solve the existential user onboarding problem again?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 12:23:54
/r/btc/comments/gyt9nv/love_this_satoshi_quote/ftdhhpo/

The best way to explain something is through price.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 10:54:56
/r/btc/comments/gwrud8/satoshidice_thinking_about_leaving_bch_lets_get/fsz30v9/

> What do you think is the lowest hanging fruit? It's very simple: p2p cash + p2p trade = No extortion/regulation/fees = 40% Savings > What's your contribution to it? I would have been more than happy to watch someone else build it, but no one else will, so now I am building it. >I only see lots of words from you, not really action. What about your initiative? When I see people obviously wasting their time, I say something. The 50 unchained transaction limit is a clear waste of time.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 10:12:19
/r/btc/comments/gwrud8/satoshidice_thinking_about_leaving_bch_lets_get/fsyxvnr/

Well, Bitcoin Cash is doing about 50,000 transactions per day. So even if we make the extremely radical assumption that 100% of those are unchained transactions, that would equate to 1,000 people getting cutoff (for 10 minutes) due to the 50 unchained transaction rule. If that's the lowest hanging fruit you can find -- again please reconsider your position in Bitcoin. And quite frankly, if you are regularly running into this limit, you are most likely making very low value transactions that can easily be replicated off-chain. I don't even know why I'm arguing this. This is just insane on so many different levels.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 09:24:35
/r/btc/comments/gwrud8/satoshidice_thinking_about_leaving_bch_lets_get/fsyuuxj/

It truly is amazing how many people think that a 50 unchained transaction limit (on a blockchain that often times doesn't even have 50 transactions in a block), is an important fix. If that is really the lowest hanging fruit you can find (in an industry that has zero non-speculative adoption) then you should really reconsider your investment in Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 08:53:56
/r/btc/comments/gvzt3t/this_is_what_coinmarketcap_with_toggleable_filter/fsstn1j/

You can pretty much narrow it down to BTC, ETH, BCH, XMR. All the others don't necessarily qualify as scams, but don't really fulfil any market niche that isn't covered by these four.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 19:03:14
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/gw1i3u/hello_everyone_we_have_just_launched_a_platform/fss7y72/

There are many different ways to make money on the platform. If you are interested in learning how you can spread Anarcho-Capitalism while getting paid to do so, send me a message.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on June 3, 2020 16:08:38
/r/Agorism/comments/gw1cmr/hello_everyone_we_have_just_launched_a_platform/fss6v1e/

There are many different ways to make money on the platform. If you are interested in learning how you can spread Agorism while getting paid to do so, send me a message.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on June 3, 2020 16:00:12
/r/btc/comments/gsr5q3/2013_flashback_how_bitcoin_as_cash_could_take/fs8m5n3/

I once believed that discussing ideas on r/btc could be productive. I have since realized that was a false hypothesis. I now only post for my own entertainment. r/btc is like 'Keeping up with the Kardashians,' but for Bitcoiners. (Though this is true of most subreddits)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 16:42:34
/r/btc/comments/gsfxe6/please_can_we_get_an_slp_register_app_so/fs77jxc/

Everyone knows that businesses need censorship resistant loyalty points.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 09:53:54
/r/btc/comments/gsr5q3/2013_flashback_how_bitcoin_as_cash_could_take/fs742qj/

This truly is what r/btc feels like. Everyday you see the same 30 posts, discussing the same failed ideas. It truly is the definition of insanity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 09:20:39
/r/btc/comments/grackq/i_need_help_with_a_project/fs0uk0b/

I like altruism and idealism as much as the next guy, but it simply doesn't scale. There has to be a profit motive.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 17:46:57
/r/btc/comments/grackq/i_need_help_with_a_project/fs0kp7m/

In my experience the only thing anyone cares about is how you are going to make them money. The only effective form of communication is through price. It sounds like what you are creating is best suited for entrepreneurs looking to create new crypto-specific businesses. Not so much already existing businesses looking to accept crypto.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 16:27:23
/r/btc/comments/grackq/i_need_help_with_a_project/frz72z3/

If you had a new hip and groovy credit card processing company that has a market share of 1 out of every 10 million payments in the economy, do you think the business owner would spend 4 weeks learning how to accept your new credit card?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 09:38:47
/r/btc/comments/grackq/i_need_help_with_a_project/fryxksk/

The business owner is not going to want to go through a 4 week course. The business owner wants a turnkey solution that is ready to go at the touch of a button.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 07:50:57
/r/btc/comments/gqqtgn/if_we_want_to_flip_btc_we_really_need_to_do/frwajrb/

BCH needs to focus less on features, and more on use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 14:35:15
/r/btc/comments/gqaytz/bch_designing_a_roadmap_together_part_1_its_a/frs3tar/

True, but fiat can be put on a blockchain too. They just have to put all payments are final in the ToS.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 12:25:25
/r/btc/comments/gqaytz/bch_designing_a_roadmap_together_part_1_its_a/frs2b45/

Fiat can be put on a blockchain too. The absolute best case scenario Bitcoin can hope to achieve in terms of user experience is to be on a level playing field. At which point, what problem is Bitcoin even solving? Anything you are thinking of UX wise can be copied by paypal, but without the price volatility. The only property unique to Bitcoin is censorship resistance. Bitcoin can go where fiat is not allowed.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 12:12:16
/r/btc/comments/gqaytz/bch_designing_a_roadmap_together_part_1_its_a/frry9ls/

True, but nothing is stopping paypal or one of its competitors from doing the same thing, except without the Bitcoin price volatility. Maybe Bitcoin can beat paypal to the punch, but paypal will always have a leg up on the volatility. Unless all these companies are like crabs in a bucket and can't agree on who gets to be the micropayment processor, then maybe Bitcoin has a leg up.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 11:36:27
/r/btc/comments/gqaytz/bch_designing_a_roadmap_together_part_1_its_a/frrui3n/

Bitcoin cannot compete with fiat on the grounds of user experience. There are simply too many immovable barriers. Bitcoin can only compete by enabling services for which fiat is unable to support. Do you have any of these use cases in mind?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 11:02:03
/r/btc/comments/gpp2pi/it_is_truly_amazing_how_bitcoin_has_existed_for/frpzq3h/

> Still waiting for your killer app to get done Don't worry, there will be more than one.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 20:35:28
/r/btc/comments/gpp2pi/it_is_truly_amazing_how_bitcoin_has_existed_for/frnwjoy/

A well capitalized company would probably just launch it on their newly created blockchain with newly printed money, instead of enriching a bunch of bagholders on a ghost chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 10:00:48
/r/btc/comments/gpp2pi/it_is_truly_amazing_how_bitcoin_has_existed_for/frnt7lm/

Sorry, but it ain't peer-to-peer if it's being extorted.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 09:24:08
/r/btc/comments/gpp2pi/it_is_truly_amazing_how_bitcoin_has_existed_for/frnn4sz/

The killer app is not the blocksize limit! The blocksize limit is a feature, not an application.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 08:43:11
/r/btc/comments/gphv6v/couldnt_we_end_this_bch_vs_bsv_thing_with_one/frnir0m/

I don't disagree, it's just at some point someone has to actually onboard a user... Until then, all these blockchain features really serve no purpose other than flashy colors at a casino. The chain that wins will likely be the chain with the first killer app. Having that killer app is 1000x more important than maintaining a non-binding blocksize limit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 08:15:16
/r/btc/comments/gphv6v/couldnt_we_end_this_bch_vs_bsv_thing_with_one/frnes8r/

95%+ of the people in both communities have no idea what a blockchain is even for. This whole thing is just one big roulette wheel. Both BCH/BSV chains are completely empty. The blocksize limit is just a marketing pitch for picking their roulette number.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 07:47:50
/r/btc/comments/gp0w2d/please_enlighten_me_what_is_the_point_of_the/frkjtut/

The "Sound Money Revolution" is just a convenient meme cloaking Bitcoin's only current value driver, and that is gambling on price. Bitcoin is just a big casino game.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 14:16:38
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frjzpu7/

>So far you have not been very good at that. I have looked at the last thing you coded with some people, and - sorry to say it - it was total garbage usability-wise. I 100% agree, it is awful. We have been trying to create a less-awful version over the last 2 months, and should be ready soon. This is not my area of expertise. Nonetheless, the incentives are there. It just needs built. People will go through hell and back to save 50%. They are not going to go through hell and back just to casually spend Bitcoin in place of credit cards for no reason. If Bitcoin is still subject to extortion, it isn't solving any problems for anyone. It is basically just fiat with rainbows in the background. (This is why no one has switched in 11 years). There has to be an incentive to switch. 50% off trade is that reason. It would take a single average web developer maybe 6 months to build this. It's not very difficult. \------------------- I am not by any means saying it will for sure work... What I am saying though it has 1000x better chance of working than building 10 different BCH full node implementations, or 5 different BCH wallet software projects, or merchant adoption, or avalanche, or any of the other technical BCH projects.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 11:10:01
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frjqcrs/

For a big, immobile centralized business -- True. But if you can figure out how to facilitate peer-to-peer trade at scale, then it is not economic to enforce. If each producing node in the network is doing under $40k/year in volume, and that volume is done $10-$50 at a time, there is no feasible way to enforce. p2p cash + p2p trade = encrypted trade.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 09:28:14
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/fri560h/

>I think that if tomorrow every worker received 100% of his hard earned money to hand and THEN had to give 45% of them up to the IRS, european governments would cease to exist in a week. At least in their current form. Exactly! This is the mountain to shoot the rocket at. You just have to hide the sneaky crypto-maneuvers on the back-end so all the consumer sees is direct price comparison on the front-end. For example: Buy Product X from Business A (who is being extorted on the backend): $100 Buy the same Product X from Business B (who is not being extorted on the backend): $50 Both Business A and Business B make the same amount of money, but business B removed the unnecessary extortion cost on the backend. Average Joe doesn't understand what's going on, but he knows $50 < $100, so he chooses Business B. Thereby economically punishing Business A for incurring the extortion cost. \------------------------------- >But you know what? People don't know and don't care. By formatting the pricing on the front-end, you remove all the cognitive dissonance that you correctly pointed out here.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 20:16:24
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frgaazz/

Every time an employer pays his employee, about 35% of the payment is taken out in the form of "Fees." This is enabled by fiat's surveillance property. If the employer instead paid his employee in Bitcoin (with proper privacy protocols), there is no way for anyone to know a payment occurred --> Use Bitcoin, save 35%. This is where the rocket should be launched.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 10:39:59
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frg8i65/

>The real place to shoot the rocket are 3rd world countries. This is definitely a better starting point, but it's still not quite concentrated enough. It would take a lot of rockets, which we simply don't have. >Or, maybe after a strong monetary crisis, when fiat money collapses, people in 1st world also get an actual reason to get interested in crypto. This is definitely a possibility over the long-run, but it's a passive wait and see approach. I think in the event of a fiat crisis, people will still adopt fiat 2.0 as opposed to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 10:23:39
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frg6i61/

If every single business in the world started accepting Bitcoin Cash tomorrow it wouldn't make a difference. The problem is not having places to spend, the problem is having a reason to spend.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 10:04:58
/r/btc/comments/go6ep4/building_for_the_future/frg55oe/

We just have to point a single rocket at the right spot and the whole thing comes crashing down. If people spent less time building rockets, and more time thinking about where they should be launched, the Catch-22 problem would have been shattered five years ago. [https://youtu.be/Ht8dxvGkuSc](https://youtu.be/Ht8dxvGkuSc)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 09:52:02
/r/btc/comments/go0h7n/why_bitcoin_cash_needs_to_target_the_689_billion/fresfxt/

Wow people discussing profitable and sustainable use cases. I almost fell out of my chair. Thank you for sparking this discussion u/georgedonnelly

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 22:49:32
/r/btc/comments/gnxzyc/everyone_talks_about_how_we_need_sound_money_a/frd07tt/

I'm just pointing out the inflation cost as a percentage of GDP is of relative insignificance... Especially when compared to the utility that currency provides. I'm not saying there isn't/can't be a better way, I'm just implying there is much lower and bigger hanging fruit than inflation. (i.e. censorship resistant value transfer). We can say force this and force that, but all anyone actually cares about is increasing their standard of living.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 13:17:24
/r/btc/comments/gnxzyc/everyone_talks_about_how_we_need_sound_money_a/frcutj7/

The Federal Reserve is a business, and the 3% inflation is their profit margin... Just like Starbucks.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 12:34:10
/r/btc/comments/gnpsq6/all_my_money_is_stuck_in_the_shitty_wallet_named/frb6koa/

Oh boy... Here comes a storm of bicycles wearing their white-shirt, black ties, and book in their hand.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 21, 2020 00:07:24
/r/btc/comments/gnl6ny/whats_the_inflows_challenge_and_what_does_it_have/frb53ar/

Merchant adoption should be taken out behind the barn, shot, and buried like the dead horse it is.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 20, 2020 23:49:31
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqyghe3/

Well [here](https://blog.goodaudience.com/the-road-to-mass-adoption-bitcoins-bottleneck-explained-7a150cafa91e?source=friends_link&sk=a06d33cb3f4e72131c99923ffbbd29ab) is my analysis on the Bitcoin market from the Crossing the Chasm perspective written a year ago if you are interested.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 16:43:17
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqydgxc/

> Please read Crossing the Chasm. Maybe you should read books before recommending them

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 16:20:15
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqy81ta/

George, BCH has maybe 100 active non-speculative users. The problem isn't niche optimizations like Avalanche. The problem is we haven't figured out why Average Joe needs Bitcoin. It has been 11 years. The blocks are empty. This is a much bigger problem than a marginal 10% protocol improvement.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 15:36:27
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqxz6dr/

> And how much research have you done? There are multiple cryptocurrency projects in the top 20 that have instant transaction finality. They are all ghost towns.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 14:27:38
/r/btc/comments/gl8nw6/the_narrative_that_we_need_to_stop_funding/fqwxjk6/

Measure twice, cut once. I have done my measuring, and now I am cutting.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 09:03:00
/r/btc/comments/gl8nw6/the_narrative_that_we_need_to_stop_funding/fqwwyej/

> The people with other ideas and skills will continue work in other areas. These people might as well be digging holes in the ground. If they enjoy digging holes in the ground, that's perfectly fine, but can we stop with this delusion that they are moving Bitcoin Cash forward.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 08:55:01
/r/btc/comments/gl8nw6/the_narrative_that_we_need_to_stop_funding/fqwwoz5/

> Bch doesn't need more features, is needs more people. Yes. BCH is turning into another developer rabbit chase run amuck. It just funded 6 completely independent and redundant node projects on a chain doing 0.3TPS. This is the very definition of insanity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 08:51:28
/r/btc/comments/gl8nw6/the_narrative_that_we_need_to_stop_funding/fqww0mr/

The fastest way to improve BCH's backend IS to create a killer app that onboards millions of users. 1 Killer app = 1 million users + 1000 new developers 1 Killer backend = 0 users + 0 new developers Adoption forces scaling, scaling does not force adoption.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 08:42:05
/r/btc/comments/gkrjxb/top_things_that_need_to_be_done_for_the_bch_price/fqu04hc/

Less focus on features, more focus on use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 13:17:17
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqturiz/

> Traders are crying out for instant finality. Sure, Avalanche marginally helps a couple dozen arbitrage firms supply better BCH liquidity to speculators, but this isn't solving any problems for Average Joe. Avalanche helps prevent maybe 1 merchant double spend out of Australia's 200 BCH merchant transactions per month. How many prospective users are waiting on the sidelines for instant transaction finality? -- I think this is a very small number. Now if that's the lowest hanging fruit ABC can find, then I guess that's better than doing nothing... It's just not doing very much.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 12:28:24
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqto3yq/

>Avalanche supports many use cases including merchants, trading and arbitrage. I don't dispute that, but the order of operations is very important in a community with scarce resources. Avalanche (as with most technical proposals) has an exponential effect on adoption, but it doesn't really change the base number in the exponential adoption function. Given that it has been 11 years, and BCH's base adoption growth rate is still near 1, it seems the focus should be on use cases, and not optimizations. Avalanche has no userbase to leverage. 1\^^(Infinity) = 1 Now if Avalanche enables use cases that will onboard users, then that is a different story, but merchant adoption, trading, and arbitrage are definitely not that use case. I'm not seeing any use case where instant transaction finality is going to change that... Not to mention there are many different already existing solutions to achieve transaction finality without avalanche.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 11:26:05
/r/btc/comments/gkt7sp/what_should_the_next_flipstarter_campaign_be_for/fqthlp4/

True. And even if avalanche is implemented to perfection, and performs 100% as desired, it will still not have onboarded a single user.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 10:25:58
/r/btc/comments/gks9q3/jk_rowling_morning_all_people_are_calling_each/fqtb58s/

J.K. (and all non-Bitcoin users) will adopt Bitcoin when the stuff they buy costs significantly less in Bitcoin than it does in fiat... Not a second sooner.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 09:18:25
/r/btc/comments/gk8s5d/an_important_topic_that_deserves_more_discussion/fqt4be7/

We are still building Free the Plebes and haven't done anything to push it out yet. But thanks for noticing! It doesn't take 11 years for something that is useful to gain adoption. There is simply no way around this fact. How many users aren't in Bitcoin because their 0-conf is currently only 95% secure instead of 99% secure?? -- Like maybe the 3 developers that left BCH to go to AVA? Everyone is way too focused on the technicality of the payment, instead of why Alice needs to make the payment in the first place.11 years ---> Zero non-speculative adoption. This has exactly zero to do with protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2020 07:45:22
/r/btc/comments/gk8s5d/an_important_topic_that_deserves_more_discussion/fqpnvut/

Avalanche does nothing to solve the existential Bitcoin adoption problem. It's just another developer rabbit chase run amuck. (Not that it can't be useful in the future, but there is zero need for it now).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2020 09:49:56
/r/btc/comments/gg82fc/the_truth_is_that_both_btc_bch_are_facing_a/fq17oen/

It's a moot point anyways. Hashpower doesn't secure Bitcoin. Bitcoin is secured by a diverse set of users. Hashpower has failed to secure all of the following 1. See 1 MB attack 2. See Bitcoin inflation bug attack 3. See Segwit attack 4. See BCH fork 5. Almost IFP attack 6. ETH DAO hack

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 9, 2020 12:48:06
/r/btc/comments/gg82fc/the_truth_is_that_both_btc_bch_are_facing_a/fq0hqbd/

Bitcoin would have to achieve a $256 trillion marketcap in 10 halvings to satisfy your doubling postulate (in today's dollars). Or in other words, Bitcoin would have to be worth more than everything in the world combined.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 9, 2020 09:47:37
/r/btc/comments/gf1zst/one_things_for_sure_the_persistence_of_the_ifp/fpti8l1/

Is it possible that hashpower isn't the active ingredient in Bitcoin security?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 7, 2020 18:48:56
/r/btc/comments/geqs53/i_convinced_my_parents_to_pull_from_their/fpp0tp5/

What could possibly go wrong??

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 6, 2020 15:39:48
/r/btc/comments/gdez93/sadly_after_nearly_3_years_bitcoin_network_effect/fpjxdni/

You are just trolling BCH!! /s This article is spot on. It is so painfully obvious. Most people prefer to live in their comfortable delusion than face the truth. Quite ironic for a community based on an alternative cryptocurrency, within an alternative monetary system. Bitcoin's biggest strength is simultaneously it's biggest liability. That is, everyone is blinded by the bags they hold.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 08:57:03
/r/btc/comments/gd0mah/exotic_defi_goes_hybrid_mkr_holders_accept/fpeyyjv/

What could possibly go wrong?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 3, 2020 22:06:24
/r/btc/comments/gcllbl/bitcoin_cash_has_a_real_problem_on_its_hands_and/fpcwmod/

Blaming your problems on perceived outsiders isn't going to solve anything. Your over the top response illustrates just how insecure you are about BCH.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 3, 2020 10:03:21
/r/btc/comments/gcllbl/bitcoin_cash_has_a_real_problem_on_its_hands_and/fpcmzqq/

I don't know if it's culture rot, so much as it is the lack of success. BCH is kind of like a football team that is 1-12. Everyone in the locker room is irritable. Winning solves everything. The first step to winning is recognizing there is a problem to begin with. Unfortunately everyone just tripled down on the same failed idea that node software is equivalent to success. BCH's root problem is a poor playback, not so much a poor culture. Honestly it's amazing there are still people going as hard as they do with how much of a failed project BCH has been.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 3, 2020 07:48:52
/r/btc/comments/gc2fcp/why_exactly_is_etoro_trading_at_lower_prices/fpazd7l/

>Also, maybe someone's goal is to trade their way to financial freedom, so they might not be so supportive of any particular project. Maybe they are just in crypto hoping for financial freedom from trading. I know one coworker who does this. Tell your buddy to just send all his money to me. It will save him a lot of time/stress losing it himself.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 2, 2020 18:34:33
/r/btc/comments/gbfaa8/no_we_dont_need_to_hire_worldclass_developers_my/fp7ysyx/

So much truth in this. It is amazing how many people in the BCH community think talented outsiders are just going to come in and pump their BCH bags for no reason.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 1, 2020 20:32:13
/r/btc/comments/gbpcfv/how_secure_is_this_seed_word_setup/fp7ksid/

While you are technically correct, in practice the odds the user screws up the Shamir Secret setup are about 1000x the odds of an adversary gaining access to 16 words AND knowing how to brute force the other 8 + passphrase. Especially considering the likely noob tradeoff of the 2/3 setup with 8 words missing is keeping the entire seed in one location.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 1, 2020 18:34:56
/r/btc/comments/g9r8cl/imagine_if_after_11_years_a_startup_had_almost/foydxcg/

Bitcoin Cash has been at capacity for maybe 6 months in its 11 year history. Is it possible that use cases are the problem and not capacity?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 10:32:34
/r/btc/comments/g9r8cl/imagine_if_after_11_years_a_startup_had_almost/foybjes/

If you think doing 0.3 TPS is a good trajectory then we can agree to disagree.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 10:10:55
/r/btc/comments/ga6g85/hey_ive_seen_the_argument_floating_around_here/foy38wg/

Bitcoin uses the same consensus mechanism as McDonald's, Apple, and Amazon. Users choose to adopt or not adopt. The only thing proof of work solved was the "Fair issuance" of coins.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 08:43:42
/r/btc/comments/g9r8cl/imagine_if_after_11_years_a_startup_had_almost/fovif66/

This is the thinking that is holding BCH back. The problem has almost nothing to do with BTC vs BCH. The problem is Bitcoin (in general) vs fiat. What use cases will compel Average Joe to switch from fiat to Bitcoin?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 15:24:10
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fovfkac/

>As a renter, I am prohibited by my lease from opting out of insurance. You voluntarily purchased housing that had insurance included in the price. You could have bought competing housing that did not have insurance. > I don't own a car, preferring to use a Bicycle to get around. Right, because you recognized paying into car insurance (which you didn't need nor want) would be a waste of money. Why can't people make the same decision you made for car insurance, for health insurance? What is the difference?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 15:01:09
/r/btc/comments/g9r8cl/imagine_if_after_11_years_a_startup_had_almost/fova0zu/

>It will take you 11 years to streamline your business and become successful? What are you doing meanwhile? I was being facetious. And you are ironically making the exact same point in my original post, in your counterargument above.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 14:17:33
/r/btc/comments/g9ouko/idea_for_a_feedback_system/fov7uov/

[freetheplebes.com](https://freetheplebes.com) is building something akin to this

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 14:00:03
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fov7fn4/

It doesn't negatively impact everybody else. People buy insurance before they get sick. The same way you buy insurance before you wreck your car. Under your logic we should also have single payer car insurance for pre-existing wrecked cars? We should also have home insurance for pre-existing burned down houses? Since cars and homes are "Not discretionary," and everyone needs cars and homes to live, they should also be under national single payer?? What is the difference?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 13:56:44
/r/btc/comments/g9r8cl/imagine_if_after_11_years_a_startup_had_almost/fov5w18/

It just started. Ask me in 11 years

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 13:44:50
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fouywit/

You believe it is immoral to not service Joe, even if he voluntarily chooses to decline health insurance. -->That's fine, we can agree to disagree. The logical inconsistency is when you then say it is moral to force Joe to buy something he doesn't want. Your moral argument doesn't really hold water, if you are going to force people to buy things they don't want -> Especially when them not buying health insurance does not negatively impact anyone else.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 12:50:53
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fouvm9k/

It's very simple. If Joe buys health insurance from the government, then he is covered. If Joe buys health insurance from the free market, then he is covered. If Joe does not buy health insurance, then he is not covered and will have to pay out of pocket. If he cannot pay out of pocket, then he will not receive care. You get your government healthcare. I get my free market healthcare. Everyone wins. No one is forced to buy something they don't want. Why do you want to force Joe to buy something he doesn't want? Why can't you just leave Joe alone?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 12:25:43
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fourceu/

I'm not understanding why Joe can't just opt out. He doesn't pay anything He doesn't get anything. It is a net effect of zero. \----------------------- Why do you have to force Joe to buy something he doesn't want?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 28, 2020 11:51:58
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fosnq2l/

Healthcare can still be done in parallel. You get single-payer government healthcare. I get free market healthcare. Win win? Or am I missing something?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 20:39:05
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fosgwp3/

The roads and national defense are really the only government services which cannot coexist in two parallel systems. So for the sake of argument, let's say everyone pays 5% tax for that. Then for everything else, you support two parallel systems for which people are free to choose?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 19:34:38
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/for6tgj/

You are logically consistent up to this point, and to that end we will have to agree to disagree on the basis of perceived value tradeoffs for government services. \------------------- Do you believe people should be able to opt-out of government services? I don't pay anything in, but at the same time I don't get anything out. It is a net effect of zero. You get your government service. I get my free market service. Everyone wins. Would you support that?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:05:54
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/foqv00o/

Does the average family of 4 get $92,000 worth of value in government services (or anything close to that)?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 11:28:27
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/foqhqld/

I agree with you the Free Market is corrupt and has many shortcomings. Where we disagree is the efficiency of the free market in comparison to government. The US government (State, Federal, and Local) combined spend $23,000 per person per year. That is $92,000 per family of four per year. It has more than enough "money" to solve everyone's problems three times over (assuming that works in a vacuum). Knowing that information, are you proposing government is less corrupt than the "Free market?"

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 09:24:00
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fopavk6/

Declaring everyone should have housing is a goal, not a solution. \------------ The only way to produce more housing is to lower its cost. Transferring worthless digits from one person's account to another does not produce any additional housing. All it does is change the accounts of those bidding on it. If you are that worried about housing, consider the government could reduce housing costs by well over 50% by not taxing or regulating.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 23:09:49
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fop26bm/

Money is just a measuring stick. It doesn't actually have any value. Transferring from rich to poor creates a disincentive for both parties to produce, thus creating a smaller economic pie for the same amount of people. And that's assuming the politicians even give the money to the poor instead of keeping it for themselves.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 21:37:16
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/fop1lh2/

Fuck that, let's do $1 million per year. Everyone should be in the top 1%!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 21:31:10
/r/btc/comments/g8l4n1/2k_per_month_for_every_american_andrew_yang_begs/foom6l5/

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual\_motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 18:56:00
/r/btc/comments/g77hfj/how_i_see_btc_in_the_future_if_people_are_going/fon3oxt/

Kind of like when you "voluntarily" pay when you choose to work.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 10:31:48
/r/btc/comments/g84w0n/the_only_things_slowing_or_stopping_bitcoin_from/folmcgk/

The only thing stopping Bitcoin is the widespread delusion that scaling is the bottleneck --> Use cases are the bottleneck

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 25, 2020 21:42:54
/r/btc/comments/g77idn/why_is_bitcoin_bch_adoption_so_slow/fojl6ls/

I wish more people understood this. Cough...^((ABC/BU/NodeSoftware/WalletSoftware))...Cough

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 25, 2020 10:09:14
/r/btc/comments/g2jop3/tone_vays_channel_deleted_by_youtube_crypto_under/fnmixyl/

I have been trying to explain it for years. It's like speaking French to a rock. I am just going to build it now and people can see for themselves.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 17:24:19
/r/btc/comments/g2jop3/tone_vays_channel_deleted_by_youtube_crypto_under/fnmbo5u/

There is actually a really simple solution. The problem is 99% of Bitcoin developers view decentralized applications as a coding challenge instead of an economic challenge.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 16:22:13
/r/btc/comments/g2jop3/tone_vays_channel_deleted_by_youtube_crypto_under/fnmaedz/

We are sort of pre-launch right now, but signups are available if you would like to check out the website [here](https://freetheplebes.com). The platform's initial aim is peer-to-peer trade for services (kind of like Uber, but for other markets). The central feature of the platform is still under development and should be ready within a couple weeks. I must warn you, the platform is still a little rough.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 16:11:28
/r/btc/comments/g2jop3/tone_vays_channel_deleted_by_youtube_crypto_under/fnm8o34/

It's a really simple problem to solve. The problem is, I'm not sure there is a single developer in the Bitcoin space that doesn't have his head up his ass.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 15:56:57
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fnffnmb/

>\[Miners\] also, more importantly, solve the double-spending problem. I disagree. The public and open ledger protected by social consensus solves the double spending problem. I know that is the Bitcoin equivalent of saying Jesus is not the son of God, but it is true. Any miner can doublespend any time he wants, and any other miner can extend the invalid chain. Proof of work does nothing to stop this. Miners extend the chain for which they believe will be accepted by the users (i.e. social consensus). Of course, mining proponents will then argue proof of work forces the miner to stake value on the social acceptance of his block, thus forcing it to act honestly. This doesn't really solve anything because the rules of the blockchain are deterministic, and thus anyone (whether they stake value or not) should be able to extend the chain as valid extensions are black and white. Then mining proponents will argue that Proof of Work is needed to determine who extends the chain. Determining who gets to extend the chain requires only one quality: deterministic entropy. That is to say, the extender is chosen at random, and this is done so deterministically (so that everyone is on the same page). Proof of work satisfies deterministic randomness, but there are many other simple ways to do this. Deterministic randomness basically means all the shit will get thrown at the wall (both valid and invalid extensions of the chain). As long as all the shit thrown at the wall is done so sequentially, the entire network will accept the first valid extension of the chain within a given period. Since all valid extensions of the chain are black and white, and done sequentially, this solves the coordination problem of agreeing on the valid state of the chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 19:32:23
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fnerblj/

Miners follow users. Users do not follow miners. Miners only solve the fair issuance of coins problem. Bitcoin is secured by social consensus. This should be obvious to anyone building on a minority chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 16:01:00
/r/btc/comments/g16ml2/has_anyone_noticed_abc_who_forked_away_from_btc/fne4aaq/

> do not lie Ok u/j-stodd

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 12:46:41
/r/btc/comments/g17hwt/peter_schiff_predicts_the_fall_of_bitcoin/fndyksn/

Peter's fundamental argument against Bitcoin is that it cannot be used for anything other than passing it on to the next guy while failing to realize the same is true for gold. Given gold takes weeks to pass on to the next guy, and Bitcoin takes 10 minutes, maybe he should consider that Bitcoin is indeed better than gold. \------------------------------ Then Peter will argue gold can be stored in a vault and moved electronically... Thus recreating the same fraudulent credit system that he spends 16 hours a day critiquing on TV.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 11:58:00
/r/btc/comments/g16ml2/has_anyone_noticed_abc_who_forked_away_from_btc/fndvhqw/

I was not making a moral argument.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 11:30:57
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndtbnw/

So you follow the miners, but only when they agree with you. Got it. And for the record I do the same... I just don't claim otherwise like you do.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 11:11:39
/r/btc/comments/g16ml2/has_anyone_noticed_abc_who_forked_away_from_btc/fndszuy/

You are unknowingly supporting my original post. ABC is using the "Miner vote" as a convenient cover to avoid saying what they are really doing (as you have acknowledged) -- > they are just saying if you don't like it then you can split off

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 11:08:41
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fnds3wg/

>I follow blockchain technology for it's possible utility. I agree with you. So why do you then propose we leave the vote up to miners? When you yourself, already ignored the SHA miners on the BTC/BCH split... The exact same miners that will be voting on IFP --> It is logically inconsistent. You only support the miners when it is convenient for your viewpoint.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 11:00:35
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndqrs8/

>I am implying that code should be decided by PoW. Not proof of social media. That is all. Then use BTC.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 10:48:26
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndoee6/

I too support BCH. That's now what I am arguing. \----------------------- You are implying for better or for worse the miners should be the deciders of truth in Bitcoin. This would be an acceptable viewpoint if you were consistent on that belief. You are not consistent on that viewpoint, because you now support BCH against the decision of the miners. You only support miner votes when it suits your viewpoint. Kind of like how liberals/conservatives only support the constitution when it suits their viewpoint.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 10:26:25
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndmfu4/

You cannot simultaneously believe the two following statements: "Let's ignore the miner vote and move to BCH" "IFP should be decided by the miners"

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 10:07:23
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndlodc/

I don't know if you noticed, but the miners voted for BTC. You are now on a minority chain that was not created through miner vote, but instead Proof of Reddit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 09:59:37
/r/btc/comments/g12fe4/why_cant_bitcoin_abc_simply_give_a_clear_answer/fndh1a5/

Thank you for this. ABC is clearly saying "Fund us, or risk a chainsplit" -- while shouting down anyone making this observation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 09:10:04
/r/btc/comments/g0p00q/at_what_point_do_you_face_reality/fndg3kk/

Ethereum's number one use case is a real-life testnet for a bunch of failed companies.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 08:59:19
/r/btc/comments/g0p00q/at_what_point_do_you_face_reality/fndfz98/

My personal favorite are wallet projects and merchant adoption projects... "Oh, the first 10,000 Bitcoin wallets failed to onboard any users, maybe this one will be different" Or "Oh, the first 100,000 merchants that 'adopted' Bitcoin gained no benefit, maybe we just need to try onboarding more"

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 08:57:57
/r/btc/comments/g0p00q/at_what_point_do_you_face_reality/fnb95en/

As someone who believes in the future of Bitcoin, this is very true. It's even worse, because the Bitcoin ecosystem has received billions in investment, thousands of developers, and immense media coverage, and still almost zero adoption to show for it. Yet all these people keep trying the same failed concepts over and over again expecting different results.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 13, 2020 16:56:39
/r/btc/comments/fz9ny2/any_updates_about_ifp/fn4mdk4/

The difference is in the 66% IFP attack, the attacking miner is still collecting the BCH block reward while also carrying out the attack. This allows the attacker to 66% attack at zero cost.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 11, 2020 18:32:47
/r/btc/comments/fwrif0/stop_making_exclusive_platforms_for_your_favorite/fms96aq/

Building and maintaining a platform with support for 10 different cryptocurrencies would be a nightmare.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2020 08:49:02
/r/btc/comments/fx5d7d/how_will_halving_influence_bch/fms7h4n/

The block reward will go from 12.5 to 6.25

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2020 08:27:22
/r/btc/comments/ft97yp/press_release_bitcoin_abc_launches_2020_bitcoin/fm7qfqm/

>Involuntary Funding Project haha >The real problem lies in the assumption that ABC has somehow been innovative and that they are needed for Bitcoin Cash to succeed. The opposite is reality. So true

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 2, 2020 09:34:47
/r/btc/comments/ft97yp/press_release_bitcoin_abc_launches_2020_bitcoin/fm7q70v/

This is probably just ABC setting up the IFP so they can say -- "See, we tried voluntary donations and none of you offered anything"

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 2, 2020 09:32:00
/r/btc/comments/ft0xkx/the_infrastructure_plan_usa/fm7phwk/

>While they may win when deflation hits, they will lose for years as prices steadily increase. Yes, this is true. While credit cycles aren't going away anytime soon, the question is whether this deflation incentive could better tame the cycle. I think a lot of the reason for the viciousness of the current credit cycle is participants know the base layer USD will not be honored in deflation. Maybe that is just wishful thinking because any business avoiding leverage over the last 20 years, probably would have been unprofitable and not seen the deflation come to fruition. Maybe in a hypothetical future Bitcoin world it would be prudent for debts to be denominated against a CPI like index, instead of an arbitrary currency unit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 2, 2020 09:23:56
/r/btc/comments/ft0xkx/the_infrastructure_plan_usa/fm6rdhy/

This is very true, but it is important to note since Bitcoin (in theory) cannot be printed at the base level, prudent holders that choose not to lend out their Bitcoin will profit when the Credit Cycle collapses. Those sitting in the 21 million base chairs will be rewarded via deflation for not playing the credit game. The jury is still out on whether social consensus would honor the base layer Bitcoin, or just choose to mint new Bitcoin to make the credit bagholders nominally whole again. Given that most people would be credit bagholders, it is conceivable (and perhaps even likely) the 21 million limit would not hold under such circumstances... But what about muh Proof of Work? -> Proof of work does nothing to secure Bitcoin. \----------------------- I would agree, Bitcoin from a sound money perspective is making at best a marginal improvement. Bitcoin's true superpower is its censorship resistant properties.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 2, 2020 00:18:39
/r/btc/comments/ft42sv/bringing_trustless_hedginglongshort_any_asset/fm6m6u9/

If fungibility of contracts can be achieved non-custodially then that would be a gamechanger.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 1, 2020 23:15:16
/r/btc/comments/ft42sv/bringing_trustless_hedginglongshort_any_asset/fm5m471/

This is a big deal if executed properly. After skimming through the whitepaper it appears these are the key design tradeoffs made: **At the base layer**: The long-short contracts are not fungible, meaning I cannot send one synthetic USD from Alice to Bob to Charley without opening and closing contracts at each step. This fungibility tradeoff is made to preserve non-custodial arrangements. **Custodial Layer:** On top of the base non-custodial layer, trusted custodians can issue fungible synthetic USD. Meaning I can send synthetic USD backed by BCH from Alice to Bob to Charley with something simple like an SLP token. This makes third party integrations very easy which aren't really practical at the base layer. \-------------------- By segmenting the two layers the level-2 custodians are inevitably forced to compete on the basis of regulatory defiance without infecting the base layer. While not a perfect solution, it creates a utility sweetspot for users moving smaller amounts (say under $250), to have strong price stability, with reasonable security of funds, and a high degree of censorship resistance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 1, 2020 17:12:06
/r/btc/comments/frtbr7/bitcoin_cash_shouldnt_be_trying_to_solve_anyone/fm4df24/

For better or for worse, the Bitcoin development ethos is - "Write code, or shut up." I think this is unfortunate. It is one of the primary reason we find ourselves without a single non-speculative use case 11 years after Bitcoin's inception. If the Bitcoin Cash developers actually knew what they were doing, the chain would be doing more than 0.3 TPS.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 1, 2020 10:38:46
/r/btc/comments/fo72yj/brain_drain_bitcoin_cash_dev_leaves_for_ava_and/fle8wo3/

For the 1000th time, the Bitcoin bottleneck has nothing to do with protocol. The bottleneck is USE CASES. AVA does nothing to solve the use cases bottleneck.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 24, 2020 15:56:28
/r/btc/comments/fkv5kh/bitcoin_abc_has_just_released_an_update/fkyjmce/

I don't know what is more concerning, ABC's actions, or how many people think it is productive to have hard forks every 12 months over stupid shit?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 16:33:58
/r/btc/comments/fl585n/the_world_didnt_switch_to_netflix_because_it_had/fkyg9xk/

75% of people have no/little saved fiat. 25% inflation times 0 savings = 0 cost. For most people inflation doesn't matter. \----------------- USD is a means of exchange, NOT a savings vehicle. The inflation cost is insignificant when compared to its utility.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 16:02:24
/r/btc/comments/fl585n/the_world_didnt_switch_to_netflix_because_it_had/fkyfllf/

All prices are readjusted to compensate for inflation (salary, stocks, etc.). Additionally, most of the time the rate of interest covers the cost of inflation, though that is not true today. Inflation has huge macro-consequences, but at the marginal utility level of Alice, inflation is completely insignificant. Alice needs a more compelling reason to switch to Bitcoin... Fortunately there is a more compelling reason and that is censorship resistance. Alice can save 40% per year from avoiding extortion while using Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 15:56:04
/r/btc/comments/fl585n/the_world_didnt_switch_to_netflix_because_it_had/fkyebe2/

If Alice holds an average cash balance equal to 10% of her income over the course of the year (which is probably true for most people), this means even at 25%/year inflation she only loses 2.5% of her annual income. Even at that high inflation rate, the superior adoption/liquidity of fiat is still superior to the limited supply of Bitcoin. \----------------- Compare that to Alice losing 40% of her income per year to extortion --> This is where Bitcoin wins

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 15:44:02
/r/btc/comments/fl585n/the_world_didnt_switch_to_netflix_because_it_had/fky5hyq/

>Right now, the ~~sound money~~ and censorship resistance is the ONLY real edge. Bitcoin's price volatility easily dwarfs any potential savings from 4%/year inflation. Censorship resistance is the only real edge.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 14:17:44
/r/btc/comments/fl585n/the_world_didnt_switch_to_netflix_because_it_had/fkxwb69/

>The world didn't switch to Netflix because it *promised* to save people time and money *some day* either. Thank you! +100

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2020 12:51:10
/r/btc/comments/fkpwpw/is_it_reasonable_to_get_credit_if_fiat_money_is/fkvdb69/

Depends on the country. Some countries offer fixed rate for the duration of the loan. Other countries only do variable rate loans which are basically cpi-based as the interest rate generally reflects the rate of inflation +2%.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 17:28:22
/r/btc/comments/fkpwpw/is_it_reasonable_to_get_credit_if_fiat_money_is/fkus1l2/

Five words: Fixed Rate 30 year mortgage If a hyperinflation did play out, it seems unlikely to me they are going to let tens of millions of homeowners get their homes for free. They would probably change the rules.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 18, 2020 14:11:15
/r/btc/comments/fg47wv/judge_taught_csw_a_lesson_in_law/fk4luqb/

I'm not discussing your college experience. I'm discussing the average. >[The average person with a college degree earns 2.5x more than a person with no degree.](https://work.chron.com/average-salary-college-degree-1861.html) That is mostly correlation, not causation. Competent people tend to graduate college. College does not tend to make competent people (excluding STEM).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 10, 2020 13:56:40
/r/btc/comments/fg47wv/judge_taught_csw_a_lesson_in_law/fk4j2y7/

Good for you. I'm talking on the average. Sure, there are some people that win college. The fact remains that most don't. ($75,000 Tuition + let's say $75,000 Opportunity Cost of 4 years) invested at 7% per year after 45 years turns into $3,000,000. I'd be surprised if the delta from degree to no degree beats that return for more than 5% of students. Sadly they don't teach practical accounting or finance in university. I wonder why ;)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 10, 2020 13:30:43
/r/btc/comments/fg47wv/judge_taught_csw_a_lesson_in_law/fk44aaw/

> Aww butthurt much that you couldn't get into university? Judging by the 10+ responses (and counting) of people defending their $50K pieces of paper, I think we can empirically prove the opposite.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 10, 2020 11:10:02
/r/btc/comments/fg47wv/judge_taught_csw_a_lesson_in_law/fk335c0/

Students could just borrow 100k, light it on fire, and it would save them 4 years of time while yielding the same outcome. College degrees are valuable to the extent the student has proven to the employer that he is now a slave to student loan debt --> A motivated slave.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 10, 2020 00:56:22
/r/btc/comments/fg47wv/judge_taught_csw_a_lesson_in_law/fk2tbs0/

College degrees are the fiat equivalent of intelligence. They are worth the paper they are printed on.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 9, 2020 22:51:20
/r/btc/comments/ffwdpc/why_bch_transactions_dropped_starting_yesterday/fk11e4c/

And even that really isn't peer-to-peer cash. It's just a speculator selling their Bitcoin Cash for fiat via a third party at the time of purchase. Peer-to-peer cash is when Alice sends Bob Bitcoin, with no 3rd party, and no fiat conversion. If there is a middleman involved anywhere, it's basically the same thing as fiat but with rainbows in the background.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 9, 2020 12:15:02
/r/btc/comments/ffwdpc/why_bch_transactions_dropped_starting_yesterday/fk0zmii/

I would estimate less than 1% of BCH transactions actually involve the "Peer-to-peer" cash use case. The other 99% resemble some derivative of speculation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 9, 2020 11:59:00
/r/btc/comments/ffjpj1/thanks_for_crashing_the_price_deadalnix/fjzrpyn/

Amaury is exit-scamming Bitcoin Cash.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 9, 2020 00:15:36
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/fe2u4v/some_questions_about_libertarianism_from_a_semi/fjpk5sy/

Someone got triggered. Ok. Prove me wrong. Write a personal check to some African citizens. You are in the top 10% globally by virtue of birth. You didn't earn it. Why shouldn't your wealth be redistributed to the Africa? You do believe in socialism right? Or do you only believe in socialism when you are a net-recipient?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on March 6, 2020 22:49:46
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/fe2u4v/some_questions_about_libertarianism_from_a_semi/fjpgtyz/

99.99% of people do what maximizes their personal economic utility. People say things should be a certain way, but at the end of the day everyone acts in their own self-interest. Kind of like how socialists in rich countries conveniently exclude the 95% of people in poor countries when considering redistribution of wealth. If the socialists actually believed what they said, they would be writing checks to people in Africa. Of course they never do this because socialists are a bunch of envious hypocrites.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on March 6, 2020 22:07:13
/r/btc/comments/feaa5a/bsv_hashrate_critically_low_what_about_after/fjoiopg/

Bitcoin's bottleneck has never been technical infrastructure. Bitcoin's bottleneck is compelling economic use cases. BSV has not solved this 11 year problem Don't confuse superior technical infrastructure with adoption. They are not the same thing.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 6, 2020 16:02:08
/r/btc/comments/feaa5a/bsv_hashrate_critically_low_what_about_after/fjnlnqu/

I see at least 3 levels of stupid: 1. No one is in need of censorship resistant weather records. 2. Even if people did need censorship resistant weather records, you could hash all the data, and publish the hash once daily on-chain. 3. No one is going to pay a subscription for data you are openly publishing on-chain from an already existing free weather source.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 6, 2020 10:53:16
/r/btc/comments/feaa5a/bsv_hashrate_critically_low_what_about_after/fjndi1l/

They don't know how to hash their data, so they put all of it on-chain instead.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 6, 2020 09:27:41
/r/btc/comments/fe0zyg/political_correctness_in_bitcoin_cash/fjm7nt4/

\--> The awkward moment when you realize a full node implementation has never once onboarded a single user in Bitcoin's 11 year history despite being the root cause of two forks (and maybe a third).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 5, 2020 21:58:29
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/fe2u4v/some_questions_about_libertarianism_from_a_semi/fjlorcl/

There is one rule and one rule only that exists in reality: Do what you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences. \----------------------------- Anyone that tells you otherwise is either naive or trying to take advantage of you.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on March 5, 2020 18:30:37
/r/btc/comments/fddth0/if_bitcoin_abc_organization_keeps_acting_in_the/fjgsyh7/

It should be clear by now that Amaury is basically exit-scamming Bitcoin Cash.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 10:14:04
/r/btc/comments/fdbabg/abc_tries_to_include_ifp_in_bch_spec_past_feature/fjgsp60/

It should be clear by now that Amaury is essentially exit-scamming Bitcoin Cash.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 10:11:27
/r/btc/comments/fcvo4n/bch_killer_app_will_we_see_one_within_the_next_3/fjdr6t8/

Turning the legacy financial system upside down over 3% inflation per year isn't enough incentive to switch. It can't just be a little bit better, it has to be 10X better.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:47:39
/r/btc/comments/fcvo4n/bch_killer_app_will_we_see_one_within_the_next_3/fjdpkoi/

Cash in and of itself is not the killer app. Killer apps don't take 11+ years to gain users. The killer app has yet to be discovered. I say this not to troll, but so people put more thought into what that killer app on Bitcoin might be.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:32:31
/r/btc/comments/fcti4m/bitcoin_price_drop_raises_doubts_about_its_safe/fjd71ow/

There is a special word for people who think an asset that is 98% speculation based will remain uncorrelated in a market crash.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 09:52:18
/r/btc/comments/fbv02e/an_idea_what_if_bcn_threatens_a_pow_change_in_the/fj80f1k/

There is a time and a place to fork. BCH/BSV was not that time and ABC/BCN is definitely not that time. If something doesn't change, this community is going to be forking over logo colors before long.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 17:38:45
/r/btc/comments/fbv02e/an_idea_what_if_bcn_threatens_a_pow_change_in_the/fj72yos/

Anything is superior to a chain that forks every 12 months.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 12:56:27
/r/btc/comments/fbwwl8/psa_the_sub_is_currently_under_heavy_manipulation/fj714pv/

Amaury is about to fork the chain (for the 2nd time) and people are complaining about trolls/manipulation?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 12:38:26
/r/btc/comments/fbv02e/an_idea_what_if_bcn_threatens_a_pow_change_in_the/fj6t82c/

Sadly, I have to agree. It is starting to get really hard to make logical arguments in favor of BCH over its competitors.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 11:20:55
/r/btc/comments/fbv02e/an_idea_what_if_bcn_threatens_a_pow_change_in_the/fj6mv22/

And what happens in the likely event the exchanges do no switch to BCN?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 10:16:04
/r/btc/comments/fbt4r8/profree_speech_conservative_project_veritas/fj6l4lx/

Wow! Talk about a waste of money.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 09:57:55
/r/btc/comments/fbsw5f/regarding_the_bip9_in_abc_in_an_election_for_a/fj6js2u/

I think there is a simpler explanation. ABC intends to fork the chain for self-funding regardless of what any "Miner vote," or community has to say about it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 09:41:25
/r/btc/comments/fbk7id/are_we_taking_the_upcoming_events_serious_enough/fj53ewd/

Pretty amazing all these chains have effectively zero users and they fork every 6 months over entirely hypothetical optimizations... I guess that's what happens when a bunch of Libertarians \[try\] to work together.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 19:41:03
/r/btc/comments/fbi59y/a_purely_libertarian_and_voluntaryist_analysis_of/fj52e9q/

Has Amaury broken the NAP --> No Is Amaury going to severely impair the Bitcoin Cash project --> Yes

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 19:29:36
/r/btc/comments/fbbmgb/deryk_makgill_one_way_in_which_my_thinking_has/fj468d2/

>Which makes the "Store of Value" use case the only one worth retaining. Censorship resistant use cases can save the user up to 50%. Bitcoin must connect ways in which fiat is unable to. That is the marginal use case that will bootstrap the chicken and egg problem. >In this particular use case anonymous/privacy coins have an overwhelming advantage over transparent chains Assuming mass adoption, privacy will be a trivial matter on transparent chains via coinshuffling. >ASIC-mined chains which naturally tend towards industrialization and centralization of mining. Miners do not secure the chain. All miners do is bring coins into existence to sort of solve the fair distribution problem. Users secure the chain through adoption. Adoption secures all protocols be it McDonalds, Uber, or Bitcoin. It is rather ironic no one understands this property while simultaneously working on a minority hash chain. Time after time after time it is proven hashpower does nothing to secure Bitcoin. (Segwit, IFP, DAO hack, BSV, 5000+ altcoins). We could just appoint one dictator to solve the 10 minute consensus problem, and any time he doesn't follow Bitcoin's 2 rules (21 million supply limit, chain of valid digit signatures), everyone knows to fork off to the next dictator in line... Rinse and repeat.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 13:33:37
/r/btc/comments/fbbmgb/deryk_makgill_one_way_in_which_my_thinking_has/fj407h0/

>Why would merchant adoption prevent BCH community from moving forward? Many people are optimizing for merchant adoption while failing to realize no one is ever going to switch to Bitcoin to make the same purchase at the same price as fiat. > Where should the community move towards? Censorship resistant use cases. That is the only advantage Bitcoin has over fiat. >Is there a community at all? Aren't we just atomized individuals, a loose band of [libertarian coyotes](https://i.imgur.com/BP3FFYH.jpg)? Yes, and that is why nothing productive ever gets done.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 12:27:37
/r/btc/comments/fbbmgb/deryk_makgill_one_way_in_which_my_thinking_has/fj3jnh5/

Merchant adoption is one of the biggest mental barriers preventing the BCH community from moving forward.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 09:13:52
/r/btc/comments/fac8u2/bch_wallet_idea_carbon_footprint_tracker/fj0ksv1/

It should automatically bill the user to offset their carbon footprint. That way all the climate change people will realize the solution is 10X worse than the problem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 10:04:07
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fipm3ej/

This is like an MVP of an MVP. If/when we get that far it will be open sourced.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 01:16:47
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fipk5s7/

Suspicious of what?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 00:44:32
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fipk1su/

The intention is to open source. We are just holding back while the project is in its infancy.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 00:42:47
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fipgmav/

Working on it, I will let you know when fixed.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 23:52:39
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fioptna/

Reputation data is open sourced on the blockchain. That is the only critical function for decentralizing applications. Nothing else is currently open sourced.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 18:49:45
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/fioplhu/

Thank you for the input, we'll put something on it describing what's going on.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 18:47:19
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/finqafz/

FTP Credits are on-chain rights to future revenue from purchased usernames and proof of burn. FTP Credits are awarded for: 1. Referring Users 2. Referring Dev 3. Building Apps

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 13:16:22
/r/btc/comments/f8td7x/free_the_plebes_is_officially_launched_free_the/finexm7/

Behind the registration wall we have opened one p2p market - Lawncare 1. The website has on-chain reputation (usernames, reviews, proof of burn) 2. It also has an optional built in wallet

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 11:35:59
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fikfsp2/

The only one being dramatic is you.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 23, 2020 12:38:52
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fikcsbe/

Making logical speculations are not personal attacks. You are free to disagree with those speculations, but that does not make them personal attacks.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 23, 2020 12:11:08
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fikbdyi/

So speculating on game theory now qualifies as personal attacks?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 23, 2020 11:57:38
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fijy3xp/

If Amaury believes in the miners so much, why does he have rolling 11 block "checkpoints?" The miners are a sham. He knows he is the one making the decision.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 23, 2020 09:21:55
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fiioqmd/

Understand what? Amaury is threatening (and incentivized) to split the chain over funding?? What am I missing here?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 21:14:41
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fiimqnc/

Agreements are made by first understanding each other's incentives/motives.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 21:03:34
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fii2i0z/

It only takes 2% hashpower to command the BCH chain. The exchanges almost always give the "fork" label to the challenger. Couple that with exchanges being openly hostile to BCH, and exchanges profiting from increased volume of trading a controversial fork... This could get messy real fast.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 19:10:06
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fiht0pk/

p2p cash will live on, but you are right, a split might be game over for BCH

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 18:24:12
/r/btc/comments/f7zpo1/showerthought_i_didnt_spend_4_years_fighting/fihl244/

Let's call it what it is -- Amaury is using his leverage over the ticker symbol to hold Bitcoin Cash hostage to funding ABC. He gets his IFP whether the chain splits or not. Amaury has no incentive to avoid a fork. BCN is not backing down. The only way out I am seeing is if the BCH power players give into Amaury's extortionate demand and fund ABC out of pocket. The BCH power players are going to lose a hell of a lot more from a chainsplit than they are from funding ABC. If BCH splits again, it is going to set the community back at least another 1-3 years. Much worse, it is starting to look like these forks over trivial matters are going to be an ongoing problem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 17:45:35
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fihfumv/

> Real Estate, gold, and generally speaking the stock market. That was in response to the "Store of Value" use case. For the "Means of Exchange" use case, fiat costs significantly less than Bitcoin for legacy applications. If Bitcoin is to succeed, it must enable new transactions that are not possible with fiat.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 17:17:21
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/figebg1/

>There is nothing else available which government can't confiscate The odds that BTC loses 50%+ of its value are at least 1000x the odds government steals your real estate. I wish BTC all the best in their store of value vision. Maybe most of its users actually are holding it for store of value. My guess is most of its users are holding it for moonlambos. I highly doubt the run-up to $20,000 was because of a sudden surge in store of value demand. #StoreofSpeculation

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 14:11:08
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/figdm2k/

Should be launching tomorrow... Though it is very early BETA, so don't get your hopes up too much. We have some exciting things in the works though.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 14:07:18
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/figd615/

To cut out the fiat market makers, Average Joe must satisfy two constraints 1. Willing to incur BCH price volatility until spending (1 day - 60 days?) 2. A place to spend the BCH at Given that most Average Joes cannot satisfy both those constraints, there likely needs to be fiat market makers for most users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 14:04:37
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fig826b/

Assuming BTC never goes down in price this works. Given no one really uses BTC for anything, that is quite the assumption.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 13:42:54
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fifj9vf/

That is true on a macro scale, but what is the marginal utility of Bitcoin for the user? It must overcome that barrier first. This is the challenge of taking on the incumbent network effect.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 11:51:47
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fifiq3e/

Real Estate, gold, and generally speaking the stock market. Something that drops 90% in price every couple years, and 40% on a regular basis, is not a store of value. Add to that, the non-speculative value of Bitcoin is about 2% of its price.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 11:49:03
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fifhsq4/

The problem with a worldwide airdrop, is the value of the airdrop per person would be pennies. BTW, it is ridiculous we have a "BSVAlertBot" running around this sub.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 11:44:29
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fif8dq6/

That is a use case, though I don't know many Average Joes that need to move wealth around the world. Remittances perhaps, but the problem with remittances is there still needs to be a market maker on both sides to convert fiat, which leads to 5%-10% fees. There also exists many superior stores of value to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 10:53:32
/r/btc/comments/f7l7tq/why_i_support_the_ifp_despite_the_community/fif1y31/

The number one goal is to onboard users. If the IFP onboards more users than it costs, than it is worth it. If the IFP does not onboard users, then it is clearly not worth it. Given we can be nearly 100% certain Bitcoin ABC and other node infrastructure will not onboard a single user, we can conclude the IFP as currently situated is not going to advance Bitcoin. Add to that, that the IFP is going to cause a chainsplit, it will actually cause negative adoption. Bitcoin has existed for 11 years, and 95% of its developers still think technical infrastructure is the bottleneck ----> The very definition of insanity. Maybe the bottleneck on a chain doing 0.3 TPS is not infrastructure, but utility... Just my 2 satoshis.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 10:19:47
/r/btc/comments/f7l7tq/why_i_support_the_ifp_despite_the_community/fieyl2u/

Bitcoin is inherently a Proof of Stake system. Miners just bring coins into existence to sort of solve the "Fair Distribution" problem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 10:05:09
/r/btc/comments/f7sl1c/feature_creep_is_a_legitimate_threat_to_any/fietpkq/

The "UI/UX" is not the problem. The problem is no one has created a use case that saves Average Joe money. No one is ever going to go Coinbase ->Mobile Wallet -> BitPay -> Grocery Store to make the same purchase at the same price as fiat... Never going to happen. Bitcoin will win when it creates use cases that save Average Joe 10%+. These use cases do exist in large numbers, but for some reason no one can see it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 22, 2020 09:40:41
/r/btc/comments/f77x6a/nice_way_to_visualize_bitcoin_cashs_improvements/fiadtty/

None of these businesses or users were ever validating their own transactions because they never wrote their own node software. How is running SPV any different from running someone else's node software?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 10:29:25
/r/btc/comments/f5bae8/latest_thoughts_on_infrastructure_mining_plan/fi2ppwb/

It's a simple formula. 1. Save the user money = Adoption 2. Don't save the user money = No adoption \------------ We have no adoption, because we have not found a broadly use case that saves the user money.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 23:13:31
/r/btc/comments/f5bae8/latest_thoughts_on_infrastructure_mining_plan/fi2nu3i/

Implementations are really just schelling points for users. If there are no users, it does not matter how diverse the schelling points are. Users bring economic decentralization, implementations can only bring technical decentralization. It is the economic decentralization that secures the chain. Aside from technical decentralization being relatively unimportant, it is entirely downstream of users, and thus trying to artificially prop it up is in fact decentralization theater. All these developers are doing is frontrunning future technical shelling points, but this frontrunning is not adding any value today. Given the blocks (across all of crypto) are nearly void of non-speculative activity, it seems crazy to me that people are still working on infrastructure 11 years after Bitcoin was founded when still no one has proven a broadly appealing use case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 22:50:18
/r/btc/comments/f5src2/ethereum_defi_platforms_gamed_again_1000000_total/fi2m88a/

Spittin truth in the replies

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 22:31:09
/r/btc/comments/f5bae8/latest_thoughts_on_infrastructure_mining_plan/fi14pvg/

That is decentralization theater and not worth the cost. You can have 1000 different implementations, if no relevant actors use 999 of them, it doesn't matter. The only implementation that matters (right now) is which one the exchanges use.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 13:29:41
/r/btc/comments/f5po1v/i_am_currently_making_75_on_the_dsr_dai_savings/fi0inpp/

This is great, but keep in mind there is a non-negligible risk of losing your principle to smart contract vulnerabilities.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 09:57:47
/r/btc/comments/f5ela8/mark_lundeberg_regarding_the_bitcoin_cash/fhyth51/

[https://imgur.com/vnV3WE0](https://imgur.com/vnV3WE0)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 17, 2020 18:49:59
/r/btc/comments/f4naef/my_interpretation_of_amaury_sechéts_behavior/fhswgke/

Words cannot describe how incredibly stupid this is. I'm not seeing how a split is going to be avoided.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 16, 2020 10:20:16
/r/btc/comments/f4j98s/how_about_instead_of_creating_10_shitty_full_node/fhsqxr0/

I don't. It's rather obvious no adoption is coming from any of these implementations. This will be the second time they have split over absolutely nothing. Who's fault is it? I don't know, but something needs to change.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 16, 2020 09:43:59
/r/btc/comments/f4j98s/how_about_instead_of_creating_10_shitty_full_node/fhrq0gb/

**All GOT characters believe their cause is the noble one.** The fact of the matter remains there are \~10 developers and a sizeable treasury dedicated to building BCH node infrastructure. This is more than enough for a credible project. There is no other conceivable explanation for why 10 developers are working on 10 separate and mostly redundant projects... Obviously they all want to claim their piece of pie... Such is the nature of life. \--------------------- BU should make the offer to merge projects and the treasury. If multiple teams agree, then the onus is on Amaury to explain why: 1. He won't participate in a Dev Team capable of building everything he claims to desire 2. He won't accept a sure path to funding. \--------------------- That is probably impossible/naive for many reasons. Maybe we should just accept that another fork is on the way and reevaluate which coins we hold.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 16, 2020 01:21:23
/r/btc/comments/f4j98s/how_about_instead_of_creating_10_shitty_full_node/fhrpj2s/

You are about to split the chain in order to receive funding for BCHD. I don't blame you for following economic incentive, but need I say more?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 16, 2020 01:12:47
/r/btc/comments/f4j98s/how_about_instead_of_creating_10_shitty_full_node/fhr6vls/

There is nothing decentralized about a chain doing 0.5 TPS. It doesn't matter how many implementations there are. Splitting the chain is going to set that back even farther.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 15, 2020 21:08:54
/r/btc/comments/f2sl66/the_ceo_of_twitter_whom_i_believe_is_also_a_btc/fhfz0nl/

It is truly amazing the number of so-called "Bitcoiners" that believe in this nonsense.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2020 19:44:55
/r/btc/comments/f17o3h/we_need_an_ebay_type_website_running_on_bch/fh3da0e/

This truth applies to 99% of crypto startups.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 12:01:15
/r/btc/comments/ezbaja/it_is_with_great_pleasure_i_announce_freedom/fgn9qvz/

I am aware. That is one of the fundamental assumptions of the project.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 17:06:17
/r/btc/comments/ezbaja/it_is_with_great_pleasure_i_announce_freedom/fgmz3dx/

The whitepaper describes a mature network. Most of your points are addressing day one of an announcement. That is probably where most of the disconnect resides.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 15:31:13
/r/btc/comments/ewsk26/showerthought_what_if_the_market_isnt_irrational/fg6p6io/

Doing final testing now. Should be ready very soon.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 11:14:32
/r/btc/comments/ewsk26/showerthought_what_if_the_market_isnt_irrational/fg6og0f/

I agree it's not over, but if BCH is going to move forward, we must identify use cases... Meanwhile 90% of the BCH community is working on "Scalability" when the blocks have been empty for 11 years... The very definition of insanity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 11:06:11
/r/btc/comments/ewsk26/showerthought_what_if_the_market_isnt_irrational/fg6n3hq/

If it is so useful, why are the blocks empty?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 10:50:36
/r/btc/comments/ewsk26/showerthought_what_if_the_market_isnt_irrational/fg6lzii/

Why are the Bitcoin's blocks empty? An irrational market, or is Bitcoin useless? Hard to argue irrationality after 11 years, billions in investment, thousands of developers, and a shitstorm of media attention. Consumers aren't that irrational. They buy whatever saves them money. Bitcoin does not save them money. Bitcoin is (currently) useless. I would argue the market is (currently) irrational by overestimating Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 10:37:30
/r/btc/comments/ewsk26/showerthought_what_if_the_market_isnt_irrational/fg6l3xs/

BCH has been claiming for years the blocksize limit was the bottleneck... BCH forks off, and for 2.5 years the blocks have been empty. It is obvious the bottleneck was never blocksize, but instead use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 10:27:04
/r/btc/comments/ewb90c/justin_bons_bitcoin_cash_needs_to_both_be/fg20ir2/

There is a very easy solution. Put all the BCH DeFi in a multi-sig address and maintain a public on-chain database... Pray for multi-sig address to continue functioning. I am not seeing how this is any less secure than the current ETH DeFi Rube Goldberg Machine of smart contracts, oracles, centralized dev teams --- and most concerning --- a very tiny throughput of transactions in the event of drastic price movement.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 30, 2020 21:00:18
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/evr7iv/im_a_libertarian_and_i_would_like_to_know_why_you/ffy3hh1/

How many people do you know who have called the police and a crisis was averted? How many people do you know who have experienced a crisis (or traffic ticket) at the hands of the police? \------------------------- In the US, if there was no mandatory police department funding, each family of four on average would save $1210 in taxes. With that $1210 in savings, you could then choose to purchase your own private security subscription (like AAA for security), and probably still have over $1000 leftover, not receive random traffic tickets, and not have thugs beating you up.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on January 29, 2020 17:43:59
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffqo4oz/

> Remember, the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Very true. I am not opposed to a Dev Fund as an extreme measure, but doing this over $6 million for node infrastructure, while causing a likely split in the community is insane. I don't think it will go through.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 10:41:14
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffno8nw/

Adoption forces scaling, scaling does not force adoption.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 26, 2020 14:54:23
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffnecll/

Bitcoin has existed for 11 years. Billions have been made in investment both on-chain and off-chain. There are one hundred different blockchains all claiming to solve a perceived scaling problem. All of them combined have essentially zero non-speculative users, and not a single one of them has ever run into a scaling limit (excluding self-imposed limits). In that same timespan tens of thousands of applications on the appstore have gained more active users than Bitcoin. All of cryptocurrency combined is doing like 12TPS. I don't know how much more obvious it could be this is not a technical infrastructure problem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 26, 2020 13:54:04
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff6tkvx/

You are making an argument for how things should be. Vin is making an argument for how things exist in reality. They are separate arguments.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 14:23:24
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff6dhse/

We are starting to go in circles a bit, but I will just explicitly state what I am trying to get at: The US dollar already does everything you want. Bitcoin (in your vision) serves no useful purpose that is not already served by the US dollar.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 11:40:23
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff69lmq/

Everything you have said is a reasonable viewpoint that we can agree to disagree on. I am not debating you on your worldview. \---------------------- What I do not understand is: If Bitcoin is 100% fully compliant and enforceable with all government rules and regulations, in what way is Bitcoin different from fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 10:58:59
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff64ydy/

You are talking in absolutes. We do not live in absolutes. Violence can never be eliminated, but it can certainly be reduced. Violence (government) currently accounts for 40%+ of GDP... We have a lot of room for improvement. But it is important to understand, violence will never be reduced by politely asking your slavemaster to be nicer. Or "Voting" for a nicer slavemaster. It will only be reduced by enabling the individual to defend himself against the slavemaster.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 10:07:19
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff648fe/

> A pity that it did not work. Why did you want Bitcoin to work? The only useful function of Bitcoin is to defy government. It seems you believe individuals should not disobey their government.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 09:58:49
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff63d9a/

What property of Bitcoin do you find redeeming?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 09:48:36
/r/btc/comments/erpj8b/vin_armani_keeps_trying_to_push_this_idea_that/ff62xlh/

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm\_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 09:43:18
/r/Agorism/comments/ecoghh/in_agorism_couldnt_public_companies_operate/fem2tfl/

> What I am suggesting is self-defense You are failing to address how to resolve the oracle problem. You are implying there exists a universal black and white definition of self-defense. Who is the magical deity that determines what constitutes "Self-defense?" Especially when interpreting something that is extremely subjective like liability. It is impossible to define and violently enforce liability without creating an organization that is identical to already existing governments. Just because you rename these governments as "Private arbitration police" doesn't mean anything has actually changed.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on January 17, 2020 00:11:32
/r/Agorism/comments/dumili/libertarian_here/fekixto/

"Voting" is a realization of what is already inevitable. If 90% of the population votes for something, it was going to happen regardless of whether the vote occurred or not. "Voting" is downstream of change, change is not downstream of voting.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on January 16, 2020 13:56:49
/r/Agorism/comments/ecoghh/in_agorism_couldnt_public_companies_operate/feki1m2/

That is a fair conclusion, but what you are describing already exists in the status quo. Under your definition, government is a valid market competitor within the context of agorism. That would be a fair conclusion to make, but you have implied above that government is inherently illegitimate. > I don't think agorists have anything against shares of stock or joint ownership ventures. It's government favoritism that is the problem \---------------------------------- So once again we come back to, does theoretical Agorism provide for violence? 1. If yes, then we already live in agorism and government is market equilibrium for the production of violence 2. If no, then liability can only be enforced against one's reputation (in theoretical agorism) \--------------------------------- It is contradictory to say violence is a valid means of enforcement of liability, while also saying government is an invalid means of enforcement of liability.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on January 16, 2020 13:47:54
/r/Agorism/comments/ecoghh/in_agorism_couldnt_public_companies_operate/fej0ghi/

This is an opinion on the definition of what liability ought to be. This is not addressing how liability is actually enforced. I see two ways to enforce liability: 1. Liability against reputation 2. Violence If violence is used to enforce liability, in what way is this system materially different from the status quo?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on January 16, 2020 00:28:38
/r/Agorism/comments/ecoghh/in_agorism_couldnt_public_companies_operate/feis7p9/

There is no direct "Liability" in agorism. Only liability against one's reputation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on January 15, 2020 22:37:48
/r/btc/comments/epbbrb/paymail_seems_like_a_cool_idea_will_it_be_ported/feinykp/

"Ryan man bad guy! He in BSV tribe" /s

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2020 21:49:28
/r/btc/comments/eojn0u/bsv_may_pump_higher_than_bch_and_try_to_pretend/fedqi2b/

The bottleneck was never technical. The bottleneck was always the use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2020 11:01:37
/r/btc/comments/en871w/one_of_my_most_disappointing_week_in_bitcoin_cash/fdwy3nu/

>Bitcoin Cash is only at 3% of BTC. It is nobody else fault but our own. We have a choice. We can fix the problem proactively so that BCH overtakes BTC, or we can ignore the problem and hope it goes away on its own. This is the most important question to be asking right now in BCH. We are not going anywhere as a community until this problem is resolved. \--------------------------- That being said, even if Roger and Amaury had a perfect relationship, I don't think that would really change anything for BCH. The BCH blocks are virtually empty, and that has little to do with their relationship. \--------------------------- The BCH bottleneck is we have not identified any profitable use cases for Bitcoin. Users don't care about Roger/Amaury, but they do care about attractive use cases. The BCH community definitely has the resources to build out prospective use cases... The problem is we have not identified what these attractive use cases are.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 11, 2020 12:23:21
/r/btc/comments/eme2yn/is_bitcoin_cash_interesting_for_the_common_folks/fdpit4i/

People care about one thing and one thing only --> Saving money. No one has found a broadly appealing use case that saves the user money... Until this problem is resolved, Bitcoin is not going anywhere.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2020 23:16:10
/r/btc/comments/eivt35/a_response_to_uguyfawkefsp_bch_has_existed_for_25/fdnc0ce/

From the perspective of a $200 billion marketcap and the eventual goal of global adoption, there are essentially no users. Speculators are not sustainable "Users."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2020 10:08:43
/r/btc/comments/el4dgw/qatar_bans_bitcoin_remember_this_can_happen_in/fdfsd55/

Coming soon to a country near you

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 6, 2020 22:50:09
/r/btc/comments/eje8er/normal_people_are_choosing_to_pay_30_higher_with/fd58y38/

On top of that, BitPay isn't really even merchant adoption. It is just a point of sale exchange that makes it appear as though it is merchant adoption. That adds some level of convenience to Bitcoin holders, but it isn't really solving any problems for the world.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2020 17:01:39
/r/btc/comments/eje8er/normal_people_are_choosing_to_pay_30_higher_with/fd56iny/

No one is switching to a currency that is not accepted anywhere, very difficult to acquire/use, and extremely price volatile -- to maybe save 3%/year on inflation. Don't take my word for it, review 11 years of empirical evidence.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2020 16:51:17
/r/btc/comments/eje8er/normal_people_are_choosing_to_pay_30_higher_with/fd3ogsi/

Bitcoin objectively costs more than credit cards. By the time the user goes through Coinbase, Bitpay, learning, and price volatility, Bitcoin costs significantly more than credit cards. Inflation is a store of value argument, not a means of exchange argument. A person can transact in a different medium from that which they store their value. I am not arguing for Bitcoin as a store of value, but please recognize that is the only relevant use case within the inflation context.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2020 12:51:21
/r/btc/comments/eje8er/normal_people_are_choosing_to_pay_30_higher_with/fd30ago/

What benefit does the consumer get making purchases with Bitcoin instead of fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2020 10:58:17
/r/btc/comments/eje8er/normal_people_are_choosing_to_pay_30_higher_with/fcxomnj/

This is a very important observation to make, so that people realize "Use Cases" like merchant adoption are a complete waste of time. If people aren't willing to acquire crypto to save $100/33%, why would they ever acquire crypto to spend at merchants at the same price as fiat.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 11:11:09
/r/btc/comments/eivt35/a_response_to_uguyfawkefsp_bch_has_existed_for_25/fcvyqfg/

People claim Bitcoin cures everything from poverty to cancer, and here we are 11 years later with virtually no users. In that 11 years we have seen billions of investment, thousands of developers, and a lot of press. Everyone in the world has heard of Bitcoin... Still no users. This is indisputably not an implementation problem. This is a fundamental use cases problem. This didn't happen by accident. We have no users, because we have not identified any profitable use cases of Bitcoin. I make this statement not to troll, but to encourage discussion so we can solve this problem. If you are happy with 0.2 TPS, that's fine. I hold Bitcoin to a higher standard.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 19:59:09
/r/btc/comments/eilbof/bch_has_existed_for_25_years_and_is_doing_02/fcsxbir/

>Bitcoin Cash has to convince such companies that the risk of something new is worth the potential savings. This is true. The question is what are those profitable use cases? --> This is the problem no one has solved.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:11:08
/r/btc/comments/eilbof/bch_has_existed_for_25_years_and_is_doing_02/fcsvftg/

If there were really thousands of businesses with millions of users all dependent on low fees, they would have switched to BCH instead of watching their businesses die. They never made the switch because they never existed to begin with. The empty BCH blocks prove that.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 19:48:34
/r/btc/comments/eilbof/bch_has_existed_for_25_years_and_is_doing_02/fcs3nd2/

We should have something launched soon. It probably won't be very useful, but hopefully will crystallize the vision and get more people building it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 15:36:26
/r/btc/comments/eilbof/bch_has_existed_for_25_years_and_is_doing_02/fcrqygy/

Money is not an application in and of itself. Money is a vehicle for transferring value. The value of money is wholly derived from the endpoints. The endpoints are applications and businesses from which money is transferred to and from. It is important to understand no one is going to switch to Bitcoin to make the same purchase at the same price as fiat. Bitcoin is difficult to acquire, volatile, and difficult to use. This means the use case must save the user at least 15%+ to justify the switching cost. This rules out all use cases except for the following: 1. Avoiding extortion 2. Avoiding arbitrary rules Centralized businesses are subject to extortion and arbitrary rules, thus Bitcoin cannot benefit them in any form. P2P Cash only works within a p2p economy. BCH needs to build a p2p economy.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 14:03:47
/r/btc/comments/efksd4/mythbusting_we_need_a_developerfund_tomz/fcosdiv/

Don't confuse the BSV community understanding blockcaps are a bad idea, with gaining adoption. BSV still has to solve the same problem that every other blockchain has failed to solve --> What profitable use cases does a blockchain enable?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 19:57:38
/r/btc/comments/efksd4/mythbusting_we_need_a_developerfund_tomz/fcmg4k2/

You are missing the point. It has been 11 years. All of crypto adds up to like 10 TPS. This isn't a blockspace problem. The problem is no one uses Bitcoin for anything other than speculation. BSV is building something that no one is demanding... This should have been obvious when the BCH blocks were empty 1.5 years after the original fork.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 01:33:05
/r/btc/comments/efksd4/mythbusting_we_need_a_developerfund_tomz/fcmc8h2/

BSV forked off of a completely empty blockchain because they wanted more capacity to make another completely empty blockchain... The definition of insanity. The bottleneck never was scalability. The bottleneck is desirable use cases. Of which no one is building anywhere in crypto.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 00:30:32
/r/btc/comments/edphhx/ignorant_forbes_agrees_with_ignorant_us_fed/fbkf2jb/

There is no such thing as public vs private. Government is a business like any other. "Public" is a convenient illusion to lower the government's operating cost through voluntary compliance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 21, 2019 12:28:42
/r/btc/comments/edphhx/ignorant_forbes_agrees_with_ignorant_us_fed/fbk1awp/

I'm not sure you understand the role of government

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 21, 2019 10:47:52
/r/btc/comments/ebjt56/true_hex_is_scam_so_is_ltc_btc_dash_eth_xmr/fb9pwsd/

So true. The crypto space is basically a pet rock competition.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 18, 2019 00:08:14
/r/btc/comments/ec224k/in_light_of_the_recent_hex_discussion_i_would/fb8wlsv/

Basically Richard is creating an ERC20 token on Ethereum: 1. About 1/3 of the supply is given to Richard at no cost 2. About 1/3 of the supply is acquired by sending Richard Ethereum 3. About 1/3 of the supply is given to Bitcoin holders Hex's hypothetical use case is essentially getting paid to stake in a Proof of Stake system. \-------------------------------------- Richard has been fairly upfront about all of these features. As with all cryptocurrencies, is it a scam, or just poor design? That is up to each individual to decide for himself.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 17, 2019 17:59:27
/r/btc/comments/ebk1j5/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver/fb6rujx/

The bottleneck in crypto is not an implementation problem. The space is valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We have seen billions in ICO/investment. The space as a whole has thousands of developers writing code. All that, and there are still virtually no users beyond speculation. This is much deeper than an implementation/resources problem. This is an underlying use cases problem. We have not identified profitable use cases for Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 16, 2019 23:52:06
/r/btc/comments/ebk1j5/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver/fb6cu7v/

> This is a BS troll attack vector I have seen before. Nothing gets past you! /s

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 16, 2019 20:45:28
/r/btc/comments/ebk1j5/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver/fb627aj/

Onboarding is easy. Users adopt anything that saves them money. The bottleneck is BCH has not identified any profitable use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 16, 2019 18:39:02
/r/btc/comments/ebk1j5/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver/fb5zsq8/

With all due respect to Bitcoin ABC, even if every single item on its roadmap is implemented to perfection, it will not have onboarded a single user. Meanwhile the BCH blocks have been mostly empty for 2.5 years, with no sign of that changing any time soon. The bottleneck is applications, not protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 16, 2019 18:11:13
/r/btc/comments/e69h8n/wth_is_cardona_doing/f9q3xqg/

Agreed. There are hundreds if not thousands of blockchains working on hypothetical scaling, when not a single one of them has ever run into a scaling limit (excluding self-imposed limits). Maybe the bottleneck is useful applications, and not protocol-level scaling? The last thing this world needs is another blockchain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 5, 2019 09:05:23
/r/btc/comments/dxyuv8/shower_thoughts_is_it_possible_that_btc_will_copy/f7zvfax/

Currently, 90%+ of Bitcoin's value is derived from 5-10 fiat onramps. All of these fiat onramps exist at the explicit permission of their local authorities. Bitcoin could not possibly be any more centralized than it is today. If 5-10 permissioned fiat onramps has proven so far to be sufficiently secure, I am not sure how you can argue that a network of thousands of permissionless nodes (with many more magnitudes of users) will be any less secure.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 18, 2019 17:38:53
/r/btc/comments/dxyuv8/shower_thoughts_is_it_possible_that_btc_will_copy/f7zdzcs/

>And I doubt \[BTC\] will ever agree to jeapardize decentralization and security goals on the sake of mass-adoption Mass adoption is the most critical component of decentralization.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 18, 2019 15:34:57
/r/btc/comments/ducgsf/i_was_pitching_bitcoin_cash_to_my_neighbor_last/f74p1d3/

>Also, if you want devs to focus on things you find important, invest in them. We are building right now, coming soon to a subreddit near you

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 10, 2019 12:11:57
/r/btc/comments/ducgsf/i_was_pitching_bitcoin_cash_to_my_neighbor_last/f74bz58/

It was sarcasm. The point was the majority of BCH developers are wasting their time on things that obviously don't matter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 10, 2019 10:39:08
/r/btc/comments/ducgsf/i_was_pitching_bitcoin_cash_to_my_neighbor_last/f749pnj/

It was sarcasm. The point was the majority of BCH developers are wasting their time on things that obviously don't matter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 10, 2019 10:26:43
/r/btc/comments/dtyz3i/summary_of_the_sztorc_v_armani_debate/f71wlei/

"The immovable network effect of 3TPS."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 9, 2019 20:33:47
/r/btc/comments/dsyfow/dont_think_it_cant_happen_again_dont_think_you/f6uavtv/

This is exactly what is going to happen. They might even throw in a false flag terrorist attack allegedly funded by Bitcoin for good measure. Interesting to see how it will play out.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 7, 2019 15:59:45
/r/btc/comments/dsnstn/on_bitcoin_governance_achieving_our_goals/f6qt00c/

This is spot on. Bitcoin consensus is messy and mining is not a panacea. \--------------------- Going one step farther, protocol level consensus is a slave to the applications (as you mentioned is currently exchanges). If BCH wishes to expand its influence we must forget the ABC/SV/BU/etc drama because that really has no influence on anything. Apps (with real users) are king, and they will crown the winning chain/implementation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 6, 2019 19:05:47
/r/btc/comments/dr16f3/what_unites_the_bch_community_is_the_goal_of_p2p/f6f4j5q/

I don't mean to be Negative Nancy, and kudos to anyone building on BCH, but even if all of this comes to fruition, it will not have onboarded a single user. The bottleneck to BCH adoption is not protocol, it is tangible useful applications. We need to build applications.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 3, 2019 14:49:45
/r/btc/comments/dr54zf/guide_for_cryptonoobs_and_onboarding_merchants/f6ez7su/

Find use cases that save Joe substantial money, and he will join Bitcoin. Joe is never going to acquire Bitcoin to purchase the same cup of coffee, at the same price as a credit card.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 3, 2019 14:25:58
/r/btc/comments/dpzkhd/the_us_economy_is_roughly_20_trillion_and_the/f61j9zp/

People are soon going to learn that money actually does grow on trees

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 1, 2019 16:45:55
/r/btc/comments/dp8na8/looking_forward_to_my_debate_with_giacomo_zucco/f5uuiq9/

Please don't let this turn into another cliche rendition of "BTC bad, BCH good." Just focus on what BCH is building.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 30, 2019 19:52:44
/r/btc/comments/dngu6l/update_on_cashfusion_development/f5jkciz/

This is a big deal

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 27, 2019 22:50:05
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/dl9vp3/gallup_record_high_of_people_saying_government_is/f4p0fdy/

And most of that 34% cites government as the top problem because they actually want more government than their currently is.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on October 21, 2019 22:51:09
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/dkd2kc/terrible_spending_habits/f4gjmih/

The first assumption of economics is consumers make rational choices. The first observation of reality is that is clearly not the case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on October 20, 2019 10:28:53
/r/btc/comments/djgih8/its_time_to_start_ignoring_the_lightning_network/f46lrkk/

Yes! Forget the 0.001%. Go for the 99.999%

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 18, 2019 10:54:27
/r/btc/comments/diwt4p/snowden_without_encryption_we_will_lose_all/f3zh49p/

The battle is upstream of encryption. The real battle is removing our dependency on the centralized business that is coerced into removing encryption from its products.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 16, 2019 19:36:06
/r/btc/comments/din8et/uber_paid_749_million_in_credit_card_processing/f3y2bxf/

Should be launched soon!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 16, 2019 13:39:09
/r/btc/comments/dftpu7/the_main_benefits_are_lost_if_a_trusted_third/f36d4ov/

Eliminating the centralized third party also includes the business. P2P Cash only works if used in P2P Trade. A system of P2P trade is still needed for Bitcoin to work.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 10, 2019 08:28:44
/r/btc/comments/dc8fvn/if_bch_wants_to_become_the_currency_of_choice_for/f27isn2/

The barrier to adoption is not UX. The barrier to adoption is profitable use cases. Build use cases that save the user 20%+ and they will come.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 2, 2019 13:59:25
/r/btc/comments/dag2ka/incentives_matter/f1pe30x/

You should make this meme about merchant adoption.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 28, 2019 09:48:31
/r/btc/comments/d9757l/why_mass_adoption_happened_for_signal_private/f1g6yku/

\+1 You mean Average Joe isn't just going to wake up one day and start spending Bitcoin Cash at merchants?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 25, 2019 21:27:03
/r/btc/comments/d7pggx/the_biggest_american_export_is_inflation_no/f14fyq8/

Inflation will soon become America's biggest import as all the former purchasers of dollars return them to America in exchange for tangible goods. Inflation in, goods out - Good luck America

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 22, 2019 13:43:42
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d70c90/really_something_when_66_of_the_us_cant_afford_a/f0yt8dy/

2 percent of the population objects to the military. Think about that.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 21, 2019 10:57:18
/r/btc/comments/d4oa37/the_killer_app_are_wallets_with_advanced_options/f0g9zzs/

That pretty much sums it up

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 15, 2019 21:07:27
/r/btc/comments/d3vddl/justin_sun_founder_of_tron_pledges_to_pay_ubi_for/f069wcc/

Why stop at $1000/month? Why not $1 billion/month?? Then the stores will make even more money.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 13, 2019 23:49:37
/r/btc/comments/d37hoc/to_put_things_in_perspective_if_the_equator_of/f0694on/

Only a fool would claim to know the bounds of what the blockchain will be used for

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 13, 2019 23:39:05
/r/btc/comments/d37hoc/to_put_things_in_perspective_if_the_equator_of/f05ol6k/

u/fromsmart u/benjamindees The prospect of GB sized data transfers seemed even more insane in 1990. Now it's normal. The same will be true for "Transactions."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 13, 2019 18:54:06
/r/btc/comments/d37hoc/to_put_things_in_perspective_if_the_equator_of/f01dff5/

Well BCH is a counterpoint to your faulty logic. If there's empty blocks, it doesn't matter what the scaling limit is. Honestly, it kind of shows that you don't have economic knowledge. The bottleneck is use cases, not blockspace.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2019 14:35:44
/r/btc/comments/d37hoc/to_put_things_in_perspective_if_the_equator_of/f00so2f/

Adoption forces scaling. Scaling does not force adoption. In that sense, adoption is essentially scaling. The fastest way to scale the protocol is to onboard users. We did not first build 1000 Bitcoin exchanges to create user demand for trading. User demand for trading created the incentive to build 1000 Bitcoin exchanges. The same is true for blockspace.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2019 12:32:30
/r/btc/comments/d37hoc/to_put_things_in_perspective_if_the_equator_of/ezzwynq/

I was referencing actual TPS, not the blocksize limit. 99% of scaling is onboarding actual TPS, not increasing theoretical TPS.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 12, 2019 09:15:00
/r/btc/comments/d1sgv4/i_spent_some_time_in_townsville_investigating_the/ezwpe93/

True. BCH's existence is entirely based on the speculation that BTC cannot scale. If BTC were to significantly increase the blocksize, BCH would be made obsolete overnight. It is obvious that BTC cannot scale to global adoption on 5 TPS. What is not obvious is how that barrier will be resolved.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 13:12:55
/r/btc/comments/d1sgv4/i_spent_some_time_in_townsville_investigating_the/ezwnmup/

It's funny because Core/Blockstream don't even control BTC. The top 5-10 exchanges control BTC. BTC is whatever those exchanges say it is. They aren't even making conspiracies on the right people. The logical conspiracy theory is exchanges make 10X more fees when people speculate on "The Next Bitcoin," thus the reason for why the exchanges cripple BTC at \~1MB-4MB.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 11, 2019 12:53:43
/r/btc/comments/d1sgv4/i_spent_some_time_in_townsville_investigating_the/ezv7kzu/

There are at least five independent showstoppers when it comes to centralized "Merchant adoption," in addition to a mountain of empirical evidence. They don't want to hear it. Just let them live in their cozy delusion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 10, 2019 22:35:05
/r/btc/comments/d2261p/blockchain_data_should_be_fungible_unpoliced_in/ezt8tl8/

Yes! The entire purpose of a blockchain is that it exists outside of arbitrary authority.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 10, 2019 10:06:43
/r/btc/comments/d25448/perhaps_the_top_priority_for_the_bitcoin_cash/ezt7rxz/

>Last time we increased OP\_RETURN, we got SLP tokens and Memo. Next time we increase OP\_RETURN, we'll get Reddit onchain and who knows what else. **And if we don't like it, we can always reduce OP\_RETURN. No forks needed.** Amen

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 10, 2019 09:53:37
/r/btc/comments/d1zsoz/i_wonder_what_all_these_bootlickers_are_going_to/ezt5cw9/

https://discord {delete this space} .gg/z2bZEq2

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 10, 2019 09:22:07
/r/btc/comments/d1n5je/if_you_want_to_store_stuffs_onchain_use_bsv/ezrf6oo/

>because somebody somewhere will store everything and will be willing to sell access if you do not want to fast-sync. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 9, 2019 19:49:34
/r/btc/comments/d0ywam/we_need_a_youtube_alternative_built_on_bitcoin/ezkbns2/

Yes! 1. User publishes their video anywhere on the Internet and links it to their on-chain identity. 2. Publish both the hash and server location on the blockchain. 3. Then search engines map the location of all videos on the Internet. 4. Users/interfaces query the search engines... Ta da - Decentralized YouTube Take this same process, and apply it to everything -- Decentralized economy

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 11:52:42
/r/btc/comments/d10kwv/burundi_bans_bitcoin_and_cryptos_says_it_will/ezk99lp/

Coming soon to a country near you

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 8, 2019 11:37:06
/r/btc/comments/d0h8w7/tether_cofounder_it_doesnt_really_matter_if_usdt/ezbkrnd/

It is a **temporary** suspension. It will be fully backed any day now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 6, 2019 22:03:16
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d029rj/the_constitution_is_a_piece_of_paper_nothing_more/ez733ax/

If you cannot enforce a right, then it is not a right, it is an opinion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 17:18:10
/r/btc/comments/d02nqs/the_elephant_in_the_room_bch_is_grossly/ez6rpdd/

This is the truth.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 5, 2019 16:17:59
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d029rj/the_constitution_is_a_piece_of_paper_nothing_more/ez6icfu/

Ideas are only valuable to the extent they are economically competitive.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 15:41:59
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d029rj/the_constitution_is_a_piece_of_paper_nothing_more/ez6fza7/

The only immutable right is the ability to make decisions. All other rights are nothing more than moral opinions.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 15:31:28
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d029rj/the_constitution_is_a_piece_of_paper_nothing_more/ez6f6gp/

Government maintains marketshare because it is more profitable than the alternative. Ideology is arbitrary, economics is reality. The system with the lowest cost wins, regardless of what anyone's arbitrary beliefs are.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 15:27:21
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d029rj/the_constitution_is_a_piece_of_paper_nothing_more/ez5lz8y/

By words I assume you mean ideas. Words/Ideas are useful to the extent of perceiving reality, but they do not alter the underlying reality. Words and ideas do not govern society. Only the inescapable laws of economics can. Government maintains market share in the economy not because of ideas, but because it is economic equilibrium.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 12:34:49
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/czzhzt/sincere_question_has_any_boycott_in_the_history/ez5k73u/

The term boycott is just semantics for consumers making decisions in the marketplace. What difference does it make if the participants post about it on Facebook? It could be argued Netflix was the formal organization leading the boycott of Blockbuster.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 12:23:35
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/czzhzt/sincere_question_has_any_boycott_in_the_history/ez5ix52/

I am being facetious. Boycott is just semantics for consumers making decisions in the marketplace. What you are thinking of is when people get so pissed off about a company, that instead of just withdrawing their patronage, they actively campaign for others to do the same. Of course this is silly, because if a company sucks, other people will naturally withdraw patronage (no external persuasion necessary).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 12:14:56
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/czzhzt/sincere_question_has_any_boycott_in_the_history/ez5h2qu/

A boycott is any time a person withdraws patronage from a business for any reason.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 12:03:03
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d02191/if_a_country_was_theoretically_anarchocapitalist/ez5cpwl/

We already live in anarcho-capitalism. The state is a business like any other. People "Import" and "Export" based on tradeoffs. The idea of a country is no different from a house. You "Import" things into your house, and "Export" things outside of your house. Import just means purchase. Export just means sell.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 11:41:32
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/czzhzt/sincere_question_has_any_boycott_in_the_history/ez5b3ib/

Yes. It happens all the time. The great Blockbuster Boycott of 2010 led to the rise of Netflix.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 11:32:41
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/d02191/if_a_country_was_theoretically_anarchocapitalist/ez5adgx/

They import and export just like they do today?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 5, 2019 11:29:46
/r/btc/comments/czybbb/build_bitcoin_cash_culture_amaury_sechet/ez4viqe/

Zoom out a bit and realize that both BTC and ETH have essentially zero transactions. The valuations are based on brand, which at this early stage is far more valuable then 4TPS vs 12TPS. Of course at some point BTC has to scale or it will be left behind, but until one of these chains gains real users, scaling is not super relevant in valuations.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 5, 2019 10:11:21
/r/btc/comments/cye9j9/it_is_utterly_shameful_that_pools_and_miners_who/eyueut6/

I don't care who wins. Bitcoin is going to scale. Whether it is BTC, BCH, ETH, or some other chain, it is going to scale. There is nothing anyone can do to stop that. The scaling discussion really only concerns speculators. The Internet scaled. We won. Bitcoin will do the same.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 2, 2019 17:38:02
/r/btc/comments/cye9j9/it_is_utterly_shameful_that_pools_and_miners_who/eyt2f1m/

Maybe complaining wasn't the right term, but accountability. Most people in r/btc are either living in an alternate reality, or attribute BCH's shortcomings to conspiracy theory. The market has spoken and the blocks are empty/BCH is 0.03 of Bitcoin. I am not pointing this out to troll, I am pointing this out so we learn from our mistakes and get better. It appears most people prefer to stick their head in the sand and blame nefarious actors.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 2, 2019 06:56:11
/r/btc/comments/cye9j9/it_is_utterly_shameful_that_pools_and_miners_who/eysgprh/

Ironically your response sums up everything that is wrong with r/btc. Proposals/productive criticisms are attacked. Complaining is encouraged.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 2, 2019 00:13:31
/r/btc/comments/cye9j9/it_is_utterly_shameful_that_pools_and_miners_who/eys17ea/

This accurately describes r/btc Half the sub is still convinced people spend BCH at merchants. BCH has like 5% of the transactions of BTC, and people run around here blaming trolls for BCH's failures. BCH is failing and everyone has their heads in the sand.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 20:28:51
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/cy0uxi/agorism_vs_ancap/eyrzk2u/

They really only differ in semantics and the types of people they attract. Ancaps hallucinate a magical world where violence doesn't exist and everyone magically agrees on the NAP. Agorists hallucinate a magical world where everyone works outside of a hierarchy. Neither camp has proposed a realistic solution.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 1, 2019 20:06:32
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/cy21x2/was_the_ratification_of_the_constitution/eyr5zxz/

Where minarchists and anarchists differ is how violence is dealt with. Anarchists hide in a corner and pretend it doesn't exist. \[Most\] minarchists believe some level of the state is legitimate to minimize violence. Anarchists will disagree with minarchists citing the state is fundamentally illegitimate.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 1, 2019 14:10:11
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/cy0uxi/agorism_vs_ancap/eyr5l3y/

Ancaps talk about anarchy, Agorists just do it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on September 1, 2019 14:06:44
/r/btc/comments/cy5rnh/member_is_a_peer_to_peer_web_of_trust_reputation/eyqk6gg/

There are many ways to essentially eliminate account theft. Account selling requires the seller to disassociate from their valuable reputation, as well as the buyer to invest in a new reputation. While not perfect, it will make it difficult to game. Good reputation = Larger investment. It's the same reason why you can still trust a business after it has been sold to new ownership.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 09:49:18
/r/btc/comments/cy5rnh/member_is_a_peer_to_peer_web_of_trust_reputation/eyqjath/

Web of Trust will be one of the foundations of the new economy. Here is my unsolicited advice: The challenge facing on-chain Web of Trust is the chicken and the egg problem of bootstrapping a network effect. Decentralized Twitter is great, but the reality is very few people actually get censored on Twitter. Thus the tradeoff of Memo's censorship resistance vs Twitter's incumbent network effect is unprofitable. If we apply Web of Trust to applications which are actively censored, and can enable prospective users to profit (even after switching from the larger incumbent network effect), then we can bootstrap the network effect of Web of Trust. Decentralized Twitter will eventually be profitable as the on-chain Web of Trust grows, but as the first application it is a very difficult pitch to new users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 09:36:06
/r/btc/comments/cy5rnh/member_is_a_peer_to_peer_web_of_trust_reputation/eyqioj6/

Selling accounts requires an investment on behalf of the new user. Good reputation = large investment.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 1, 2019 09:26:23
/r/Libertarian/comments/cx40ot/the_allegory_of_the_slave/eyj09jg/

I just can't stop laughing at how a r/Libertarian subreddit removed a post because one of the mods didn't like the formatting of a clearly Libertarian post.... very Libertarian of you lol Than you for making my day :)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Libertarian on August 29, 2019 16:24:49
/r/Libertarian/comments/cx40ot/the_allegory_of_the_slave/eyizg4i/

r/Libertarian... lol What a joke. Don't worry. I was never under the impression this was a Libertarian forum after seeing Trump mentioned in over half the posts.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Libertarian on August 29, 2019 16:18:56
/r/Libertarian/comments/cx40ot/the_allegory_of_the_slave/eyiyjd4/

lol. They should call this sub r/Authoritarian You obviously did not read the post.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Libertarian on August 29, 2019 16:12:28
/r/Libertarian/comments/cx40ot/the_allegory_of_the_slave/eyixf9p/

>Moderators may remove posts which have nothing to do with the discussion of libertarianism, economics, politics, philosophy, or current events. Well you obviously did not read the post in its entirety.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Libertarian on August 29, 2019 16:04:26
/r/btc/comments/cwllpj/showerthought_would_it_be_possible_to_build_a/eydyhc8/

u/dylankid u/jessquit Any time we leave the digital world and enter the physical world creating a trustless transaction is borderline impossible. There are certainly steps that can be taken to reduce trust, but at the end of the day the producer and consumer must trust each other. The existing economy is basically just a Web of Trust. Uber, AirBnb, eBay, etc, are all centralized nodes within the greater economic Web of Trust. These businesses do not produce anything. They profit due to their position in the Web of Trust. The buyer trusts Uber, and thus indirectly trusts the Uber driver. The buyer trusts AirBnb, and thus indirectly trusts the AirBnb host. The buyer trusts eBay, and thus indirectly trusts the eBay seller. \----------------------------------- The key to decentralizing these networks is allowing trusted entities to sign off on the user's on-chain identity. This transfers ownership of the user's identity from AirBnb/Uber/eBay, to the user. By transferring ownership to the user, this immediately decentralizes the network as the user can now broadcast trade requests to thousands of openly competing matchmakers. We aren't going to eliminate the trusted matchmaker (Uber/eBay/AirBnb), we are just going to force them to compete in an open network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 28, 2019 17:06:24
/r/btc/comments/cv2pc1/favorite_project_in_bch/ey4byht/

This is the truth. BCH community optimizing for something no one is demanding **today.**

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 25, 2019 22:45:38
/r/btc/comments/cua4mf/overstockcom_ceo_and_cryptocurrency_advocate/exyu6rk/

The principles of freedom are timeless.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 24, 2019 10:29:53
/r/btc/comments/cua4mf/overstockcom_ceo_and_cryptocurrency_advocate/exyr3jo/

> Also, you're free to leave (I presume) the United States and move to a different country...it's quite feasible. Go find your dream place that has zero tax and that amazing lifestyle you image it will bring you. Please let me know how you get on! :) Ironically you are living in a country founded on these principles. Of course it now stands in direct opposition to everything it was founded on.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 24, 2019 10:09:43
/r/btc/comments/cua4mf/overstockcom_ceo_and_cryptocurrency_advocate/extfpkr/

Name one use case for Bitcoin which is better than fiat that does not involve anarchist principles. (Hint: There are none)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 23, 2019 09:47:07
/r/btc/comments/cua4mf/overstockcom_ceo_and_cryptocurrency_advocate/extevdw/

There is a huge difference: 1. The FBI's corruption is funded by **involuntary** theft (You cannot opt out). 2. Crypto corruption is funded by **voluntary** investment (You can opt out).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 23, 2019 09:39:55
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/cslps0/if_all_government_is_illegitimate_how_do_you_stop/exfmf6v/

The NAP is a moral code, not a system for structuring society.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on August 19, 2019 15:42:18
/r/btc/comments/cqv5zo/adoption_funding_development_all_in_one_but_i/ex0c4lu/

Keep in mind using Bitcoin must save Average Joe a minimum of 10% (really should aim for 20%) on the purchase or he isn't going to even think about going through the hardship of acquiring Bitcoin. (Coinbase, price volatility, downloading wallets, learning, etc) Average Joe does not care about non-custodial escrow, decentralized money, or any of Bitcoin's other characteristics. Average Joe only cares about saving money. If your solution results in Average Joe paying a similar price for a given Product X with Bitcoin as he would have with Visa, then it's probably not going to attract Average Joe. If your solution results in Average Joe saving 15%+ using Bitcoin over the alternative of Visa, then you potentially have a good idea.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 15, 2019 18:50:11
/r/btc/comments/cpcxhm/imagine_if_in_2000_apple_just_sat_around_all_day/ewqk0br/

It's not that protocol doesn't matter. It's that protocol is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is creating useful applications on Bitcoin. BCH devs can build 100TB blocksize, with the most perfect wallet, and perfect nodes, and perfect protocol. It doesn't matter... The blocks are empty. The protocol is not the bottleneck. Respectfully, the BCH protocol-related devs may as well be digging holes in the ground. Bring in millions of users dependent on blockspace, and we will have 100x more protocol devs than we do now. The most important component to scaling the protocol is user demand. This demand is what will pay for the protocol devs. The same way increased speculation demand created 1000 Bitcoin exchanges in the last 5 years.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 23:50:35
/r/btc/comments/cpcxhm/imagine_if_in_2000_apple_just_sat_around_all_day/ewpssqy/

u/emergent_reasons 99.99% of people don't care about Bitcoin 99.99% of people don't care about Bitcoin Cash 99.99% of people only care about how you are going to save them money. Build apps that save these people money, and they will come in droves. BCH has more than enough developers to build these apps. The challenge is not developers. BCH has plenty of developers. The challenge is we haven't figured out what these developers should be building. For God's sake, half of BCH developers are still tinkering around with base protocol stuff... I promise you the 99.99% of people do not care about theoretical protocol changes.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 18:21:23
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewokn38/

Rolling Finalizations. That sounds like something CNN would say. So what happens if a malicious miner makes it 10 blocks to a checkpoint and rewrites the entire chain? (Let's assume they get past the goodwill defense of BCH miners)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 10:33:20
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewojfex/

You are basically saying only the good guys can win blocks before the checkpoints. Therefore the checkpoints do not matter... Though that does not address whether they are trusted checkpoints or not. If the bad guys win a single checkpoint, the chain is permanently destroyed forever... Oh wait no, that would never happen because the checkpoints are trusted.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 10:18:55
/r/btc/comments/cpaqln/tether_btc_value_hashpower_security_btc_security/ewogrk0/

BTC has significantly more transaction volume than BCH. Is it possible BTC has higher marketcap because it is used more than BCH (not because of nefarious reasons)?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 09:46:04
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewogjso/

Tribalism is bad. Objectivity is good.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 09:43:18
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewog4rb/

But you are not considering what happens if a malicious miner mines 10 malicious blocks before the checkpoint. Under your checkpoint logic, the checkpoints would "Finanalize" the rogue chain as to prevent a "malicious" deep chain re-write." If an attacking miner made it 10 blocks (about a $75,000 attack) just before the checkpoint, the ABC nodes would definitely not checkpoint that chain. At which point begs the question, if ABC nodes are only checkpointing what they deem to be valid, regardless of what hashpower is, then why do we have hashpower at all... (Why not spend the $200 million on something more productive?)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 09:37:56
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewoeybo/

You guys are tripping over yourselves with mental gymnastics to pretend these checkpoints are not trusted. Meanwhile BCH is burning $200 million on hashpower on chain that is a trusted chain. If a miner made it past the 10 block checkpoint and rewrote the chain, I can say with virtually 100% certainty, the chain would be arbitrarily rewritten regardless of hashpower.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 12, 2019 09:22:33
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewmzabt/

I'd say the most likely outcome is BTC eventually increases the blocksize. Even if BTC doesn't, it is probably more likely another fork will happen in the future off the BTC-chain, than for BCH to gain adoption. The longer we go from the BCH fork-date, the fewer people actually hold BCH (as a % of BTC). If we go another 3-5 years with no strong market demand for block space, then BCH will probably be a ghost chain. BCH changed one parameter. That's it. And everyone runs around this subreddit like BCH has a monopoly on big blocks.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 18:59:14
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewmuo9n/

So if a malicious miner makes it past 10 blocks, then it can rewrite the entire chain? Since no re-orgs are allowed after 10 blocks?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 18:02:49
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewmuidm/

BCH is already top-down. What I am saying is instead of burning $200 million on proof of work (when it is already top down), why don't we use it more productively

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 18:00:53
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewmagfd/

Which is exactly my point. The chain is secured by trusted checkpoints, not hashpower.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 14:09:13
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm9z7a/

Because they know the BCH chain has checkpoints.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 14:03:52
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm9h0d/

A 6 hour reorg on BCH has an opportunity cost of \~$250,000. Exchanges regularly process BCH deposits (and subsequent withdrawals in different coin) many times larger than that amount within a 6 hour window. They don't do that because of hashpower. They do that because the exchanges control the "Valid BCH Chain."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:58:12
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm8mq2/

It would be one thing if BCH had 20%, or 10% hashpower, but it has 3%. If you are a large miner, it is a trivial attack. The miners don't attack, because they know BCH is not secured by hashpower, it is secured by exchanges arbitrarily checkpointing the chain. We saw it on BCH/BSV fork night, and it is still true today.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:48:47
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm85xn/

99% is hyperbole Jonathan.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:43:36
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm6fl9/

There is a decent chance that would be the case. But even if 99% of it was wasted, it would still be more productive than buying hashpower on a 3% minority chain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:24:39
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm682p/

Bitcoin Cash's economic model is already broken. It has 3% hashpower. That hashpower is security theater. It isn't securing anything. BCH is currently secured by trusted signers. The exchanges are collectively signing off on the valid chain because of the 3% hashpower. If someone attacked the BCH chain, it would not be defended by hashpower, but by the exchanges. \------------------------------ I am proposing that given that BCH is already secured by trusted signers, we might as well stop with the delusion that the hashpower is securing the chain and invest it in something more productive, like development. After the development brings in more users (and thus more hashpower), then we go back to mining as usual.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:22:26
/r/btc/comments/coz3j5/the_cash_fund_proposal_a_proposal_for_how_we_can/ewm577v/

It comes from the same place miners use to pay for electricity/hardware.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 11, 2019 13:11:09
/r/btc/comments/cluycq/andrew_yang_super_pac_will_accept/ew2cerw/

If AI were to eventually automate 100% of jobs, then you don't even need UBI because the cost of everything would be zero. Until that happens, there will be jobs, and people will compete for those jobs.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 5, 2019 18:14:28
/r/btc/comments/cluycq/andrew_yang_super_pac_will_accept/ew1z1cg/

50% of the population used to be farmers. Automation replaced their jobs, and we are all doing much better now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on August 5, 2019 15:50:11
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/evc4hvb/

1. The average rate of extortion for most developed economies is around 40% of GDP. One way or another that 40% is getting paid in your transaction. This number also does not include the fee paid to the centralized business. It also does not include the cost of regulation. 3. By on-chain identity, I mean on-chain trust/reputation. The only reason any business has value is because they own your identity. Now with Bitcoin, you own your identity and no longer need eBay/Uber/AirBnb/whatever to hold it for you. Once you own this identity you can broadcast trade requests to thousands of competing matchmakers, instead of just the monopolized walled garden in eBay/Uber/AirBnb. Trade amounts/activity will still remain private, but your public reputation/trust will be public. The mafia can see the public profiles, but cannot see the trade amounts. Furthermore, it is much more difficult to extort 8 billion independent individuals, as opposed to the current system of extorting \~100 centralized banks/\~10000 corporations

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 29, 2019 09:14:13
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva777w/

It's actually quite simple. 1. Average Joe currently pays \~40% extortion costs on every trade. 2. Peer-to-peer trade enables private transaction, which eliminates the ability for the mafia to surveil/extort trade. 3. All that is needed to build peer-to-peer trade is on-chain identity. 4. Then any matchmaking engine (dapplication) can build on top of the universal on-chain userbase to build dapplications. The open on-chain identity prevents any application from creating walled-gardens around the network effect of identity. 5. Average Joe will join this system not out of ideological persuasion, but because he personally profits (40%) from it. \--------------------------------- Think of [memo.cash](https://memo.cash), but applied to real trade that actually gets censored. People rarely get censored on Twitter, but they regularly get censored (via extortion/regulation) on Uber, AirBnb, eBay, etc. No take this model and apply it to all trade. One universal identity, one universal network effect. No more walled gardens.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 15:02:33
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva3yh3/

While you believe in personal privacy, I believe in personal privacy, and everyone in this sub believes in personal privacy: *I promise you Average Joe does not care about personal privacy.* The only thing Average Joe cares about is saving money. Give that to him, and he will come. Merchant adoption is not that use case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 14:24:00
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva38bl/

You are missing the point. The problem is not having locations to spend Bitcoin at. The problem is giving Average Joe an **incentive** to use Bitcoin. Why will Joe switch to Bitcoin if he is still buying the exact same product at the exact same price?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 14:15:33
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva2skf/

Using ad-hominems is thinking at a third-grade level.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 14:10:21
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva2ga7/

When most people think of censorship resistant use cases, they think of buying drugs... While true, it goes much further than that. Every single person is censored to the tune of 40% on every transaction. Find a way for people to trade while avoiding this 40% extortion cost, and you have found the killer app of Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 14:06:17
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva235d/

I have gone down the rabbit hole. Maybe it is you that has not gone down far enough. Maybe you should address my argument, instead of citing a rather religious doctrine that I don't "Believe in the movement." Simply stating that p2p cash benefits all parties is not an argument, it is a belief. There is never a point at which transacting with Bitcoin becomes less expensive than transacting with fiat (in relation to settlement costs). Not with 1 user, not with 1 million users, and not with 1 billion users. Settlement costs will always be the same in both fiat and Bitcoin. The only advantage Bitcoin has over fiat is **permissionless payments**. Payments at centralized merchants already require **permission** from the local jurisdiction. There is nothing that Bitcoin can do to benefit these merchants.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 14:01:49
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva1dwp/

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner. ...While that is true now, I believe there are sustainable use cases that exist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:53:26
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/eva16pi/

With all due respect, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are saying users like the Visa "protection/bonus" scheme, therefore, Visa won't switch.... But then you are saying people will switch to gain the cost savings of Bitcoin. If people are willing to switch, then Visa (or new disruptor) will make it available on the vastly superior network effect of fiat. Visa can simultaneously offer both options. There is no getting around this fact. And for that reason saving 2% on transaction processing fees is not a unique selling point to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:51:05
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9zvvc/

Visa (or a new disruptor) can clear transactions via the blockchain. This eliminates all payment processing costs associated with chargebacks/settlement. This means Bitcoin has no cost advantage over Visa (or new entrant) for payment settlement.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:36:01
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9zm9q/

\+1 for censorship resistant use cases

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:32:58
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9zcad/

Why would merchants give a 3% discount to Bitcoin users and not blockchain Visa users. They both cost the exact same to transact with, but Visa is accepted everywhere and has stable price. Merchants do not work on altruism.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:29:47
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9ys2f/

Right, but altruism is not scalable. Average Joe only cares about saving money. Visa (or a new entrant) can put fiat on the blockchain too, and eliminate processing fees/chargebacks... This is not unique to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:23:15
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9yma5/

Average Joe does not care about revolutions. Average Joe cares about saving money. Altruism is not scalable.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:21:20
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9y4ds/

Right, but Visa can put fiat on the blockchain too. This is not unique to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:15:38
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9xidg/

&#x200B; >1. Credit/debit cards come with large fees. 2-4% per transaction, that's not counting fixed fees or monthly/yearly subscription fees. > >2. There are no chargebacks. Charge back fraud is a very really problem where the merchant almost always swallow the cost. This is true, but fiat can be put on the blockchain too and eliminate these costs. This is not unique to Bitcoin > 3. Merchants might not be able to accept credit cards due to your business. Porn sites or pot stores for example have trouble. I agree. These are the use cases we should be focusing on.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:08:24
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9xa0a/

>I can buy things with bitcoin that I cannot buy using any other currency. \+1

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:05:39
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9x2ez/

[Purse.io](https://Purse.io) is not leveraging payment processing cost. [Purse.io](https://Purse.io) is arbitraging a gift card market. Visa can put fiat on a blockchain too, this is not unique to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 13:03:06
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9u14d/

We could have universal 100% merchant adoption, and it still would not matter. The fundamental problem is not having a place to spend Bitcoin, the fundamental problem is having an **inventive** to spend Bitcoin. If it costs Joe exactly the same whether he makes a purchase with fiat or with Bitcoin, why would he switch to Bitcoin given the price volatility, and onboarding cost.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 12:27:28
/r/btc/comments/cixbpz/has_anyone_considered_why_average_joe_would_adopt/ev9tejn/

Right, but Netflix is fundamentally better than Blockbuster. Spending Bitcoin at merchants is NOT fundamentally better than spending fiat at merchants. The consumer still pays the same price for the same product whether they use Bitcoin or fiat. This isn't because of Blockstream, this is because Bitcoin has no advantage over fiat when spending at merchants.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 28, 2019 12:19:49
/r/btc/comments/cicawe/today_i_failed_to_convince_a_local_restaurant_to/ev5r71c/

Bitcoin's only profitable use case is censorship resistance. Find merchants which require censorship resistance, and they will use it not of ideological persuasion, but because they personally profit.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 27, 2019 10:28:34
/r/btc/comments/cbsvsf/the_irs_wants_to_subpoena_apple_and_google_to_see/etocqqx/

Constitutions are an illusion to make you think you are free. They never have and never will have any real binding impact on reality. We can write down our rights on a piece of paper, but that doesn't protect them. The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. Please read the Bill of Rights, and tell me which amendment is protected. Or explain why slavery was constitutional for the first 100 years of its existence.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 13, 2019 09:12:26
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etnj75z/

You don't understand Bitcoin. Fiat can be put on a blockchain too, this is not unique to Bitcoin. The only difference between Bitcoin and fiat is censorship resistance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 23:35:30
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etnf3zx/

I am not suggesting that utopian Bitcoin world absent of government is going to occur, I am simply pointing out the obvious fact that if government still controls what you do with your Bitcoin, then it is no different from fiat. This is not strawmanning, this is fact. All the get-rich quick statist Bitcoin holders don't want to hear this objective fact.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 22:35:13
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etndtip/

If the only place you can redeem Bitcoin is at a centralized business, then government essentially controls the chain. They can force custodial wallets, whitelisted addresses, newly printed government Bitcoins, etc, etc.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 22:16:50
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etncval/

I agree. I am pointing out that if the situation which you describe remains true in a hypothetical "Post-Bitcoin" world, then Bitcoin has not in any way improved upon fiat. It is for this reason Bitcoin is entirely useless without p2p trade. Without p2p trade, censorship will simply occur at the centralized business level instead of at the banking level.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 22:03:22
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etnbu5j/

In what way is that form of Bitcoin different from already existing fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 21:48:56
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etnbpaq/

Sounds like a "You Problem."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 21:47:04
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etnay72/

You don't. That's the whole point.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 21:36:38
/r/btc/comments/ccg5dw/the_future_of_taxes_in_a_post_bitcoin_world/etmqzg2/

p2p money + p2p trade = freedom

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 17:20:06
/r/btc/comments/cbsvsf/the_irs_wants_to_subpoena_apple_and_google_to_see/etlgixr/

Please read the Bill of Rights and tell me with a straight face any of those amendments apply. &#x200B; Every country on Earth has a constitution. Even North Korea.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 12, 2019 08:48:56
/r/btc/comments/cbsvsf/the_irs_wants_to_subpoena_apple_and_google_to_see/etj6tgp/

The constitution is nothing more than a fictional piece of propaganda. Wake up!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 11, 2019 13:48:49
/r/btc/comments/c89k0b/all_statist_crypto_users_we_want_permissionless/ess9kue/

Government -> "Move all your Bitcoin to government controlled sidechain or die." Tiblanc -> "Yes master." \------------------------------- It's that simple.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 4, 2019 09:42:46
/r/btc/comments/c89k0b/all_statist_crypto_users_we_want_permissionless/espvtml/

Bitcoin can either be permissionless, or be regulated. It cannot simultaneously be both. You seem to advocate for the regulated path (which is totally fine), but please stop confusing yourself that regulated Bitcoin is any different from fiat. It's the exact same thing.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2019 17:55:10
/r/btc/comments/c89k0b/all_statist_crypto_users_we_want_permissionless/eso054b/

Why not just put fiat on the blockchain? It accomplishes everything you just outlined. Maybe because putting fiat on the blockchain doesn't make you rich?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2019 08:15:43
/r/btc/comments/c89k0b/all_statist_crypto_users_we_want_permissionless/eso01us/

Why not just put fiat on the blockchain? It accomplishes everything you just outlined. The only difference is you don't get rich. Which is the only reason statists care about Bitcoin. I have a question for the statists Bitcoin holders. What happens when government passes a law stating they now control Bitcoin, and can print more Bitcoins? You cannot disobey, because that would be anarchy right?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2019 08:14:28
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/esnz8mg/

All trades in the existing economy have a 50% fraud rate. 50% of every trade is guaranteed to be stolen. If p2p trade improves on that, then it has improved on the fraud rate.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 3, 2019 08:02:50
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/eskua7a/

On-chain identity does not change the way we trust each other. Everything that is used today for trust, will be used in on-chain identity. The only thing that changes is the now the user owns its identity instead of the employer. If what you are saying is true, then I could go out and leave 10 million fake reviews on Google about my new online Amazon competitor. I would destroy Amazon through my fake reputation, and then instead of servicing the customers and making a steady profit, I would scam them all. I would continuously create new Amazon competitors, steal all of their customers, and then scam all of the new customers. Rinse and repeat... Of course that's not realistic for many reasons, and the same is true for individual users. I am not saying there won't be any fraud in the network, I am just saying it won't be of any material consequence. P2P trade already has a 50% cost advantage over the legacy economy, even if fraud is raging at 10%, it would still cost 40% less.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 2, 2019 09:21:29
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/esj9i8b/

It's essentially the same competitive dynamic as Bitcoin miners. All trusted certificate issuers would have to collectively censor the network. Even if they did manage to collude, this creates economic incentive for new entrants to steal their margin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 1, 2019 20:51:10
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/esiqrmw/

This can be resolved through trusted certifications. Instead of working within the monopolized walled garden of Uber, Uber will instead issue trusted certifications attesting to skills/identity of the driver. The driver will be free to take that identity and find matches in any network. You may ask why Uber would do this. If Uber does not, then its competitors will.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 1, 2019 18:01:14
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/esipav1/

Thank you Whitepaper linked here (very abstract): [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnRdVeGoPkkdk2lXtdjDfy7c0z1ZlmRE/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnRdVeGoPkkdk2lXtdjDfy7c0z1ZlmRE/view?usp=sharing) Happy to discuss specifics here: discord \[dot\] gg/z2bZEq2

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 1, 2019 17:48:47
/r/btc/comments/c7k7d2/many_have_correctly_identified_the_problem_of/esh6anl/

I believe there is an economic model to get it off the ground. We have a small group of people working on the project right now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on July 1, 2019 08:25:36
/r/btc/comments/c7icf5/if_bitcoin_was_actually_being_used_for_the/esg54r9/

Demand drives supply. Supply does not drive demand. It is true for corn production and it is true for blockspace. One viral Bitcoin Cash app has 10000X more impact on blockspace than all the debates/developers/forks in the world combined.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2019 21:10:20
/r/btc/comments/c7icf5/if_bitcoin_was_actually_being_used_for_the/esfw4y1/

Blocksize is downstream of user demand, user demand is not downstream of blocksize. This is the fatal flaw the BCH community is making. Give users a reason to use Bitcoin and they will come. Simply artificially increasing the blocksize is not solving anything.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2019 19:15:10
/r/btc/comments/c7icf5/if_bitcoin_was_actually_being_used_for_the/esfqpov/

This is exactly what the BCH community needs to acknowledge. BCH has no users not because of BTC, but because BCH community has created no valuable use cases.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2019 18:11:41
/r/btc/comments/c7hx5f/most_of_these_ideas_work_best_with_a_blockchain/esfpw7m/

Interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 30, 2019 18:02:15
/r/btc/comments/c5zas0/why_saving_your_fortune_in_precious_metals_is_a/es5bld3/

There may not be an asteroid with billions worth of Bitcoin Cash, but there may be an alien that can break encryption in a split second.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 26, 2019 23:38:14
/r/btc/comments/c3bag5/cashfusion_spec/ersvynk/

Very cool stuff

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 22, 2019 13:47:12
/r/btc/comments/c0uzxt/saturdays_are_for_shuffling_if_you_havent_tried/er8guko/

bUT whAt iF i lIkE TO liCK boOTs?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 15, 2019 09:10:58
/r/Agorism/comments/c0u0w5/so_are_agorists_anarchists/er8gewd/

Anarchists talk about a world with no government, agorists live a world with no government.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on June 15, 2019 09:06:23
/r/btc/comments/bykqv7/bitcoin_can_be_the_hardest_most_soundest_most/eqj3029/

discord \[dot\] gg/z2bZEq2

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 9, 2019 12:33:30
/r/btc/comments/bykqv7/bitcoin_can_be_the_hardest_most_soundest_most/eqir2wl/

For those who are interested a proposal for peer-to-peer trade is detailed here: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 9, 2019 10:56:10
/r/btc/comments/bykqv7/bitcoin_can_be_the_hardest_most_soundest_most/eqiqosp/

To pay for the roads of course

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 9, 2019 10:52:22
/r/btc/comments/bxwayx/india_proposes_jail_term_up_to_10_years_for_those/eqar9n4/

u/Adrian-X I thought the Indian government was going to publicly disclose all their records/finances on the blockchain for transparency?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 7, 2019 16:13:16
/r/btc/comments/bvkeu0/a_public_ledger_will_force_government_to_be/eq0nf8y/

I have nothing against anyone trying to improve government from within. But, it's never going to work. They have the guns. You don't.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 4, 2019 18:59:12
/r/btc/comments/bvkeu0/a_public_ledger_will_force_government_to_be/epzdozm/

You do not change existing systems from within. You create new systems to make the old obsolete. Government has never, and will never, voluntarily subject itself to public transparency. You are making an argument for how things should be, and ignoring how things exist in reality.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 4, 2019 11:53:34
/r/btc/comments/bvkeu0/a_public_ledger_will_force_government_to_be/epqudtj/

And what is going to stop government from using privacy features on a permissionless chain? Why would a government voluntarily disclose all its records?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 1, 2019 14:09:05
/r/btc/comments/bvkeu0/a_public_ledger_will_force_government_to_be/epqn0m6/

>Government can audit lower officials for corruption lol

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on June 1, 2019 13:06:27
/r/btc/comments/btmwxe/localbitcoincom_can_also_be_used_to_create_a/ep09gvv/

The main difference is this proposal is compatible with all existing user wallets, while Atomic swaps are not compatible with any wallets.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2019 11:54:57
/r/btc/comments/btmwxe/localbitcoincom_can_also_be_used_to_create_a/ep05t18/

Advantages 1. Very difficult to censor (no need to take pictures of yourself to trade) 2. Significantly reduced trust (not eliminated) Disadvantages 1. On-chain transaction fees 2. Escrow oracle would probably require small fee 3. The maker would probably bake in a small liquidity fee into offered rate 4. Take probably 20 minutes - 1 hour to execute trade

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2019 11:29:59
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eozm6gy/

It is probably confusing to those with Stockholm Syndrome. That is fine because they weren't going to understand it anyway.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 27, 2019 09:16:00
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovvmkc/

Sort of. [local.bitcoin.com](https://local.bitcoin.com) does not custody funds, but it still maintains custody of the user's reputation. By maintaining custody of the user's reputation, the users are held hostage to the network effect of [local.bitcoin.com](https://local.bitcoin.com) (they can't port their earned reputation elsewhere). This creates a lucrative walled garden, which [Bitcoin.com](https://Bitcoin.com) can monopolize if successful. \---------------------------------------------- All businesses are basically just exchanges for a given product/service. There is a consumer and producer. The consumer and producer could trade by themselves, and cut out the middleman. The challenge is how do the consumer and producer: 1. Trust each other without a centralized business 2. Find each other without a centralized business This is what Freedom Network solves. It enables a producer and consumer to trade without a middleman. The obvious benefit is that it cuts out fees paid to the middleman. The not so obvious benefit is that without a centralized middleman, the mafia has no way to track the trade. If the consumer and producer know they can trade anonymously, then they will not pay extortion fees to the local mafia or follow any of their arbitrary rules. This enables cost savings in excess of 30%.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 16:08:49
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovktep/

True, but consensus is derived from user demand. There is no user demand because there are currently little/no profitable use cases demanding larger blocks. Use cases->User Demand->Consensus->Larger Blocks

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 14:53:47
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovg0id/

I should have said "No comparative Value," but I figured that was implied. Average Joe is not going to switch to Bitcoin for the sake of using feel good decentralized money. Bitcoin must save Average Joe at least 10%, or he isn't switching. In the absolute best case scenario, Bitcoin can save Average Joe 2% over fiat in white markets. That is assuming 0 onboarding cost, 0 volatility, 0 middlemen, and 100% acceptance. Yes, Average Joe can use Bitcoin in white markets, but no one is switching to Bitcoin to use it in white markets. The only use case that will incentivize Average Joe to actually switch to Bitcoin is black/grey markets.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 14:17:02
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovees9/

Yes I am the author. The TLDR version of Freedom Network is linked below. This model can be applied to all business models. Happy to discuss more at the Discord link in the bottom right corner. [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how\_to\_create\_mass\_adoption\_in\_2\_steps\_it\_really/](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 14:02:47
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovddb1/

The inflation argument is a "Store of Value" argument, not a "Means of Exchange" argument. There are many far superior stores of value to Bitcoin in the S&P 500, Real Estate, and Gold. The only situation in which Bitcoin is a better Store of Value is when it is used to avoid confiscation from the mafia. An immutable log of metadata is valuable, but Bitcoin the money is not needed to do that.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 13:51:18
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eovbmzy/

I promise you the coin that wins will be the coin which best enables Average Joe to circumvent "Arbitrary Rules." Bitcoin is completely useless in all other situations.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 13:32:44
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eov7mfh/

Bitcoin is whatever the leading cryptocurrency is. Whether that ends up being BTC, BCH, ETH, Dash, Monero, whichever one wins is Bitcoin. The competing sub-projects don't matter. Only people who see Bitcoin as a means of printing their own money care about the sub-projects.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 13:02:11
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eov556o/

Bitcoin's only profitable use case is subverting the mafia. In all other use cases, fiat is far superior than Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 12:39:07
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eov46gd/

Bitcoin has no value for use cases that are compliant with the mafia. The only reason you like Bitcoin is because you like the idea of printing your own money for a very low price, and selling it to the greater public at a much higher price.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 12:29:32
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eouzgnm/

I agree, (as you mention) [Purse.io](https://Purse.io) does not effectively save the user 15%-20%. There is a fixed cost (time investment) to onboarding to both BCH and Purse. In addition, Purse does not provide the same quality of service as delivery takes much longer and BCH price is volatile in the mean time. If a user spends $300/year at Amazon, Purse would enable $45 savings. By the time the user goes through Coinbase, confusing wallet, haggles with Purse, and BCH price volatility, the $45 savings is evaporated. If there is a use case that can enable an effective 10%+ savings (factoring in the onboarding cost), it will bring in users. Bitcoin will never spontaneously be more convenient than fiat. That is impossible. If Bitcoin was hypothetical universally adopted, yes Bitcoin would be more convenient, but the only way to achieve universal adoption is if Bitcoin has significant cost savings over the alternative (effective 10%+).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 11:36:50
/r/btc/comments/bt7orf/the_bottleneck_for_bitcoin_is_not_blocksize_it_is/eoutgod/

The user must have a profitable reason to adopt BCH. They aren't just going to randomly adopt it for no reason. Create a use case that saves the user 10%+ using BCH, and they will come. BCHWAGE and Merchant adoption are not that use case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 26, 2019 10:18:46
/r/btc/comments/bsw1u1/the_argument_that_bitcoin_saves_the_user_from/eorxs8n/

This is exactly why I made the post. Bitcoin's limited supply is a "Store of Value" argument, not a "Means of Exchange" argument. Privacy and permissionlessness are great, but if Bitcoin is spent at any traditional business, neither of those properties apply. Question: In what situations does privacy and permissionlessness enable Average Joe to save money? \[Answer: When used to evade extortion and arbitrary rules. This is the only situation which Bitcoin can save Average Joe money\]

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2019 16:02:27
/r/btc/comments/bsw1u1/the_argument_that_bitcoin_saves_the_user_from/eorobk1/

Right, but what is the reason the user will switch to Bitcoin? Is it for feel good evangelism, or because the user profits from switching to Bitcoin? In what situations is using Bitcoin instead of fiat more profitable, and by how much?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 25, 2019 14:49:35
/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/eoo8d8n/

No one is going to bend over backwards to use Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is not significantly better, no one is going to switch. [Purse.io](https://Purse.io) is a great niche use case, but reselling gift cards is not scalable.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2019 17:07:45
/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/eon11h6/

By the time the consumer goes through CoinBase/BitPay, that surplus is eaten away. Add that to price volatility and it's definitely not worth it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 24, 2019 08:32:05
/r/btc/comments/bs5iii/you_can_make_the_blocksize_as_large_as_you_want/eol5l06/

Miners do not secure the chain in every way. Social consensus ultimately secures the chain. Mining solves denial of service. That's it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 22:46:39
/r/btc/comments/bs5iii/you_can_make_the_blocksize_as_large_as_you_want/eol48sa/

Consensus is not derived from cryptographic proof. Consensus is derived from user adoption. The chain with the most user adoption gets "Cryptographic proof" because hashpower follows social consensus. 1MB vs 10000TB blocks does not change that relationship in any material way. Don't take my word for it, just look at BCH (and every crypto). BCH hard forks every 6 months. To say BCH (and every crypto) is trusting in cryptographic proof and not social consensus is a very bold claim. I am not saying that hard forking is a good or a bad thing, but please recognize "Cryptographic proof" is derived wholly from social consensus. Social consensus is not impacted whether blocks are 1MB or 10000TB.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 22:38:19
/r/btc/comments/bs5iii/you_can_make_the_blocksize_as_large_as_you_want/eokqvkk/

If the five miners won't share the chain with anyone, who is going to trust their chain? \->No one

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 21:15:28
/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/eokgxz1/

Why is Average Joe going to switch from credit card to Bitcoin to purchase the exact same product at the exact same price? You proposed the following 1. Holding Bitcoin is speculative (Does not lower cost of Joe's product) 2. Holding stablecoin is subject to inflation (Does not lower cost of Joe's product) 3. Holding any combination of the two does not change the overall property. (Does not lower cost of Joe's product) 4. Gambling on altcoins does not make Bitcoin stable. (Does not lower cost of Joe's product) None of your proposed solutions lowers the cost of the product for Joe. If the product costs the exact same as it did before, why is Joe going to switch?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 19:33:12
/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/eokd5wm/

Your proposal still has not solved the problem: 1. Increased purchasing power is speculation. It could decrease as well. The user doesn't like price volatility, even if it goes up over the long run. 2. Stablecoins still lose money to inflation. While stablecoins can remove the volatility, Average Joe still has to go through Coinbase, transfer to confusing Bitcoin wallet, all to purchase the same product at the same price. Why is Average Joe going to switch from his easy credit card, to difficult Bitcoin, to make the exact same purchase? P.S. The security assumptions of DAI are still highly questionable.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 18:51:33
/r/btc/comments/bs7els/we_need_to_talk_about_merchant_adoption_and_spend/eokaij6/

OpenBazaar is a great project and will eventually be a great use case. It has challenges in being the first use case to get the Bitcoin adoption ball rolling. While products can technically be sold free of censorship on OpenBazaar, the manufacturing of the products is still subject to censorship and is thus passed on to OpenBazaar. The ability for OpenBazaar to undercut traditional online markets is dependent on the manufacturer to produce the product without paying extortion. This limits OpenBazaar's utility to products which are seeking to avoid arbitrary rules (a niche market). P2P services offer much greater cost savings potential as p2p services can more easily evade both extortion/arbitrary rules.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 18:23:20
/r/btc/comments/bs5iii/you_can_make_the_blocksize_as_large_as_you_want/eojsw0g/

The difference is in Liquid the controllers of the network are defined and not subject to open competition. In Bitcoin, any new entrant can come in and compete. The ability for new entrants to join the network is what keeps the incumbents honest. Whether there are 10 incumbents or 10 million incumbents, they are kept honest by the ability for a new entrant to join the network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 23, 2019 16:13:46
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo5etjv/

Channel factories are still fundamentally limited by liquidity challenges. The liquidity challenge strongly incentivizes centralization of hubs. It also creates a network effect among well-connected hubs, to the detriment of potential new hubs. Probabilistic payments connect all pools to all pools. This allows any pool to seamlessly enter the network and immediately be connected to all pools, in doing so, eliminating the liquidity and routing challenge. It does come with very limited trust in escrow (explained in paper), but it significantly increases decentralization of pools while also enabling payments of any size to be routed through the network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 15:58:18
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo56kx0/

Correct. Happy to discuss more if you find it interesting!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 14:49:20
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo56hdc/

Will the government like this -> No Can the government do anything to stop it -> No

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 14:48:30
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo55px2/

The middlemen will charge fees to the user for providing the service. Of course, why would Alice switch to dFacebook that costs money when she can use normal Facebook for free? Alice can still sell her data to third parties/watch ads on dFacebook. By doing this Alice can offset her cost, and actually profit from doing so. The difference is Alice will have a choice and the network will not be controlled by centralized companies.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 14:42:02
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo54hbt/

If I play 1 game with an expected value of 10, in the long run I will make 10 per game. If i play 10,000 games with an expected value of 10, in the long run I will make 10 per game. Whether I play 1 game or 10,000 games, the expected value is always exactly 10. \-------------------------------------------- Variance decreases as sample size increases, however, the expected value is exactly 10 no matter how few or how many games I play. This means a pool cannot attack by playing a small number of games and leaving. The expected value is always 10 whether they win on the first game, or 1000000th game. \--------------------------------------- If your concern is that a pool will be unhappy due to large variance, yes this is true. Pools will only participate if they can play a sufficient number of games to reduce variance. This is not an attack vector. It just means the actual outcome will deviate from the expected outcome.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 14:30:23
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo50xai/

A very lucky, or very unlucky participant leaving abruptly is not a problem. While Pool 1 and Pool 2 may only do one payment with each other, they will presumably be doing thousands of payments with thousands of other pools. It all balances out in the long run no matter how short the relationship is to any given pool.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 13:57:06
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo50iuj/

We have a small team building a minimum viable product. If you are interested in learning more/helping there is a link in the image above.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 13:53:36
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo508o7/

We have a small team building a minimum viable product. Bitcoin's bottleneck is not developers, it is not blocksize constraints, it is clear vision. Bitcoin has more than enough developers/investment to achieve global adoption several times over. The reason we have almost zero adoption beyond speculation is because those resources are allocated inefficiently. I share these ideas in effort to reduce Bitcoin's main bottleneck -> vision.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 13:51:08
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo4zeoz/

Pools are responsible for assuming payout variance, end-users send/receive exact amounts. In the long run, actual payouts received will converge towards expected value. Kind of like how Bitcoin miners join pools to reduce variance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 13:43:46
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo4lqs8/

If you can privately trade peer-to-peer, then you save on extortion costs. For most trades this amounts to 20%-40% cost savings.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 11:39:46
/r/btc/comments/bqgzl0/utility_comes_from_cost_savings_over_the/eo4iv2a/

Probably difficult to understand without a deeper explanation. The basic concept is: Purple layer: Register identity on-chain. Blue Layer: The user hosts all of its application data, and links it to its on-chain identity. Green Layer: Competing commercial servers host the user's data, which is seeded from the user's node. Yellow Layer: Competing algorithms/search engines index the data hosted by the competing commercial servers. Orange Layer: Competing moderators offer a filter to view the network through. Red Layer: Competing clients offer different UIs to interact with the network. Protocols (applications): Protocols are market agreed upon communication standards so every oracle can talk to each other. \------------------------------------------------------ The idea is that if any competing oracle attempts to censor the network, the user can easily route around the compromised oracle, while still remaining within the same network effect. This is compared to the legacy model on the right, in which there is no competition among oracles. You must use YouTube for all network layers, or leave the network effect altogether.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 19, 2019 11:12:19
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/bqgtr0/routing_lightning_network_payments_through/eo48lzb/

Here is the whitepaper for anyone interested [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyjzBrwlfq4Md6Fr3LmbXu8VaFzw9F-X/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyjzBrwlfq4Md6Fr3LmbXu8VaFzw9F-X/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 19, 2019 09:16:21
/r/Bitcoin/comments/boim70/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/eo475ke/

I don't think you understand how the mafia works. If a hub is a known centralized entity, and it routes payments for which it does not know the end destination, then it will be shut down. The mafia doesn't care about plausible deniability of onion routing. LN cannot work without central hubs. Central hubs will be subject to censorship.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Bitcoin on May 19, 2019 08:56:21
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enrnnkg/

What you are saying is 100% contradictory: 1. The whole point of Bitcoin is that it exists outside of government control 2. You are advocating for government to protect Bitcoin from attack

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 16, 2019 10:43:16
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/ennd1yn/

We all know Bitcoin, if universally adopted is better. But how do we get there? Anyone can create a better Facebook, a better YouTube, but how do they subvert the existing network effect in route to the better solution. No one is using Bitcoin today for what it could be in 20 years. They will only buy today, if it is useful today. Merchant adoption is not that use case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 14:31:36
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/enn6u21/

Visa (or a new entrant) can put fiat on the blockchain, the cost savings are not unique to Bitcoin. The only property unique to Bitcoin is censorship resistance.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 13:39:19
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/enn4li3/

True, but it is important to note Silk Road did not and could not accept credit cards. People are only incentivized to use Bitcoin for use cases which require censorship resistance. No one is buying Bitcoin for casual spending at Starbucks or eBay. If the purchase/merchant is not subject to censorship, then Bitcoin has no utility for that purchase/merchant.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 13:19:39
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/enn2q6e/

So let's hypothetically say every single merchant in the world accepts Bitcoin starting today. Who is going to open up a Coinbase account, pay exchange fees, transfer to their confusing Bitcoin wallet, manage private keys, deal with Bitcoin price volatility, all to purchase the exact same product at the exact same price? When they could have just swiped their card.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 13:07:58
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enn22f2/

Let's say government makes Bitcoin illegal? What now? I guess we all just burn our private keys?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 13:03:29
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/enn0q2m/

Were you already a Bitcoin user for speculative reasons? Or did you adopt Bitcoin specifically for paying bills with Bitcoin instead of credit card/checks?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:55:02
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enn0f04/

If all Bitcoin transactions are still subject to government approval, then how is Bitcoin any different from fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:53:09
/r/btc/comments/bp08i2/i_honestly_dont_think_a_single_person_has_ever/enn058h/

Were those purchases from already existing Bitcoin holders, who presumably purchased Bitcoin for speculative purposes? Or were those purchases from non-Bitcoin holders who purchased Bitcoin for the explicit purpose of spending at merchants that also accept credit cards? How many \*new users actually adopt Bitcoin for casual spending?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:51:32
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enmz45k/

Why is it wrong or illegal to short BCH? If a bug makes it into the code, that is the developer's and miner's problem. It should be assumed that all bugs will be exploited to the full potential and law enforcement has nothing to do with it. If Bitcoin is subject to the same rules as fiat, and all transactions are still subject to government approval, then what differentiates Bitcoin from fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:45:39
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enmxc8b/

You are advocating for someone to be punished by law enforcement for shorting BCH. Should BCH release a new whitepaper that consensus is controlled by government?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:35:10
/r/btc/comments/bozpln/whoever_did_this_exploit_borrowed_180k_bch_to_try/enmuuaq/

That is 100% against everything Bitcoin stands for

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 15, 2019 12:20:39
/r/Bitcoin/comments/boim70/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enlst82/

Trustless doesn't necessarily mean censorship resistance. Decentralization doesn't necessarily mean censorship resistance. While Lightning Network is more trustless, it will not be censorship resistant. Lightning has very strong incentive to centralize into hubs due to the liquidity challenge. In Blitzkrieg, there is no liquidity challenge. This gives equal position among pools regardless of network position. In Lightning, hubs have fundamentally unequal position due to liquidity leading to the "Network Effect," similar to how any other network effect operates. It must also be noted the Alice-Bob payment is trustless, and happens atomically. Alice and Bob do not need to trust the Pool or Finder.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Bitcoin on May 15, 2019 08:15:43
/r/Bitcoin/comments/boim70/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enjodbh/

The user can be its own pool, though that is impractical for most users. If the Finder defrauds either pool, the pool can provably document it by publishing the off-chain contract on-chain for all to see. This immediately alerts the entire network. Yes, you could route the actual funds through the finder, but then you run into the liquidity challenge. The liquidity challenge strongly incentivizes centralization, and is not very resilient to censorship. In Blitzkrieg, there is no liquidity challenge. That is the core tradeoff. In Blitzkreig, finders are exceptionally nimble as they don't need a single satoshi to operate. Pools don't need to worry about connections as they are all connected.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Bitcoin on May 14, 2019 21:26:57
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/boih5w/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enjhl60/

Didn't realize people were going to get this picky over a link.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 14, 2019 20:39:05
/r/lightningnetwork/comments/boih5w/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enjft4y/

It can be viewed here, though you have to click the download arrow in the upper right corner if you want it to load. [https://4html.net/PDFViewer/#/source/Blitzkrieg.pdf](https://4html.net/PDFViewer/#/source/Blitzkrieg.pdf)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/lightningnetwork on May 14, 2019 20:26:19
/r/Bitcoin/comments/boim70/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enjfeth/

The payment process is User->Pool->Pool->User User-Pool transactions occur via payment channels. They happen completely, or not at all. Alice cannot pay a thousand other Bobs. They use the almost the same process as Lightning Network payment channels. Pool-Pool transactions occur via probabilistic payments. Probabilistic payments create a complete graph between pools, not between users. Users connect to pools. The staking pool funds collateral via payment channel to the pre-selected Finder. The gambling pool must trust the pre-selected Finder in order to receive payment.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Bitcoin on May 14, 2019 20:23:22
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enhamhv/

I agree. The proposal was not only targeted at scalability. It offers a high degree of privacy, instant settlement, and a low-trust Bitcoin-backed stablecoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 11:43:39
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enh9hd7/

Yes, this is possible, but an unsustainable attack vector. The pool could keep joining the network and blocking payment, but it would cause little damage. If such an attack were to occur, the pools would need a very small amount of reputation, but not enough to change the characteristics of the network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 11:35:30
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enh8a3z/

User-Pool payments are still trustless. User-pool payments still use HTLC. User-Pool payments are made first. They happen atomically. After the User-Pool payments occur, the pool-pool payment happens. The pool-pool payment does have limited trust, but this is segregated from Alice and Bob's payment. Alice and Bob do not need to trust the pool or the finder.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 11:26:56
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enh78xv/

This proposal is not intended as a substitution to on-chain scaling, but rather as a complement.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 11:19:43
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enh6ozs/

If a pool blocks payment, only the users which directly connect to that pool are affected. To avoid this problem, the user can close out their payment channel and open a new payment channel with a new pool. The new pool is guaranteed to have the same access to the network as the previous pool. This creates ruthless competition among pools. It's kind of a similar situation as to what happens if a miner does not include your transaction in a block.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 11:15:46
/r/btc/comments/boide4/in_this_paper_we_propose_a_solution_to_the/enh3t2m/

1. The pools are not bound by the "Network effect" of liquidity. All pools are directly connected to all pools through probabilistic payments. This allows any pool to seamlessly enter the network. In LN, hubs are inherently unequal due to liquidity. This prevents new hubs from seamlessly entering the network. LN hubs are kind of like YouTube. You can post videos elsewhere, but you will be disconnected from the greater video network. Pools enable you to post your video anywhere and have equal access to the network. 2. The routing process is user->pool->pool->user. 2.1 user-pool payments are made via payment channel, thus only settle on-chain when opening or closing the payment channel. 2.2 pool-pool payments are probabilistic, thus only 1/1000 (or 1/n) actually settle on-chain. 3. Chainbet - I figured there is probably a better way. The key property that must be maintained is that the game of chance must be setup in such a way that an on-chain commitment is not required. It also must provide the gambler assurances against a double-spend.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on May 14, 2019 10:55:03
/r/btc/comments/bav4fu/elephantintheroom_the_central_hypothesis_of_bch/ekfr3qm/

>And when demand for transactional capability goes up, BTC becomes useless. Meaning that when demand goes up, **people go elsewhere.** This is true. You are unknowingly supporting my original post. There is no sense in trying to artificially increase/decrease blockspace. People will consume blockspace at the lowest price. BTC cannot artificially cap blockspace, and BCH cannot artificially increase blockspace. Blockspace will achieve market equilibrium on its own, therefore, I have concluded in my original post that we should stop bickering about it and focus on what really matters: Building use cases which will create demand for Bitcoin. You are making the Keynesian argument that we need to artificially create blockspace that no one is demanding.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2019 21:19:40
/r/btc/comments/bav4fu/elephantintheroom_the_central_hypothesis_of_bch/ekfcb28/

It is only a "Simplism" to those who don't understand economics: Bitcoin's ability to scale is not impacted by a bunch of "Feel good" developers building theoretical roads that no one is demanding. Developers do not scale shit. Developers simply meet user demand. Bitcoin will scale when it is demanded by **real users**. The reason BTC's 1mb cap held was not because of mystical conspiracies and stupid developers, the 1mb cap ultimately held because no one has a use case demanding larger blocks. The fastest way to scale the technical protocol is to onboard users. The user demand will create the financial incentive to scale the protocol. Instead of having 9 devs circle-jerking on theoretical protocol improvements, we will have thousands. But it will not happen til the use cases are identified/built and user demand follows. It is that simple.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2019 18:38:21
/r/btc/comments/bav4fu/elephantintheroom_the_central_hypothesis_of_bch/ekf9j77/

A use case is a situation in which Average Joe has a higher rate of return using Bitcoin as opposed to fiat. The rate of return must exceed all the inconvenience costs of using Bitcoin... Otherwise it will not drive adoption. &#x200B; It is true that entrepreneurs can *implement* the use cases, but the value is derived from the use cases. We have not seen any tangible adoption, because we have not identified any profitable use cases. Bitcoin's failure to gain adoption is not as a result of too little entrepreneurs/investment, it is as a result of no one identifying a profitable use case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2019 18:09:51
/r/btc/comments/bav4fu/elephantintheroom_the_central_hypothesis_of_bch/ekf8mh8/

But what use cases are going to drive adoption? -- This is the question that everyone is avoiding.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2019 18:00:23
/r/btc/comments/bav4fu/elephantintheroom_the_central_hypothesis_of_bch/eke8dem/

If blocksize is truly the bottleneck, then how come the BCH blocks are almost empty? If there was as much demand as you say there is, then it would be spilling over into BCH. But we don't see that. Why? [https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks](https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on April 8, 2019 11:56:26
/r/dashpay/comments/b7o7pb/building_big_blocks_is_not_enough_alice_does_not/ejtdca2/

I think it is more likely people will adopt fiat 2.0, than adopt Bitcoin, in the event of a total financial collapse (which may not happen). We have empirically already seen this in the regions which have seen hyperinflation in Bitcoin's short reign. &#x200B; &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/dashpay on March 31, 2019 13:09:05
/r/btc/comments/b7g0rg/brave_browser_users_can_now_earn_70_a_year_for/ejs7dif/

They would make x100 more if they just didn't watch the ads, and worked during the time that would have been spent watching the ads.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 30, 2019 23:32:57
/r/btc/comments/b6j0kc/the_fastest_way_to_scale_the_protocol_is_to/ejlqp4p/

The issue with BSV is they really just artificially agreed to lock down the protocol. What economic forces are keeping someone from tinkering with it?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 28, 2019 16:21:40
/r/btc/comments/b6j0kc/the_fastest_way_to_scale_the_protocol_is_to/ejl1xc6/

You are still arguing from the zero sum perspective. If blockspace was truly the limiting factor, businesses would have just switched to a new cryptocurrency and BTC would have been left in the dust. That didn't happen, because there is very little usage beyond speculation. The bottleneck to crypto adoption is not scalability, it is user demand.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 28, 2019 12:21:59
/r/btc/comments/b6j0kc/the_fastest_way_to_scale_the_protocol_is_to/ejkx9ct/

You are viewing crypto as zero sum between BTC and BCH. Look at scaling Bitcoin from the perspective of the **entire crypto market.** Building useful applications creates the incentive to scale. We have already seen this with the BCH fork, explosion of ETH, and the explosion of altcoins. These are all scaling proposals and they are meeting demand from useful appplications. We do not scale crypto through artificial scaling improvements with no users. It naturally scales on its own through demand and market incentives.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 28, 2019 11:35:34
/r/btc/comments/b657wy/bitmex_claims_you_can_earn_1_a_year_for_bitcoin/ejjhxr5/

BitMEX claims \[you must pay fees to use\] Lightning Network

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 27, 2019 21:25:11
/r/btc/comments/b5ynxk/i_just_want_people_to_know_how_awesomely_useful/ejj9w92/

"But the bucket shops will kill all the children!"

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 27, 2019 19:44:00
/r/btc/comments/b4k17k/bitcoin_and_the_agora_every_transaction_outside/ej79ytu/

Bitcoin is completely useless without a system for p2p trade (Agorism). The mafia will just censor transaction at the business level instead of at the banking level.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 23, 2019 12:02:19
/r/dashpay/comments/b3rf0n/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/ej2s4bu/

Competing providers can still monetize their applications as before, the difference in this model is that the network effect is open to any matchmaker that wishes to compete. &#x200B; In creating open competition, any matchmaker which steals the driver's earnings on behalf of the mafia, or charges unreasonable platform fees, will quickly find themselves uncompetitive.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/dashpay on March 21, 2019 18:46:26
/r/dashpay/comments/b3rf0n/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/ej2rsd2/

The user can link multiple IDs together as one general identity, or completely segregate separate identities. It is up to the user.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/dashpay on March 21, 2019 18:42:24
/r/dashpay/comments/b3rf0n/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/ej24nct/

That is definitely a legitimate concern, for which the following checks are in place 1. The user can have multiple IDs for different purposes 2. The user can create a new ID at any time 3. Most of the trust in the system will still be derived from trusted 3rd parties, the key distinction in the proposal above, is that trusted 3rd parties will be subject to rigorous open competition, instead of enjoying their comfortable monopolized walled gardens.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/dashpay on March 21, 2019 14:28:39
/r/btc/comments/b2lvr0/bitcoin_does_not_win_through_ideological/eiw8zy2/

I'm not here to argue the merits of "Government." If you like "Government," great. More power to you. If "Government" can't compete with Bitcoin, then that's their problem. > Whitepaper suggests p2p settlement. It's not p2p settlement if "Government" has the final say on all transactions. So I ask again, what differentiates Bitcoin from fiat, if government has the final say on all transactions?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2019 14:00:09
/r/btc/comments/b2lvr0/bitcoin_does_not_win_through_ideological/eivpxge/

I think you are confused on what the purpose of Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is about **censorship resistant** money. If the mafia still 100% controls everything you can and cannot do with Bitcoin, then how is Bitcoin any different from fiat?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 19, 2019 10:39:42
/r/btc/comments/b2lvr0/bitcoin_does_not_win_through_ideological/eiu6mfj/

>hey if you steal food from your neighbor's fridge you will be spending much less on groceries I think you are confused. That is what the mafia does. In voluntary peer-to-peer trade, no one is being stolen from.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 18, 2019 19:15:08
/r/btc/comments/b2lvr0/bitcoin_does_not_win_through_ideological/eitpsa0/

> First truly big company to pay their workers in Bitcoin will start the ball rolling Centralized companies paying their employees in Bitcoin will not accomplish much. The payment will still be subject to extortion. Additionally, the employees will only demand to be paid in Bitcoin, if they have a reason to spend it somewhere. P2P trade creates the necessary **financial incentive** for both the service provider and consumer to use Bitcoin. It does so through the cost savings achieved in censorship resistant p2p trade.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 18, 2019 15:50:05
/r/btc/comments/b2lvr0/bitcoin_does_not_win_through_ideological/eitnlqs/

A company with 1000+ employees would not be able to navigate that. If applicable, the company's business model would be made obsolete by a peer-to-peer framework. Long-term, all business models will trend peer-to-peer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 18, 2019 15:25:00
/r/btc/comments/b25vzv/bitfinexedbitfinexed_alleges_tether_is_printing/eiqtz3a/

A very good portion of Bitcoin's price is derived from tether. Bitcoin itself is not a ponzi, but the only place where you can trade it, is probably a ponzi.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 17, 2019 13:54:51
/r/btc/comments/b118hw/peter_r_rizun_ln_user_walks_into_a_bank_says_i/eikgiko/

Well when you put it like that...

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 15, 2019 00:55:05
/r/btc/comments/b12mjm/the_modern_dollar_is_an_iou_from_a_structurally/eikfwze/

That is where decentralized trust comes in. Once you solve decentralized trust, you are no longer dependent on the centralized business. Once you are no longer dependent on the centralized business, the mafia has no means of enforcing its arbitrary rules. This is the power of Bitcoin. For payments, and most importantly **identity.**

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 15, 2019 00:44:28
/r/btc/comments/b12mjm/the_modern_dollar_is_an_iou_from_a_structurally/eikesri/

I agree with everything you just said, with one important exception. The primary cost of using the dollar is not inflation, it is the surveillance associated with it. This surveillance amounts to transaction fees of 35%+.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 15, 2019 00:25:24
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eier0s1/

Then why does no one have BCH?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 13, 2019 00:37:29
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidk3wv/

1-3 can all be done online in fiat. Fiat can be put on a blockchain too. This is not unique to Bitcoin

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:56:21
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidjuh6/

That is a fair point, but even if 100% of people in the world adopt Bitcoin, we still have not solved the problem of censorship. Bitcoin will still be subject to extortion, regulation, and surveillance so long as we trade through centralized businesses. If you can only redeem your Bitcoin at a centralized business, then it will not be much different from fiat. They will just block you at the centralized business instead of at the bank.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:53:31
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidj7zf/

After you factor in rebates most credit card fees are effectively 2%-3%. By the time the user goes through Coinbase, BitPay, and Bitcoin price volatility, the 2%-3% credit card fees are lower than the cost of using Bitcoin. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:46:47
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidj34w/

After you factor in rebates most credit card fees are effectively 2%-3%. By the time the user goes through Coinbase, BitPay, and Bitcoin price volatility, the 2%-3% credit card fees are lower than the cost of using Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:45:20
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidiq7f/

Points 1-3 can all be done with fiat. Point 4 is an example of a use case for Bitcoin enabled by censorship resistance. Censorship resistance is the only unique advantage Bitcoin has to offer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:41:25
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidhifa/

>You're speaking from a very lucky and privileged position. My guess would be that you do not have to worry about oppression, censorship or corruption where you live. lol. I don't really care. Bitcoin needs more utility. It's not coming from merchant adoption. I don't know why everyone gets so triggered when someone points this out.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:28:26
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidh5sr/

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:24:42
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eidf38l/

Oh, the privilege shaming. It never grows old. People will use Bitcoin if it is profitable. Doesn't matter if they are rich or poor. Empirically we have seen that Bitcoin is equally unprofitable for the poor as it is for the rich. That is because it has no utility. If you want to help poor people, then you solve how to give Bitcoin more utility ;)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 15:02:41
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eiddfto/

I am probably the biggest optimist there is in terms of what bitcoin enables. You see it as negative because I am challenging the "status quo" road to adoption. Bitcoin can and will win. It just wont happen through merchant adoption and it wont happen through mythical global armageddon collapses. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 14:44:39
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eid58j5/

Cash was more convenient than gold. Credit cards are more convenient than cash, and credit cards allow the user to borrow money they don't have. Crypto is in no way better than credit cards for spending at merchants. It is volatile, expensive to acquire, and very difficult to learn. The only aspect crypto beats fiat in is **censorship resistance.** If you are spending Bitcoin at a merchant, it is still censored through extortion, regulation, KYC/AML... Essentially rendering it useless for centralized merchants.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 13:17:23
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eiczyig/

Everything you just mentioned with the exception of cross-boarder payments can be done on fiat. Bitcoin's only advantage is **censorship resistance.**

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 12:21:56
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eicxoyx/

Peer-to-peer trade. P2P trade enables trade free of extortion, regulation, mafias, and expensive middlemen. It cannot be done using fiat, and Bitcoin can create a scalable system for enabling p2p trade.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:56:49
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eicxcqn/

Don't take my word for it, look here - [https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks](https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:53:03
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eicwln2/

Alice and Bob are not going to acquire Bitcoin to purchase services they can already purchase with a credit card... It's never going to happen.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:44:32
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eicvu48/

No one is going to acquire Bitcoin to purchase services they can already purchase with a credit card... It's never going to happen.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:36:03
/r/btc/comments/b06ogj/good_point/eicvoh1/

\^This guy gets it

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:34:17
/r/btc/comments/b08mwj/even_if_lightning_network_100_worked_and_even_if/eicvb0r/

For anyone who is interested, I believe this proposal outlines how we can build broadly appealing use cases: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 12, 2019 11:30:01
/r/btc/comments/azh2wq/why_bitcoin_is_not_censorship_resistant_and_how/ei9539v/

I agree having public reputation is certainly a concern from the standpoint of censorship. An assumption of the network is safety in numbers. If a broad section of the population begins to participate in p2p trade, the mafia simply does not have the enforcement power, or social capital to stop it. I also agree any process which is downstream of manufacturing or fixed real estate presents a vulnerability as it is subject to censorship injected at the upstream location. Some manufacturing processes will be incentivized to decentralize, but many will not be capable of doing so. There are other potential solutions to combat this problem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 10, 2019 23:22:02
/r/btc/comments/az7j8k/in_prep_for_an_interview_w_petermccormack_help_me/ei5vqdu/

It does not matter what you or anyone else thinks blocksize should be. The idea that Bitcoin Core can artificially restrict the amount of block space against market equilibrium is just as ridiculous as farmers trying to collectively restrict the amount of corn production. The market will correct, whether that be on the BTC chain, or another one.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 9, 2019 15:43:39
/r/btc/comments/ays1be/bitcoin_should_not_be_waiting_around_for_a_global/ei30u6n/

You can already do all of that on Bitcoin Cash today.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 8, 2019 12:47:40
/r/btc/comments/ays1be/bitcoin_should_not_be_waiting_around_for_a_global/ei2zt19/

>Predictable inflation, zero counterparty risk (compared to digital fiat), predictably low fees for the user, and no fees for the merchant to accept it. This is precisely my point, and precisely why I keep posting. Alice does not care about any of that. Best case scenario, Bitcoin saves Alice 3% with the merchant. By the time she goes through Coinbase, BitPay, price volatility, learning Bitcoin, linking her bank account, etc... credit cards are less expensive. No one is going to put up with that to save an absolute best case 3%. It's never going to happen. Don't take my word for it, the proof is right here: [https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks](https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 8, 2019 12:35:57
/r/btc/comments/ays1be/bitcoin_should_not_be_waiting_around_for_a_global/ei2z9k8/

>Fidelity (with $2.46 trillion in assets under management), is expected to bring credibility and help legitimize Bitcoin BTC. This is the "Moon-lambo" narrative. Institutions pumping bags does not make me any freer, or give Bitcoin any more utility. >There are hundreds of developers, and thousands of Beta testers, working on Lightning Network, working around the clock, and this exciting new technology, will drive a new breed of investors, and new wallets, and new apps, for Bitcoin BTC. **Even if LN works**, it still needs to find the proper use case for Bitcoin in payments. Bitcoin Cash has proven this use case has not been found as no one uses it for payments. The bottleneck is not Lightning Network/payments or institutions, it is **use cases**

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 8, 2019 12:29:40
/r/btc/comments/ays1be/bitcoin_should_not_be_waiting_around_for_a_global/ei2xifm/

> Pure nonsense. Feel free to link some actual sources for user numbers. Don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself. The blocks are empty, and all you guys talk about is expanding blocksize. Clearly blocksize is not the bottleneck here. [https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks](https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/blocks) Humor me, what is the **financial** incentive for Alice to switch to Bitcoin?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 8, 2019 12:09:42
/r/btc/comments/ays1be/bitcoin_should_not_be_waiting_around_for_a_global/ei2vwvu/

It's been 10 years and we have virtually no active users, and you guys keep proposing the same "Solutions." Alice does not care about blocksize, Alice does not care about "Decentralization," Alice does not care about Bitpay merchant adoption. She needs a financial incentive to switch. There is virtually no one in r/btc who can make a case for why Alice is going to switch to Bitcoin. They all are all just hoping it will happen one day. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 8, 2019 11:51:14
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ay1dyb/fight_for_15_and_fewer_hours/ehy7l8q/

Mind=Blown! You are an innovative social justice warrior u/WhiteWorm!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on March 6, 2019 17:13:54
/r/btc/comments/ay48qs/traditional_merchant_adoption_will_not_attract/ehy7ega/

There are less than 4 million Bitcoin wallets with more than $100 in them. If you use an exchange wallet, are you really using Bitcoin?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 6, 2019 17:11:56
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ay1dyb/fight_for_15_and_fewer_hours/ehy3kxj/

I think a living wage is 10000/hour. You sir, are a greedy capitalist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on March 6, 2019 16:32:28
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ay1dyb/fight_for_15_and_fewer_hours/ehy159v/

If we raised minimum wage to 10000/hour we could all own a yacht, private jet, and mansion. Do you want everyone to live like a slave? u/vegeta_prince Why stop at 15?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on March 6, 2019 16:06:17
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehwhgaz/

u/[ChantellVeloz](https://www.reddit.com/user/ChantellVeloz), u/[HunterSTolkien](https://www.reddit.com/user/HunterSTolkien) Without centralized business, the mafia has no means of enforcing any of their arbitrary decrees. We outnumber the mafia 1000:1. 99.99999999% of the time, the rules of the mafia are not enforced by the mafia, but rather enforced by the centralized business on the mafia's behalf. The centralized business is an easy target as a very large amount of value is routed through one location. This makes it profitable for the mafia to surveil/extort the business. The business then passes the cost of extortion on to the consumer. If we trade peer-to-peer, then the mafia has no means of enforcing its rules/extortion, as the cost to surveil every individual will drastically exceed the value returned. P2P trade essentially makes the mafia obsolete.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 6, 2019 01:53:24
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehuht8r/

Correct. You make a tweet to a hosting location. You broadcast the existence of your tweet at said hosting location. You hash the tweet to the blockchain to prove that said tweet existed at said time, and also to prove that you are the author. dTwitter companies/clients will gather up all the tweets they can find. They are incentivized to get all the tweets, because you don't like it when half your friends list is missing from the index. There will be multiple "dTwitter" companies with a complete database of the "dTwitter" network. By doing this, no "dTwitter" company has the power to censor access to the open "dTwitter" network, as you can easily move to another "dTwitter" company and gain access to the **exact same** network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 5, 2019 10:57:37
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehuh8ct/

Happy to discuss more in the Discord channel linked in the graphic above DAOs/smart contracts are extremely complicated and really don't solve anything There is a much better way to do dapps &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 5, 2019 10:51:01
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehte2bk/

You are missing the central point. The point is that if any provider falls subject to censorship by the mafia (charges extortion/implements regulations) or if they start charging high fees, the user can switch providers **while still having access to the same network effect.** If Facebook/Twitter/Uber/AirBnb/whoever start charging high fees, or implementing extortion/regulation on behalf of the mafia, the users are forced to either pay the high cost, or completely leave the network. They are unable to access the same network effect from a competing provider. This is the nearly the same economic concept for which Bitcoin mining currently operates.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 22:11:28
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehtak0g/

u/[uiuyiuyo](https://www.reddit.com/user/uiuyiuyo) Everything you just mentioned will still occur. It will just be provided in an open network, instead of having one monopoly provider provide all levels of the service. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 21:26:08
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsvhdw/

You can still have everything we did before for reputation, they just compete in an open market instead of operating within their walled gardens. We don't have to create anything new.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 18:09:41
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehssych/

Bitcoin mining is technically not "Trustless," you trust economic incentives of competition. The same can be applied to dapps. I have outlined a general way this can be implemented for dapps if you are interested: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 17:38:55
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehss3go/

You are right, and I agree, but if you want people to be interested you have to speak their language.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 17:28:38
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsqzil/

> It’s not just about transferring reputation but rather the number of users using their marketplace. The difference is with this model, is you can press one button and instantly broadcast your listing/trade requests/video/whatever, to 100 different platforms without needing an account at each one. It's kind of like Kayak, search one and done. Except it will all appear in the same interface. You won't be rerouted to each independent website.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 17:15:26
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsn0s0/

The user can host its video anywhere on the Internet. The user broadcasts the video's location on-chain. If the hosting location gets censored, the user can change the location at any time and let everyone know through an on-chain broadcast. Competing indexers locate all the videos in the network. Prospective users search indexes for suggestions of videos.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 16:29:31
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsm6gj/

Alice and Bob are only adopting BCH if it can save them 10%+ over fiat. Dapps are the only application that can save 10%+. Alice and Bob do not care about blocksize. They do not care about sound money. My proposal has nothing to do with smart contracts, or anything Ethereum is working on. It is an extremely simple proposal and does not alter the Bitcoin protocol in any way. If you would like to discuss, I am happy to show you how this is beneficial to adoption, without changing the protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 16:20:07
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehskx8q/

Yes, but YouTube, Uber, eBay, etc charge high fees and are subject to censorship from mafias. The censorship in most cases cost 1X-3X more than the platform fees. The censorship is the primary cost, not just the middleman To create a dapp the only thing that needs to be stored on-chain is the user's identity. You don't need smart contracts, tokens, videos, or any other nonsense stored on-chain The only thing that needs to be stored on-chain is the user's identity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 16:06:06
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsk7vj/

Alice and Bob do not give 2 poops about "Sound Money." They only care if they can gain more resources at less cost. Build useful dapps, and everything else follows.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 15:58:12
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehsgcea/

The cost of switching networks is not the time to create a new account, it is the illiquidity of users on the new network. Sure, a content creator can leave YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Uber, eBay, etc, but they will be punished by the poor network effect on competing platforms. Illiquidity is a huge cost. The core value proposition of all businesses is essentially providing liquidity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 15:14:50
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs96qb/

Videos can be made by anyone, and videos can be consumed by anyone

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:53:19
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs7imy/

Dapps will be done better and more efficiently without a smart contracting layer

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:34:27
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs77ey/

A competing matchmaker is basically the same concept as a Bitcoin miner. Bitcoin miners all compete **within** a network to match peer-to-peer. It is the open competition that keeps them honest. In the future, when you make a tweet, you won't just broadcast it to Twitter, you will broadcast it to Twitter and say 100 other providers. This removes the monopoly that Twitter currently has. Take the same concept and apply it to everything

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:30:52
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs6dqw/

There are probably 10 million developers in the world capable of recreating Uber/eBay/any application's UI. Companies don't make money on their UI, they make money on holding the network effect hostage.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:21:34
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs67rv/

If the devs knew what they were doing we would have more than 10 active users in the crypto space. The bottleneck to adoption is not developers, it is poor vision.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:19:40
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehs5vev/

You can still have all that, the difference is it is subject to open competition instead of one monopoly provider. Additionally the user can opt-out. Why do I need to pay Uber/AirBnb/whoever insurance/fees if I have already traded with the person 2 times. Or why do I need insurance if I know 5 friends who trust the seller. Uber/AirBnb do no make money off of insurance/arbitration, they make it because their users are held hostage to the network effect of the platform. Anyone can create insurance/arbitration, not anyone can create a network effect.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 13:15:49
/r/btc/comments/ax8tsa/apps_like_uberebayairbnbyoutube_are_the_first/ehryd4h/

People are so caught up with blocksize, LN, Core, censorship, tokens, and a bunch of other nonsense. If a rank 800 coin on coinmarketcap builds these dapps first, it will. All you have to do to create a dapp is register identity to a Bitcoin address, then clone the legacy semi-decentralized infrastructure on top of the on-chain user base. No need for smart contracts, no need for IPFS, no need for utility tokens. It really could not be any easier. We can build 1000 TB blocks on BCH, it does not matter if there are no dapps.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on March 4, 2019 11:49:26
/r/btc/comments/avwo58/the_bitcoin_cash_community_has_organic_grass/ehit5qz/

Decentralized money and the state cannot coexist. It's one or the other.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 28, 2019 20:45:38
/r/btc/comments/avpnul/bitmain_has_still_failed_to_fix_the_vulnerability/ehhb3d3/

You say that like it's a bad thing

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 28, 2019 10:45:01
/r/btc/comments/avggvx/does_holding_public_elections_make_a_mafia/ehhabv7/

That is a fair point, and that is essentially the underlying motive for Bitcoin. It is creating a new form of governance. Instead of relocating to a new civilisation, we are creating a new paradigm for the existing civilisation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 28, 2019 10:36:29
/r/btc/comments/avggvx/does_holding_public_elections_make_a_mafia/ehfz7go/

If you hypothetically make a 100% free and fair election, is it fair to have the election in the first place? What about all the people who do not believe (and don't participate) in elections? Why are the non-participants still forced to comply with the election's decision?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 27, 2019 20:44:15
/r/btc/comments/avggvx/does_holding_public_elections_make_a_mafia/ehfw8nu/

Are elections inherently free and fair?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 27, 2019 20:04:40
/r/btc/comments/auszl4/bitcoins_bottleneck_visualized_how_to_achieve/ehd15m9/

You raise a valid point, but these types of events are entirely out of our control. Additionally, even in the event there is a financial collapse, there is no guarantee Bitcoin will be the solution (as exhibitid in many regions already). Governments will just institute a new system and the sheep will go along with it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 26, 2019 19:56:28
/r/btc/comments/auszl4/bitcoins_bottleneck_visualized_how_to_achieve/ehbqhrs/

I was going to give a short explanation of each selection, but figured that would require too much text and would scare people away. You are correct in that many use cases above such as decentralized exchange and merchant adoption will be in existence far earlier than outlined above. The distinction I am making is that these use cases will not be a **driver** of adoption until outlined above. Merchant adoption has technically existed for 5 years, but I would venture to say virtually no users have joined Bitcoin for the sole purpose of spending at merchants. Merchant adoption will not be a **driver** of adoption until the 3% fees imposed by credit cards can be cut out through Bitcoin. For this to happen, many items such as Bitcoin volatility and acquisition costs must vastly decrease. This is not happening any time soon. With regards to decentralized exchange, yes they exist, but in my view they are not a **driver** of adoption. In my view trading between competing cryptos is a zero sum game. Decentralized exchange will only be valuable as a **driver** of adoption when real world assets (stocks, commodities, etc) can be traded. This can be done through derivatives. This requires liquidity in Bitcoin, and liquidity in the derivatives market. Decentralized exchange of real world assets will be a driver because private trade of these assets cannot be facilitated elsewhere.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 26, 2019 10:42:22
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/ar5v7p/justin_amash_on_twitter_a_national_emergency/eglmxvq/

Did Justin Amash just now realize the constitution has about as much power as any other piece of paper?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on February 16, 2019 10:22:37
/r/btc/comments/aqjtzy/bashing_the_competition_is_necessary_because_they/eggurof/

That's a fair point. It just seems to me BCH community's focus is veering off path. I could be totally wrong.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 14, 2019 12:03:03
/r/btc/comments/aqjtzy/bashing_the_competition_is_necessary_because_they/eggo18i/

When nearly every single post in this sub is something complaining about LN/CSW/Core/blocksize it starts to become an unproductive echo chamber. If you want to punish bad actors, build better products and out-compete them.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 14, 2019 10:43:40
/r/Buttcoin/comments/aq13ms/why_are_butters_so_obsessed_with_solving_problems/eggmug7/

lol, you guys are a bunch of NPC losers. Thank you for the entertainment. To anyone who finds this interesting, happy to discuss more. See Discord link above.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Buttcoin on February 14, 2019 10:29:06
/r/btc/comments/aq85r0/bitcoin_corelightning_sucks_we_already_know_this/egeafna/

That is what I was arguing against. We can have 1000000000000000 tps. It's a moot point. The blocks are empty. We need to build the use cases or else the big blocks are as irrelevant as BTC.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 13, 2019 12:54:21
/r/btc/comments/aq85r0/bitcoin_corelightning_sucks_we_already_know_this/egea2wm/

I and many others propose solutions all the time and no one cares. Bitcoin does not have a developer problem, it has a poor vision problem (to be fair it's a hard problem to solve). If the developers knew what they were doing we would have more than 10 users by now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 13, 2019 12:50:26
/r/btc/comments/aq85r0/bitcoin_corelightning_sucks_we_already_know_this/ege9g84/

Such a ridiculous argument on so many different levels: 1. Maybe you should read my original post where I am clearly arguing against the "Starbucks use case" as Bitcoin's calling. 2. Are we supposed to just sit and wait around for hyperinflation to happen for Bitcoin to be useful. Gold bugs have been waiting around since 1971, still hasn't happened. 3. The "Inflation" argument is based on the idea that Bitcoin's greatest use case is store of value and most people in this sub can't even come up with other use cases than that. 4. Then you come attacking me on the alleged basis that I am a rich white college kid and that I hate poor people.... and then claim I am the ignorant one... lol

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 13, 2019 12:43:31
/r/btc/comments/aq85r0/bitcoin_corelightning_sucks_we_already_know_this/ege45sx/

No one is going to just randomly start buying Starbucks with Bitcoin Cash to save maybe 2% on fees. It's never going to happen. We must build use cases that can only be accomplished on permissionless cash. Otherwise there is no incentive to switch.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 13, 2019 11:45:42
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcsmpy/

Corporations are the willing arms of the mafia. Remove one corporation and another will take its place. Corporations are playing the game as the rules have been written. They are just better at it than you are. If we wish to remove the mafia and the corporations we must rewrite the rules. This system rewrites the rules.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 21:44:09
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcrcaw/

Local taxi companies are not the mafia

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 21:28:22
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcqhyj/

Interesting. I am of the opinion that the road to hell is paved with dispute resolution. In my estimation most mechanisms for third party dispute resolution cost more than the actual fraud. I think for most trades it makes sense to have the producer of the service be the final arbiter of all disputes for the following reasons: 1. Dispute resolution is expensive and is subject to as much fraud as the original trade. 2. In most cases the judges aren't sure who is right. 3. The producer is staking its reputation on the trade. This essentially acts as collateral against the trade.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 21:17:53
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcf7q4/

Now the user can simultaneously broadcast to Uber, Lyft, and 100 other matchmakers. There is no loss in liquidity. They can simultaneously exist in all networks. The network effect now does not exist just within Uber, but it exists among Uber, Lyft, and 100 other openly competing matchmakers... aka Uber no longer has a monopoly on the network effect.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 18:52:06
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcbdzl/

Once of these years :')

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 18:03:41
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egcbc8c/

All network effects are defended by centralized custodianship of the user's identity. eBay, YouTube, Uber, AirBnb, eBay, make money because their users are unable to transfer their identity elsewhere. Now the user owns 100% of his identity and is no longer dependent on centralized custodians allowing him to use it. New users will be incentivized to join the new network for 30%+ cost savings. That should be enough of an incentive for users to abandon the old network effect into the new one.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 18:03:01
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egc71b5/

That is correct. When automated cars or drones are widely available, Amazon will be made obsolete by this system.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 17:12:11
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egc3wdk/

It eliminates the middleman. By eliminating the middleman: 1. Eliminate fees paid to middleman 2. Make it very difficult for mafias to extort trade 3. Make it very difficult for mafias to enforce regumuhlations Those three properties imply cost savings of 30%+

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 16:38:30
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egc179n/

It is inscribed in the laws of economics. This will happen, and nothing can stop it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 16:09:32
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egc0w0t/

The ability to sell accounts in my view is an advantage of the system. It allows you to realize the equity value of your goodwill. Additionally, accounts with good reputation will be expensive and the value returned from scamming one trade will still greatly exceed the cost to acquire the account.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 16:06:06
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbzpr5/

I have been thinking about this peer-to-peer trade system for 8 months and the bottom of the rabbit hole just keeps getting farther and farther away. End Conclusion: It is a new form of government which economically punishes violators of the Non-Aggression Principle without a central arbiter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 15:53:30
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbz98t/

>Not sure who would define which market is which, though or how you would force people to only rate within the correct market The user will never actually view the reputation of trading partners. The user will consult third party algorithms which give them a generic trust score out of 100. Perhaps an overall trust score and another trust score within the given market. The algorithms will figure out which reputation should transfer in each situation. >Are you just trying to get the info out there, or are you planning any next steps to get this process to market anywhere? Both. We can use all the help we can get. If you are interested in joining see the Discord link in the graphic above.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 15:48:43
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbxzd9/

Welcome to the rabbit hole

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 15:35:15
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbwcud/

Good questions: > What about during initial adoption? During initial adoption, this metric will not be very useful. > How much of a disadvantage will that put late adopters or new populations? Newcomers will be at a disadvantage against incumbents. Newcomers can build reputation in low-risk markets where trust is not imperative. Reputation transfers across all markets. Additionally newcomers could have a sponsor with good reputation stake on the newcomer's behalf. > And, what if your reputation is low as a buyer? If one party, either the buyer or seller has good reputation, the trade will work smoothly. Whichever one has no/bad reputation will execute his end of the trade first. >Competing trusted third party providers can verify the account is held in good faith by a real person. How would this work in practice? People would do in-person verifications with trusted third parties. The trusted third party then signs the individual's "Bitcoin Address ID" verifying the ID is held by a real person. While not 100%, it will be pretty accurate. >I assume verification happens by looking up their Bitcoin Address ID on the third party provider's site? Prospective counterparties will scan the blockchain for the user's "Bitcoin Address ID" for valid verification signatures. >Would the third party providers decide how much proof is enough proof? Yes. The third party's reputation is at stake. If they have poor verification procedures, no one will trust their verification. >What incentivizes a user to verify their identity among multiple third party providers? The user will be incentivized to verify identity to the extent the market demands it. Without enough verification, the user will find it difficult to trade. > I assume the only motivation to back someone's skills is a quid-pro-quo situation? Users will pay money in order to take private licensing tests from competing third parties. The competing third parties stake their reputation by approving quality candidates. Users will seek out highly demanded licenses from trusted providers. > What if you back someone's skills and they aren't as good as a backing means? This is a many thousand year old problem. This proposal should improve upon old models as proving ownership of a third party license is nearly 100% verifiable on the blockchain.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 15:17:34
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbrvd9/

Payments are routed through a different set of addresses separate from the "Bitcoin Address ID." Privacy is definitely a concern for the user's ID. The best method is probably to sign contracts off-chain and only broadcast on-chain in the event of fraud. Simple thumbs up or thumbs down reviews can be given to maintain privacy, or optionally no reviews at all.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 14:28:09
/r/btc/comments/apusaa/how_to_create_mass_adoption_in_2_steps_it_really/egbp2g3/

Fraud is an inescapable reality of life. We can never eliminate it, only reduce it. I could probably write a 100 page document detailing all the different ways this system would reduce fraud more so than the current system. I will list a few points here. 1. An individual will have 1 immutable identity forever. If the person is 40 years old, and their "Bitcoin Address ID" is only 3 months old, that raises red flags. Every single trade the individual makes, he is staking his lifetime of identity on it. The value of that identity in most cases will be worth more than defrauding one trade. 2. Competing trusted third party providers can verify the account is held in good faith by a real person. This gives pretty good assurance that identities are not fake with bot reviews. 3. For higher skilled trades, competing trusted third parties can attest to skills claimed by the producer. 4. Web of Trust models give good assurance especially for local trades. 5. In-person trades are difficult to defraud as trade happens more or less at the same time. 6. Even in the event fraud is high, it would have to exceed the 30%+ discount P2P services offer to matter. 7. Producers and consumers can purchase insurance on secondary markets insuring the fraud rate on their trade. 8. Every method Uber/any other company does now to reduce fraud can still be done in this system, it just doesn't have a single monopoly provider in Uber.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 12, 2019 13:56:53
/r/btc/comments/angalb/bitcoin_is_a_communication_protocol_that_happens/efuagv2/

You missed the point entirely. The point is that Bitcoin as an asset does not matter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2019 21:14:05
/r/btc/comments/angalb/bitcoin_is_a_communication_protocol_that_happens/eft59pk/

Bitcoin's utility does not come from it being an asset. It comes from being a censorship resistant communication protocol. The asset value is not the end-goal, nor the value driver. Bitcoin is a communication protocol that happens to be an asset.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2019 12:49:42
/r/btc/comments/angalb/bitcoin_is_a_communication_protocol_that_happens/eft3qap/

You basically just restated my position. The asset value is forced as it is the only way we humans know how to efficiently transfer value. The artificial asset value is not the value driver. The value driver is the censorship resistant nature of the communication protocol.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 5, 2019 12:31:49
/r/btc/comments/amj1ne/is_selling_your_own_property_a_privilege_of/efmrhii/

Peer-to-peer trade is the antidote

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 21:20:13
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/eflye7u/

All wars in the history of mankind were started by governments. If the market can build an i-phone, I am sure it can build something as simple as infrastructure/education

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 14:33:41
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/eflwxw1/

It's not that you are anti-Bitcoin, it's that you don't understand Bitcoin. Kind of like when socialists make posts on Facebook, using their i-phone complaining about how bad capitalism is, while not realizing all their products are derived from capitalism.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 14:14:27
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/eflwm96/

If we lived in anarchy, the worst case scenario is that governments form.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 14:10:06
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/eflvdi0/

This is golden +1 u/Everluck

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 13:53:32
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/efluqy1/

Anyone with 2 eye balls can see government does not act in the interest of its voters

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 13:45:10
/r/btc/comments/amde4e/after_previous_narratives_died_sv_ln_rbtc_is_for/eflunqv/

The key difference is the anarchists are welcoming open discussion. The statists are suggesting that the anarchists stop the discussion altogether.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 13:43:59
/r/btc/comments/am5kb8/if_you_believe_in_government_then_you_also/efljm4i/

The constitution, much like the bible, is interpreted to mean whatever people want it to mean. This is the problem of the oracle. This is the very problem Satoshi attempted to solve and you continue to work on to this very day. If what you say is true, then why don't we just scrap the whole idea of blockchain and enshrine Bitcoin's rules on a piece of paper? Your very actions in working on Bitcoin prove that pieces of paper don't mean anything. People will do whatever they can get away with regardless of any arbitrary declaration written on a piece of paper.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 2, 2019 11:20:28
/r/btc/comments/am8eqa/if_you_believe_that_anarchy_is_not_the_answer_then/efkmke0/

We will market BCH to all people and it will be done through anarchist vehicles. The general populace has adopted many anarchist-like applications in the past without even knowing it. Uber, AirBnb, eBay, are all essentially anarchist applications. The only use case of BCH *is* anarchist applications. If you are using BCH with traditional centralized business models, then it is not solving anything other then pumping your BCH bags.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 23:32:54
/r/btc/comments/am5kb8/if_you_believe_in_government_then_you_also/efkku6i/

I agree. I am just pointing out the hyprocrisy of statist Bitcoin holders. As you just outlined a fundamental security assumption of Bitcoin is routed in anarchist disobedience of the state. Yet all these statist Bitcoin holders run around saying Bitcoin should distance itself from anarchist principles.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 23:04:08
/r/btc/comments/am8eqa/if_you_believe_that_anarchy_is_not_the_answer_then/efkdfsq/

"No direct control of currency" implies that when you spend the currency the state does not also have the right to steal a percentage of the transfer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 21:13:30
/r/btc/comments/am8eqa/if_you_believe_that_anarchy_is_not_the_answer_then/efkcd9e/

Fiat can be put on the blockchain and reap all the same benefits you mentioned. The blockchain is not unique to Bitcoin. The only property unique to Bitcoin is ***permissionless*** payments. That is payments which the state cannot censor. Statists do not believe in permissionless payments. They believe government has the right to censor any payment it pleases. Thus it is confusing why statists support Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 20:57:33
/r/Agorism/comments/am49bx/peertopeer_trade_makes_the_mafia_obsolete/efk16sl/

To anyone who is looking to build real systems of actually achieving Agorism, we could use your help. PM for more info

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Agorism on February 1, 2019 18:16:48
/r/btc/comments/am4tb2/statists_be_like/efjjnni/

Bitcoin is not made up of coins, it is made up of people. Coins do not exist. It is an organization like any other.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 14:44:40
/r/btc/comments/am5kb8/if_you_believe_in_government_then_you_also/efjhecy/

Freedom by definition is being a renegade.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on February 1, 2019 14:18:59
/r/btc/comments/aj4im0/how_to_make_all_corporations_government_and_fiat/eesszmi/

Why is a smart contract needed?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 23, 2019 17:28:11
/r/btc/comments/aj4im0/how_to_make_all_corporations_government_and_fiat/eessrkf/

The user will propose trade requests for teachers, fire services, infrastructure, security, and health care. Competing providers will make offers. The app will match trade requests with trade offers.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 23, 2019 17:25:40
/r/btc/comments/aj4im0/how_to_make_all_corporations_government_and_fiat/eesshi3/

Instead of broadcasting to a single monopoly provider, the user will broadcast to all relevant matchmakers. For example instead of broadcasting ride offers/requests to just Uber, the user will broadcast ride requests to Uber, Lyft, and 300 other matchmakers. The broadcasts will be done in universally understood formats. The broadcasts will be made from on-chain identities which are not reliant on a third party. This process can be applied to any app (YouTube, eBay, Airbnb, etc)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 23, 2019 17:22:27
/r/btc/comments/aj3kz2/peertopeer_cash_is_incomplete_without_peertopeer/eesou3t/

lol. Bitcoin's only advantage over fiat is ***permissionless*** payments. If you are making a payment that already has the mafia's permission, then you don't need Bitcoin. Fiat works just fine. You are just a get-rich quicker like all the other newbs.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 23, 2019 16:41:08
/r/btc/comments/aj3kz2/peertopeer_cash_is_incomplete_without_peertopeer/eesn0k3/

I am happy to explain if it is above your IQ level

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 23, 2019 16:20:38
/r/btc/comments/airs9n/average_joe_pays_less_than_2_of_his_annual/eeqgnyu/

Slave on slave action

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 22, 2019 20:12:32
/r/btc/comments/airs9n/average_joe_pays_less_than_2_of_his_annual/eeq1zvn/

Yes, but not many people hold 1 year's worth of income in cash.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 22, 2019 17:13:05
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ah1rgb/the_road_to_ancapistan_goes_through_agora/eeb8vuv/

Without centralized business government has effectively no power. If you make centralized business obsolete, then you have effectively made "Government" obsolete.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on January 17, 2019 18:32:57
/r/btc/comments/ah15gg/decentralized_money_has_no_use_case_with/eeap3q1/

You can use decentralized money at centralized business, it's just not going to offer any advantage over fiat.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 17, 2019 14:54:46
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ee8pyis/

So if I send 100 back and forth between my checkings and savings account 1 million times does that mean I have a 0% tax rate?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 16, 2019 20:40:25
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ee8pr24/

You aren't counting state/local/debt spending.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 16, 2019 20:37:56
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ee8h717/

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government\_spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 16, 2019 19:02:15
/r/btc/comments/agdnlm/the_killer_app_of_blockchain_is_not_store_of/ee67rf1/

The key difference is competing third parties can give you identity. There is not a central point of failure.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 22:55:19
/r/btc/comments/agagr6/trigger_warning_bch_cannot_compete_with_visa/ee5sorj/

If you are using BCH to pay for something at a centralized regulated business best case scenario is it can save 2%. BCH only has a use case with P2P commerce.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 19:32:49
/r/btc/comments/agdnlm/the_killer_app_of_blockchain_is_not_store_of/ee5gihi/

A Bitcoin address can be used as identity registration. Third party attestations are used to build a profile -- The same way any other identity system works. The advantage of blockchain is that past records are immutable, it is all publicly viewable, signing cannot be forged, and there is no third party custodianship of the identity.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 16:59:30
/r/btc/comments/agagr6/trigger_warning_bch_cannot_compete_with_visa/ee53nsk/

People have been calling for a financial collapse for 50 years now. We don't need to wait for a collapse. We can beat them right now.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 14:31:07
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/agakwk/to_anyone_out_there_who_is_tired_of_theorizing/ee4rikl/

Please PM me if you want to help build this. No development skills required. If we get enough committed team members we can make this a reality

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on January 15, 2019 12:17:27
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee4onfa/

Thank you for your work Jonathan! All I am pointing out is that if we had a significant user base all 100% dependent on low fees, they would have been forced to switch to BCH. Don't take my word for it, the BTC/BCH ratio is 0.03. If there was a material userbase it would be higher than 0.03.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 11:45:50
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee3nvu1/

You are right. All the Grandmas of the world haven't joined Bitcoin because the user interface is sloppy. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's slower, cost more, volatile, and best of all has no use case which fiat does not also cover. None of those things matter. It's the user interface. If you want Grandma to join, she must save 10%+. Interfaces are easy. Use cases are hard. Solve the economics, create the use cases and Grandma will come.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 15, 2019 00:11:47
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee3kgq5/

1. The best way to onboard new users is to have them sell their time for crypto. This completely routes around the fiat system. My proposal creates a scalable system for doing that. 2. This goes back to demand being the driver of supply. Secure and easy to use wallets don't exist because no one uses this shit. Bring in the users (demand) and I promise you easy-to-use wallets will be made. My proposal creates a scalable system for REAL use cases that can be created TODAY. Look no further than crypto exchanges. As demand for trading altcoins increased the number of Bitcoin exchanges increased and thus the quality of exchanges increased. We didn't build 500 Bitcoin exchanges, and then onboard users to fill them. We onboarded users first, which then created the incentive to create 500 different Bitcoin exchanges. ALL protocol scaling and development is downstream of onboarding users. My proposal outlines how to onboard users TODAY. Right now we have maybe 100 devs working on BCH. If we had 5 million users we would have 100000 devs working on BCH

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2019 23:16:29
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee3j7fq/

I was referring to supply of \*blockspace, not coin supply

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2019 22:58:12
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee3gjic/

I have outlined how to build a scalable P2P Economy on BCH. Any comments/critiques are welcome: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2019 22:20:58
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee3fgd1/

Please wake up people. The BTC/BCH ratio is 0.03. The BTC blocks are 25X bigger than BCH even with higher fees. There are no users dependent on low fees. Bring in REAL users and I promise you they will demand big blocks and they will be built as a result. Demand drives supply. Supply does not drive demand.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2019 22:06:13
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/afz97j/proof_of_work_is_larger_than_a_protocol_it_is_a/ee3awas/

You are discounting the role of surveillance and its implications when concerning value transfer. Virtually all fiat transfers are subject to inescapable extortion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on January 14, 2019 21:06:49
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/afz97j/proof_of_work_is_larger_than_a_protocol_it_is_a/ee3976f/

It is volatile but it retains 100% of its value when changing hands. The same cannot be said of fiat. This property alone is worth the volatility.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on January 14, 2019 20:44:27
/r/btc/comments/ag2d2g/right_now_scaling_the_protocol_is_a_complete/ee38z42/

There are maybe 10 people in this world who's use case is immediately dependent on large blocks. Core got away with it because no one really cared. If there were 1 million users all dependent on small fees, and could not do what they wanted without them, Core would have been forced to increase the blocksize or watch 1 million users leave. No one left Bitcoin Core, because no one was using it to begin with. All arguments made against small blocks are 100% hypothetical (they are correct), but they have no economic backing because no one actually uses the chain. Bring in 1 million REAL users and I guarantee you you will win the blocksize debate.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 14, 2019 20:41:33
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/afz97j/proof_of_work_is_larger_than_a_protocol_it_is_a/ee2oqqm/

You keep making a case against an argument I never made. It is very clear you did not read the article... Which is totally fine, just don't come here trying to pin me down on arguments I never made.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on January 14, 2019 16:22:23
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/afz97j/proof_of_work_is_larger_than_a_protocol_it_is_a/ee2mv7g/

Read the article. The article is not about mining or Bitcoin. On top of that you aren't even addressing why Bitcoin's PoW is important. PoW itself does not produce value. That is not the purpose of it. The purpose of PoW is to make it so no one can achieve passive ownership of the network. It creates a constant rotating guard of network guardians.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on January 14, 2019 16:01:22
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/afz97j/proof_of_work_is_larger_than_a_protocol_it_is_a/ee2loqg/

Read the article. It's not even about Bitcoin mining.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on January 14, 2019 15:48:35
/r/btc/comments/aekv00/uber_brought_the_taxi_cartel_to_their_knees_by/edq3sfl/

Freedom Project is giving out free equity to anyone who helps us build this network on BCH. No development skills required. PM me for more details!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 10, 2019 12:18:34
/r/btc/comments/aekv00/uber_brought_the_taxi_cartel_to_their_knees_by/edq3kas/

You can still have background checks, certifications, etc. They will just be provided in an open market, instead of creating a central point of failure through Uber.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 10, 2019 12:16:38
/r/btc/comments/aeklpf/electron_cash_users_we_need_feedbackhelp_deciding/edq383e/

This all sounds great in theory to the advanced user, but Alice and Bob are never going to understand why a whitelist is necessary, what it is for, the risk profile of the whitelist, and who to trust on a whitelist. They definitely aren't going to know who to blacklist. I think by default Electron Cash should have two different streams of connections. One stream from the open network, and one stream from the trusted Electron Cash servers. Then the wallet will cross reference the two streams. If the streams are in disagreement, the wallet will prevent the user from making any changes/transactions. Advanced users can opt-out of the default setup.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 10, 2019 12:13:34
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edpr52p/

The cash is P2P, but the trade is not. Walmart is a middleman, and is thus subject to the decree of "Government."

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 10, 2019 10:14:30
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edo88al/

u/radmege Merchant adoption isn't a selling point. Visa/Mastercard already have merchant adoption. What incentive do Alice and Bob have to switch to Bitcoin?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 18:39:04
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edo77lh/

1% is in reference to credit card processing fees, not economies of scale. I think it's safe to assume the average rate of extortion far exceeds 10%, given that government spending is generally \~40% of GDP. How can government spend 40% of GDP if it is only extorting less than 10% of GDP?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 18:25:40
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edo41fn/

You have obviously never run a business

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 17:45:09
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edo3hsf/

Cost savings is everything. Alice and Bob are never going to switch to Bitcoin out of feel-good principles. They will only switch if it allows them to acquire more resources at less cost. Starbucks needs permission from the state in order to accept your "Decentralized" Bitcoin payment. This cancels out all of Bitcon's permissionless properties.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 17:38:27
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/edo01a9/

Centralization does save from economies of scale, but it also incurs huge cost from extortion from mafias. P2P trade can compete by cutting out the cost of extortion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 16:58:57
/r/btc/comments/aeblgg/even_if_amazon_starbucks_and_walmart_all_accept/ednz8a1/

Everything you have just outlined implies 1% cost savings. Not exactly a paradigm shift. Bitcoin is about permissionless value transfer. You cannot achieve permissionless value transfer with centralized regulated companies no matter how "Decentralized" Bitcoin is.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 9, 2019 16:50:48
/r/btc/comments/adjvx8/simply_replacing_fiat_with_bitcoin_in_the_legacy/edidv8u/

You can create the most theoretically sound money in the history of the universe, if you can't *use* it as sound money then it doesn't matter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 7, 2019 16:48:34
/r/btc/comments/adjvx8/simply_replacing_fiat_with_bitcoin_in_the_legacy/edic4nn/

Government issues 3% annual property tax on Bitcon... Oh shit, there goes 0% inflation.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 7, 2019 16:34:09
/r/btc/comments/adjvx8/simply_replacing_fiat_with_bitcoin_in_the_legacy/edi5kbz/

I believe the following theory outlines a scalable system for creating a P2P economy: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 7, 2019 15:37:44
/r/btc/comments/adjvx8/simply_replacing_fiat_with_bitcoin_in_the_legacy/edi525i/

P2P Economy: Trade is conducted directly peer-to-peer without a middleman. Legacy Economy: Trade is conducted peer-to-middleman-to-peer. This creates a central point of failure. This is how virtually all corporations are structured. \----------------------------------------------------- All of Bitcoin's advantageous properties are effectively rendered useless when dealing with centralized businesses. Centralized businesses are beholden to the state due to having a central point of failure which can easily be exploited.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 7, 2019 15:33:15
/r/btc/comments/acl09i/bitcoin_is_a_technology_that_allows_for_lower/edblqih/

u/jstolfi The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is it is politically agnostic. It doesn't care about anyone's claim to moral superiority be it yourself or any "Government." If it enables consumers to save, then consumers will use it. It's that simple.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 5, 2019 14:40:49
/r/btc/comments/acl09i/bitcoin_is_a_technology_that_allows_for_lower/ed9iuwg/

u/Kain_niak I wish I could give this +100. All the devs are trying to solve problems that don't exist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2019 19:09:18
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed94nu1/

You create your own little network. You don't bring anyone with you unless they run your implementation as well.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2019 16:07:23
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ed8yyys/

You are a semantics troll.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2019 15:00:37
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed8aklu/

The dapp is based on an open network. Everyone runs the implementation they choose. If their implementation is incompatible with the rest of the network they fork off and create a new dapp network.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2019 10:35:56
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ed8a8qe/

So tell me, what is the rate of extortion?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 4, 2019 10:32:29
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed7br4o/

All economics are derived from consumer tastes and preferences.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 23:50:53
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed72z1t/

There is nothing in this world more valuable than social consensus. Something developers can't seem to understand.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 21:39:01
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed6t6bg/

No need for DAO's, smart contracts, utility tokens or any other confusing setup. We have created a new model which is much simpler.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 19:24:35
/r/btc/comments/ac89v2/jordan_peterson_uploading_to_bittube_should_serve/ed5y1lj/

Freedom Project is giving out free equity to anyone who helps us build the dapp network on BCH. No development skills required. PM me for more details!

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 13:13:07
/r/btc/comments/ac79lq/the_coin_that_ends_up_winning_will_be_the_coin/ed5wf17/

Dapp creators will charge a very tiny daily subscription fee which is automatically deducted from subscriber's hot wallets. The user could theoretically download the dapp elsewhere without paying for it, but the subscription fee will be so tiny it will probably be worth it to just pay for the dapp from the trusted source.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 12:53:19
/r/btc/comments/ac79lq/the_coin_that_ends_up_winning_will_be_the_coin/ed5umar/

Much broader than that. Virtually 100% of the population is subject to extortion.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 12:31:15
/r/btc/comments/ac79lq/the_coin_that_ends_up_winning_will_be_the_coin/ed5tbt5/

Agreed, but most people only care about *their* bags.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 12:15:16
/r/btc/comments/ac79lq/the_coin_that_ends_up_winning_will_be_the_coin/ed5t6nr/

Any time a normie pays extortion, this is a wonderful opportunity for a dapp.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on January 3, 2019 12:13:30
/r/btc/comments/ab0tjv/if_alice_makes_a_purchase_on_amazonebay_using/ecxhl19/

No. Anyone can seamlessly create a competing "Amazon" warehouse within the network (without Amazon's approval).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 31, 2018 01:36:36
/r/btc/comments/ab0tjv/if_alice_makes_a_purchase_on_amazonebay_using/ecxfskj/

Amazon is a closed permissioned network. The Amazon protocol is a known commodity which anyone can easily recreate. The protocol has no value. The Amazon network is what's valuable. Amazon makes money by blocking access to the Amazon network and charging you a fee for its usage. Amazon does not ship you products. Amazon does not warehouse products. Amazon does not provide customer service. This is all done by permissioned "Employees." We can recreate all aspects of the Amazon protocol in an open network such that "Employees" no longer need Amazon's permission to list products, ship products, provide customer service, warehouse products, etc. All aspects of the Amazon protocol remain more or less the same, except we remove the need for Amazon's permission to act within the network. By removing the central chokepoint: 1. We create rigorous competition at all levels of the protocol (lower fees/better service). 2. Create a censorship resistant network which is economically impractical to extort.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 31, 2018 01:05:16
/r/btc/comments/ab0tjv/if_alice_makes_a_purchase_on_amazonebay_using/ecxavwy/

Everything you just mentioned can not only be accomplished in Freedom Network, but it will be better in Freedom Network. On top of lower fees.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 30, 2018 23:49:49
/r/btc/comments/ab0tjv/if_alice_makes_a_purchase_on_amazonebay_using/ecx9c8d/

That's a very long answer, but if you are genuinely interested I am happy to explain

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 30, 2018 23:26:39
/r/btc/comments/ab0tjv/if_alice_makes_a_purchase_on_amazonebay_using/ecx63u0/

Whitepaper: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vNRLtZ9sPORkjiA6qxWTUMEhaWy18hy/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 30, 2018 22:41:33
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ecvhwn2/

I haven't invented anything new. GDP is the most widely used economic metric in existence. GDP = New wealth creation (new transactions). You are trying to catch me on a technicality out of your own misunderstanding of GDP. Of course "Transactions" doesn't refer to literally every single transaction. The extortion rate is 50% because the mafia steals 50% of all wealth creation. Transfers of wealth do not reduce the effective extortion rate. You seem to be implying transfers of wealth do reduce the effective extortion rate.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 30, 2018 09:53:29
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ecjblyb/

1. GDP is the measure of all \*new wealth creation in an economy. This does not account for transfers of ownership involving previously created assets (inventory, used houses, used cars, etc). That is because nothing new is created when inventory/used car/used house transfers ownership. Otherwise the "Government" steals 50% of all \*new transactions. 2. If Government spends 50% of GDP, it must also steal 50% of GDP one way or another. It cannot spawn in this spending from nowhere. 3. There is a very small overlap of spending which coincides with what the individual would have spent on its own, but it's almost negligible.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 25, 2018 14:31:02
/r/btc/comments/a83edm/baakt_futures_hype_is_real_with_green_light/ec81gra/

Who needs cash when you drive lambos on the moon lol?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 21:07:18
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec7p1yl/

Bitcoin cannot simultaneously be permissionless and compliant with "Government." Only one can exist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 18:07:27
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec7nvy7/

So what happens when "Government" issues a 3% annual "tax" on your Bitcoin holdings? That would essentially be the same thing as inflation. Whoops, there goes muh "decentralization." "Decentralization" implies no one controls the Bitcoin. If "Government" can pass any law controlling what you can/cannot do with your Bitcoin, then the "Government" is the true owner of your Bitcoin

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 17:52:00
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec7n6xf/

So tell me, if I have to ask permission to use/own my Bitcoin, then what distinguishes it from fiat? What use case does Bitcoin serve that fiat doesn't? It's not "Decentralized" if you have to ask permission to use it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 17:42:59
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec7l354/

u/tophernator You do not understand Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about permissionless freedom. If you still must ask permission to use your Bitcoin, then what advantage does Bitcoin have over fiat? Why not just use fiat instead?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 17:15:59
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec7933k/

The beauty in the proposal is it doesn't give a damn about anyone's opinion. Anyone who files within this network will be removed from it through competition. You either cheat, or finish last... Cyclist's Doping Dilemma

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 14:43:43
/r/btc/comments/a7y5h7/most_people_are_trying_to_figure_out_how_to_apply/ec78ytu/

Calling it taxation makes you sound like a brainwashed slave

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 20, 2018 14:42:15
/r/btc/comments/a7lm1p/my_thoughts_on_freedom_network/ec5o13z/

Many have falsely associated "Smart Contracts" and "Utility Tokens" with dapps. Dapps work much better without smart contracts. Utility tokens are just a rehash of the same economic model the Federal Reserve has been running for decades

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 19, 2018 22:13:50
/r/btc/comments/a7lm1p/my_thoughts_on_freedom_network/ec5n9b2/

u/BeijingBitcoins Most people are trying to figure out how to apply Bitcoin to the current Starbucks model. What I find much more exciting is how we can apply a new P2P Starbucks model to Bitcoin. In the current economy, most trades incur \~40% extortion/regulatory cost from mafias and another \~15% fees from businesses. It varies depending on the situation. If we can eliminate the middleman, say Starbucks for example, then we eliminate both these costs. Mafias cannot efficiently extort P2P trade without a middleman. A dapp is simply a routing protocol that allows 2+ people to trade without a middleman. Starbucks can be recreated as an open P2P protocol. Here is what a Starbucks dapp might look like: 1. Suppliers - Suppliers sell Starbucks ingredients in an open market as specified by the protocol. 2. Baristas - Baristas assemble ingredients from suppliers and make drinks for consumers as specified by the protocol. 3. Location - Locations compete to host baristas at the best rate as specified by the protocol. Baristas can work at a 3rd party location, or host their own Starbucks location at their house. 4. Certification/Reviews - Trusted companies/peers attest to the validity of Suppliers/Baristas/Locations claimed by the operators. 5. Matchmaking - Starbucks/Barista locations are broadcasted to competing Indexes. Consumers can then choose a barista/location based on price/location/reputation/trusted certifications. Mafia extortion will be eliminated through the Cyclist's Doping Dilemma. Any entity unwilling, unable, or politically opposed to cutting out mafia extortion/high fees will be replaced by those who will... In other words: cheat or finish last. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 19, 2018 22:01:53
/r/btc/comments/a7lm1p/my_thoughts_on_freedom_network/ec4uda3/

The currency must have a use case. No one is going to switch to Bitcoin just so they can have a "Feel Good" payment mechanism for buying Starbucks. If Bitcoin doesn't save Average Joe at least 10%, he isn't switching. Dapps enable Average Joe to save upwards of 50%. That is huge incentive. That can only be achieved through dapps.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 19, 2018 15:14:40
/r/btc/comments/a7lm1p/my_thoughts_on_freedom_network/ec4ri0p/

Every dapp requires a different 1. Wallet 2. Identity 3. Password 4. Client 5. Social Network 6. Back-end FN is trying to create one universal distributed Identity/Wallet/Password/Client/SocialNetwork/Back-end. It will effectively be one mega dapp creating a P2P economy.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 19, 2018 14:38:11
/r/btc/comments/a7lm1p/my_thoughts_on_freedom_network/ec4q9ej/

u/DeftNerd is a Bernie Sanders supporter (He is entitled to his opinion) but we had disagreements about the classification of what I call theft. Sources: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal\_Revenue\_Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service) &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 19, 2018 14:22:19
/r/btc/comments/a6j3ka/if_government_programs_are_so_great_then_why_are/ebwpwjt/

If it is so great, why do we need to be forced at gunpoint to use it? Wouldn't you just use it anyways since it is so much better?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 16, 2018 08:40:48
/r/btc/comments/a6j3ka/if_government_programs_are_so_great_then_why_are/ebw3nne/

Healthcare = expensive Healthcare + Government = More expensive

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 15, 2018 23:37:40
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ebsq2v5/

The security assumption of the network is not that it is impossible to extort, but that it is economically infeasible to extort. If 10% of trade shifts peer-to-peer, the mafia does not have the resources to prosecute/punish the populace. Even if they did have the resources, I can't think of a faster way to lose control than to punish Alice and Grandma for trading at 50% off. They will quickly lose Alice's and Grandma's support. We outnumber the mafia 1000:1, do not forget that

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 14, 2018 14:45:27
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ebspl8u/

1. Mafia spending as a percentage of GDP in most "Developed" economies is 40%-60% 2. That means one way or another the mafia is stealing 40%-60% of all trade. Spending simply cannot spawn in from nowhere. 3. This doesn't even take into account the cost of regulation. 4. All revenue at some point is allocated as personal income. Just because it didn't get allocated at the retail front doesn't mean it wasn't personal income. Inanimate objects cannot earn income. 5. Just because the mafia "Spends" money does not mean it produces value. It can spend 1 trillion digging holes in the ground, that doesn't mean it's valuable.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 14, 2018 14:39:48
/r/btc/comments/a60hi5/alice_and_bob_are_never_going_to_care_about/ebrm2um/

I will keep posting this paper until everyone in the world has read it. If you don't like it, then I'm happy to hear your detailed critiques of the paper. If you still don't like it, there are 300 other posts complaining about CSW/Core/SV/Price/Attacks you can view instead.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 14, 2018 08:31:01
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebncvl2/

u/ratti_ok We escape with economics. I know it sounds impossible, but I have outlined the escape route in the whitepaper linked to this post.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 14:12:00
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebn78kz/

Protocol is downstream of users. Users are downstream of dapps. Dapps are downstream of a good platform. A good platform is downstream of sound economic theory. I believe we solved the sound economic theory. Once that is solved, everything else follows.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 13:03:43
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebn6zlq/

The mafia will never make its expenditures public, and even if they did no one would care. CNN would tell them it's all good.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 13:00:32
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebmw0dz/

The mafia will simply create anonymity measures for it's "National Security" items. It of course will be reserved only for mafia usage. Inflation is just another form of extortion. They will either just use Bitcoin as fractional reserve and eventually eliminate it just as they did to gold, or they will just up the extortion an equivalent amount as the lost inflation revenue.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 10:41:50
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebmvr49/

Maybe not directly in cryptography, but cryptography is certainly the technological basis for it. I think you may be surprised to find that solution in the whitepaper linked in the post.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 10:38:31
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebmuffp/

If we simply replace fiat with Bitcoin, that isn't going to solve anything. Quite frankly it would be far worse. If Bitcoin isn't about censorship resistant cash, then what value do you see in it?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 10:20:55
/r/btc/comments/a588xa/creating_a_voluntary_society_is_both_economically/ebmr9em/

If there is going to be a collapse of some sorts, this proposal is the best option. It provides a way for people to economically organize absent their former system. If you are interested in the idea consider joining the Discord linked in the whitepaper.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 09:34:54
/r/btc/comments/a5ia0p/if_your_government_does_not_listen_to_you_then/ebmomm9/

I agree, that's why we remove all politics from BCH ;)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 12, 2018 08:53:10
/r/btc/comments/a4c8ez/i_cant_seem_to_find_the_excerpt_in_the_whitepaper/ebeihfb/

You will find some of those whitepapers listed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_national\_constitutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 8, 2018 22:28:34
/r/btc/comments/a4c8ez/i_cant_seem_to_find_the_excerpt_in_the_whitepaper/ebdt7vv/

We have a Discord channel linked in the whitepaper above. Should have a Github shortly.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 8, 2018 16:50:24
/r/btc/comments/a4c8ez/i_cant_seem_to_find_the_excerpt_in_the_whitepaper/ebdbkow/

Winning chain = consensus. Do you have a different definition?

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 8, 2018 13:09:23
/r/btc/comments/a4c8ez/i_cant_seem_to_find_the_excerpt_in_the_whitepaper/ebd5gpz/

To anyone looking to rebuild BCH and come back stronger than ever, we are working hard on a new dapp network using BCH. Learn more here: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Odb4apXgPEhyVpAE9k8f6fuRp-4PtR8L/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Odb4apXgPEhyVpAE9k8f6fuRp-4PtR8L/view?usp=sharing)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on December 8, 2018 11:56:52
/r/Polycentric_Law/comments/a1hl0f/peertopeer_trade_makes_government_obsolete_if_we/eax9hmc/

I'm not suggesting that. Your statement was just thinking exclusively in the false premise of the state. We can create as many new "Better" states as we want. They all have the same end outcome.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Polycentric_Law on December 2, 2018 09:55:26
/r/Polycentric_Law/comments/a1hl0f/peertopeer_trade_makes_government_obsolete_if_we/eaup31z/

Your perspective seems to imply that all people are the rightful slave of some state overlord. You propose that we must create better state overlords for them to be transferred to. People don't need to renounce their citizenship or move anywhere. They just stop listening to their slave master.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Polycentric_Law on December 1, 2018 08:30:17
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/ear51sb/

The network assumes a functioning Internet and blockchain. It is limited to the ability of both of those to function. But to be fair (as I am sure you are aware) if the Internet goes down or power goes down for a sustained period of time, we will not be so concerned about extortion, because we will be fighting for our lives.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 19:23:42
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaqwppl/

A round trip transaction involves earning money in one location, then spending it another. When you earn money, generally \~40% is lost. Then when you go to spend that money, you are not just paying sales "extortion," you are paying all the hidden taxes that were accumulated along the life cycle of producing that product. Businesses are not people, and do not pay taxes. All taxes levied on a business are passed on to the consumer. This cost is hidden in the price of the product. These costs come as a result of taxes/regulations through intermediate production stages of the product. Additionally when trade goes through a corporation, the corporation takes a cut of the sale between the actual producer and consumer. This cut is usually about 7%. If the trade is directly peer-to-peer, instead of paying a middleman, additional savings occur.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 17:27:21
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaqrw7v/

1. If your gov't spends 50% of GDP, then you know on average they are stealing 50% of each transaction one way or another. Whether it's inflation, X tax, Y tax, you are ultimately paying that 50%. 2. This number doesn't even factor in the cost of regulation, which I estimate to be another 15%-30%. 3. Also keep in mind this model doesn't just remove the mafia from trade, it also removes the business owner/overhead. That has \~10% savings as well. Some of these are percentages of each other, so can't quite just add them straight up. But I would say 40-60 is fair

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 16:25:21
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaqb5q1/

I sacrificed some formatting technicalities for the sake of keeping the post short.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 13:03:32
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/a1ipsk/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaqb05i/

I generally agree with your sentiment. The beauty in my proposal is users will not see this as an anarchist system. They will see it as: "I can get my nails done for 50% less." Politics won't even cross their mind when participating in the network. The user will be engaging in a voluntary society without even knowing it. If enough of the economy transitions to a peer-to-peer economy, then it will de-fund the state apparatus.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on November 29, 2018 13:01:43
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaq7d7e/

Just because they "Provide" services does not mean they are valuable. They can spend 1 trillion digging holes in the ground, doesn't mean it provides any value to society.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 12:20:14
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/a1ipsk/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaq77wz/

That's because Tor has thousands of users. If you create a peer-to-peer economic network involving tens of millions of users, then it is not economically feasible/nor ideologically persuasive to track down all those users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on November 29, 2018 12:18:29
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/a1ipsk/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaq4a2v/

All layers (excluding the user layer) inherit the security of the underlying blockchain. The mafia can only beat the system by destroying the underlying blockchain, or actively surveilling each individual user in the network. If a large enough segment of the population uses the network, surveilling each user becomes economically infeasible.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/Anarcho_Capitalism on November 29, 2018 11:43:39
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eaq1bkq/

I do completely agree with your premise. I believe this proposal transforms the culture. Silk Road was easily taken down because it was a centralized depot and less than 0.000001% of the population used it. If we create a mass distributed peer-to-peer system of trade, which people strongly favor due to 50% savings, then it will achieve cultural consensus. If more than 15% of the population uses such a distributed system it becomes economically infeasible for the state to control it, and ideologically infeasible to persuade the populace against it. The state does use violence, but at the end of the day its source of power comes from indirect consent of the people.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 11:08:14
/r/GoldandBlack/comments/a1ho0b/an_open_letter_to_all_voluntaryists_peertopeer/eapyymn/

At the end of the day what it comes down is creating an economy in which everyone is producing \*real value in a society. Due to the perverse incentives created by the mafia, only about 15%-25% of people produce \*real value, in an economy. I assert my proposal changes the incentives in the economy which would result in 50%-70% of people producing real value. If we have 3X as many people producing real value, then on average people will be 3X wealthier as a result. (not withstanding compounding effects of development)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/GoldandBlack on November 29, 2018 10:40:13
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapy1h2/

We are there already, the consumers can't see it though. The war would become much more direct in the eyes of the consumer. This theory at some level has been proven as mafias have tried to slow down Uber & Airbnb. There has been many cases where cities have tried to regulate them, but that has proven very unpopular. Uber & Airbnb aren't even peer-to-peer. They capitalize on making regulations obsolete, but do not make extortion/middlemen obsolete. Uber & Airbnb have realized only about 20% of the potential of what they could be, and already are running circles around the mafia.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 10:28:37
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapx922/

The 40%-60% estimate was pricing in that services provided by the mafia would need to be paid for by the private sector. Many people cite roads as a valuable mafia expenditure. It is probably the only thing the mafia provides that is greater than 0 value, but also understand roads account for about 3% of mafia spending, and also understand the private sector would build the roads at 30% the cost. I can't think of many more services the mafia provides that are of >0 value, but if you think of any, let me know.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 10:18:14
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapvhfe/

Also consider the argument one step further. If consumers can achieve 50% off and the mafia is waging a war on the 50% off, the mafia may quickly become the enemy in the eyes of the consumer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 09:54:49
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaptl9p/

I don't see you as coming across negative at all. If someone can download an app, in which they simply push a button and get the exact same product/service for 50% less. They will do it. They will not even understand the greater implications of such a trade. They will just think they found a bargain on their favorite product. It won't even cross their mind the trade is anti-institution.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 09:28:36
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapsbye/

People do not believe in institutions over discount. They believe in institutions because they \*Falsely think\* institutions give them a discount (free healthcare, schooling, security, retirement, etc). My system gives the peer a hard, direct, in your face, recognizable 50% discount. No need for persuasion, no need for philosophy. Peers will take the discount for the same reason they favor the institution, because they believe they will gain more resources at less cost.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 09:10:05
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapqyo4/

The beauty in this system is it doesn't give a damn what people think. People will join for the 50% off, ignoring the demands of their former mafia overlords without even realizing it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:48:47
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapqr3u/

[u/anenome5](https://www.reddit.com/u/anenome5) response was sufficient, but many people find it difficult to see all the hidden costs that aren't listed as a line item on their direct receipt: 1. If your gov't spends 50% of GDP, then you know on average they are stealing 50% of each transaction one way or another. Whether it's inflation, X tax, Y tax, you are ultimately paying that 50%. 2. This number doesn't even factor in the cost of regulation, which I estimate to be another 15%-30%. 3. Also keep in mind this model doesn't just remove the mafia from trade, it also removes the business owner/overhead. That has \~10% savings as well. My 40%-60% estimate was actually quite conservative.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:45:25
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapqnqt/

The beauty in this system is it doesn't give a damn what people think. People will join for the 50% off, ignoring the demands of their former mafia overlords without even realizing it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:43:56
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapqhmv/

Long run it covers everything. There is not a single production or service in the world that requires 2 or more simultaneous conjoined human actions. Every single process is the result of many peers contributing to a greater process. In the long run it will all transition peer-to-peer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:41:15
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapqbcs/

I could have written a pitch detailing all your points you have brought up, but it would have taken 200 pages to do so. At which point no one would have read it. For anyone to understand/see my vision in this pitch they will have to have a deep understanding of anarchy and anarchist economics. As you are a socialist it will be impossible for you to see this vision. I'm not saying you are wrong or anything, I am just saying coming from your perspective there is no way you are going to see the vision. \-------------------------------------------------------------------- You obviously believe the mafia produces value in society and has your best interest at heart. The beauty of my proposal is it doesn't give a damn what you think. You will join it for the 50% off.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:38:32
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eappcfv/

I left out the rationale for why this makes "Government" obsolete for the sake of keeping the post short. Ultimately everyone is more or less forced to use the system due to economics. This means everyone is more or less forced to ignore their "Mafia" overlords by conducting peer-to-peer trade, without even realizing. Through this process, the mafia is de-funded and it becomes very difficult for it to continue on as a large organized segment of society. Some will argue this would lead to chaos. I disagree with that conclusion, because this system for the first time in human history creates a mechanism for two counterparties who don't know each other, to trust one another. Historically this has been difficult without a top-down power structure. In the absence of this structure my proposal creates a solution for enabling the economy to function.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:22:30
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eapoj7q/

Many people find it difficult to see all the hidden costs that aren't listed as a line item on their direct receipt: 1. If your gov't spends 50% of GDP, then you know on average they are stealing 50% of each transaction one way or another. Whether it's inflation, X tax, Y tax, you are ultimately paying that 50%. 2. This number doesn't even factor in the cost of regulation, which I estimate to be another 15%-30%. 3. Also keep in mind this model doesn't just remove the mafia from trade, it also removes the business owner/overhead. That has \~10% savings as well. My 40%-60% estimate was actually quite conservative.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 29, 2018 08:08:46
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaohr80/

Users need a pseudonym to link external attestations to. Without it, trust cannot be formed in the network. If a user has a fresh account before every new trade, it has no way of communicating to the counterparty that it will hold up its end of the bargain. We may be using different definitions for ID. I am defining ID as strictly a pseudonym in the network. Users can elect to add additional documentation to this pseudonym from their real world identity, but it is not required.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 19:19:54
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaohb8s/

I do fully agree with what you are saying. A trustless system does not exist. Bitcoin is not trustless. You must trust miners, software, hardware, ISP's, cryptography, rational actors, etc. You can minimize trust but never eliminate it. My proposal will enable two individuals, who have never met each other before, to exchange services, without a direct intermediary, in a somewhat private manor. I definitely wouldn't call my proposal trustless, but I would say it reduces trust a lot. My assumption is that an economy based largely on peer-to-peer trade would be economically infeasible to control from the perspective of the mafia.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 19:13:44
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaofnog/

Yes! Everyone has seemingly forgotten why we are here in the first place.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 18:51:35
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaofb3z/

1. It creates a "Social Address" which enables peer discovery within the network. 2. It enables the user to build and store reputation without a third party ID is the basis for facilitating trust and peer discovery in the peer-to-peer network. Without it, users have no way to trust each other or discover each other. Identity registration is permissionless in the sense that anyone can freely create a pseudonym within the system without the need for approval from a central party. The strength of that identity will likely require external attestations in some form (prior trade history, web of trust, or formal ID registration oracles).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 18:47:00
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaodub6/

Moderators cannot change the status of the underlying network or actually remove any user from the network. Moderators essentially just make a blacklist of "Bad users," which other clients/users can use or ignore. Think of moderators as an optional spam filter plug-in to the client.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 18:28:09
/r/btc/comments/a1a115/an_open_letter_to_roger_ver_jihan_wu_and/eaodcbh/

ID registration can be done without a 3rd party. I just said "Competing providers" to keep the pitch concise. If I were to explain every single point in the pitch, the pitch would be 100 pages long.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 18:21:54
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eanb29s/

You use their watered down coins or go to jail. This has been exhibited in nearly every state that has used a gold/silver coins. Modern states do own all property and they own it in 2 forms: 1. If you make an annual extortion payment (% of property value) to the state, then you don't really own your property. You are paying rent to the true owner. If you don't pay the rent, they take your house, i.e. the state owns the house. 2. The banks/mafia own the majority of most real estate. The residents make "Mortgage payments" to the bank. This would be fine if the borrowed money was real, but it is not. Any time you take out a mortgage, the money is printed out of thin air and lent to you. The house is used as collateral against the loan. So the bank owns 80% of the house at purchase, using newly printed money, and the purchaser works for 30 years to fully purchase the remaining 80% of the house back from the bank. The principal on the loan is paid to the previous owner of the house, but the interest on the loan is paid to the bank. Since the bank printed the money out of thin air, the interest on the loan can be viewed as a rent payment to the bank. A typical 30 year loan when paid in full is about 60% interest, 40% principal. So yes, the banks do own your house and private property does not exist.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 10:54:42
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eamyvy0/

And who coins the gold and silver? The state does. And they water down the gold and silver with inexpensive metals.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 28, 2018 08:38:23
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eamaip3/

States monopolize violence, yes. And what is the first thing they do with that violence? They create a bank and currency and force everyone to use it. If a state is created, you can be damn sure you will be using its currency and banking system. They are as synonymous as bread and butter.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 27, 2018 22:54:28
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eamadg6/

Most people believe the best way to reduce violence is to give a monopoly to one provider. Can you give an example of another market in which a monopoly has produced a better outcome for the customer than a highly competitive market? Violence is no exception.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 27, 2018 22:52:04
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eakikti/

Statists believe in a state. The first thing all states do is create a monopoly banking system and currency. Statists are either ignorant of this fact, or want Bitcoin to be the basis of the next monopoly banking system.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 27, 2018 09:02:48
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eakgj2v/

"If we lived in anarchy then mafias would control society" (Look around you, already happened). Anarchy is the inescapable fabric of the universe. You cannot escape it. The best we can do is to create systems which reduce the ability of mafias to violently rule. Violence is a market good like any other. Markets are best improved through competition, not monopolies. This is true of cheeseburgers, and it is true of violence.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 27, 2018 08:35:58
/r/btc/comments/a0qvsm/it_is_amazing_how_many_statists_there_are_in_the/eakepme/

TL:DR Dapp network on top of Bitcoin Cash (no ICO, no tokens). I believe this is the way the network will be formatted, and there many examples of dapps that are 10x better than existing services

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 27, 2018 08:10:44
/r/btc/comments/a0e3vh/bitcoin_doesnt_just_make_fiat_and_banks_obsolete/eaiwl54/

Yes it is ironic. People complained about the alternative site as being sketchy.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 26, 2018 15:26:42
/r/btc/comments/a0e3vh/bitcoin_doesnt_just_make_fiat_and_banks_obsolete/eainh0o/

Yes service providers will still exist. The overarching business will not however. Everything will be peer-to-peer. No additional overhead (business).

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 26, 2018 13:37:21
/r/btc/comments/9w9frx/users_dont_trump_miners_if_the_chain_the_users/e9j6e95/

This statement disproves itself: Assertion 1 - Users don't trump miners Assertion 2 - Users will leave if the miners fuck up the chain If users leave the chain, then the miners lose-->Miners are beholden to the users.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 11, 2018 22:23:47
/r/btc/comments/9w3vde/in_the_long_run_protocol_will_be_determined_by/e9i8nuw/

If hashpower was all that mattered, then BCH wouldn't exist. BCH is a product of the users, not hashpower. In the long run it is the users that win, not the hashpower.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 11, 2018 15:35:01
/r/btc/comments/9w3vde/in_the_long_run_protocol_will_be_determined_by/e9hzom2/

It's not about what is the real Bitcoin, it's about providing maximum utility to society.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 11, 2018 14:03:14
/r/btc/comments/9vnf7y/the_base_protocol_is_important_but_it_will_not_be/e9f1pr5/

The ABC/SV debate is a moot point. Whatever they decide will either be overwritten or reaffirmed when a real marketplace develops with real users in say 5 years. Be it on BCH chain or another chain. In the mean time if every single BCH app and wallet has to spend 6 weeks of very precious resources figuring out potential forks every 6 month upgrade, then that is a huge cost.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on November 10, 2018 08:24:59
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7erur7/

>I 100% own the asset until they steal it \-At which point you no longer own it. You cannot 100% own something if it can be taken away from you. That is a logical fallacy. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 15:45:11
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7epmfi/

If you are making a transaction and worried about what other entities may think of said transaction, then it is not really peer-to-peer. The transaction is altered by fear of consequences from the third party. &#x200B; By your definition, Visa is peer-to-peer. Alice pays Bob with a mining fee to Visa. Under your definition Visa is no different than Bitcoin except the fee is a little higher.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 15:13:59
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7eovho/

I don't think thiefs care much about the key. If they know you have the Bitcoin, they will steal your Bitcoin, and you will give it to them.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 15:03:47
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7eold1/

Ownership is derived from possession of an asset. If it is stolen, then you no longer own the asset. If someone threatens to kidnap you if you do not forfeit some percentage of the asset, then you do not 100% own the asset.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 14:59:56
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7enqoz/

In an absolute sense, ownership/property don't exist. Property is a human construct which does not exist in reality. So yes, if someone has a bigger gun than you, they do in fact "own" some percentage of your life. Outright ownership cannot be achieved in this world.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 14:48:14
/r/btc/comments/9mhdzr/if_cash_is_not_private_then_it_is_not_peertopeer/e7en8hv/

Go purchase a house, purchase a stock, start a business and tell me you own those assets 100% outright. Bitcoin is no different. Privacy is the best means of securing an asset. If no one knows you own something, then it becomes very difficult to steal.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 8, 2018 14:41:12
/r/btc/comments/9m55f8/spreading_bitcoin_cash_through_merchant_adoption/e7cpk1j/

BCH's core competency is permissionless value transfer. Create applications which can only be done using the permissionless property. User's have no choice but to convert to BCH to achieve permissionless value transfer/cost savings over legacy system.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 7, 2018 16:27:21
/r/btc/comments/9m55f8/spreading_bitcoin_cash_through_merchant_adoption/e7cfu07/

App 24 in the whitepaper is the killer-product. It can only be done with crypto/peer-to-peer cash

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 7, 2018 14:20:32
/r/btc/comments/9m55f8/spreading_bitcoin_cash_through_merchant_adoption/e7byrzr/

I don't disagree, I'm just saying Alice and Bob are never going to care. We have had this terrible financial system for 100 years now and still not even 1% of the population is even aware. Give them a real reason to join Bitcoin. We outline 26 of them in the whitepaper.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 7, 2018 10:07:17
/r/btc/comments/9m55f8/spreading_bitcoin_cash_through_merchant_adoption/e7bye6s/

In most cases discounts (if offered) will be 2%-3% which is already on par with credit card rebates. In many cases that discount is offset by the fiat to crypto onboarding fees. Educating people into Bitcoin was necessary to go from 0 to 1, but it will not take us from 1 to mass adoption. In order to achieve mass adoption we must create systems that are orders of magnitude better than the old. They do exist. Alice and Bob will never care about sound money, we must create irresistible systems to entice them to join the ecosystem.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on October 7, 2018 09:59:54
/r/btc/comments/9jmnow/bitcoin_cash_adoption_will_happen_so/e6unkfu/

It won't be overnight, but it will occur incredibly fast. It won't take much for the mafia system to reach hyperinflation. The threshold is probably around 5%-8% of mafia money exiting to Bitcoin. At which point Bitcoin will be the relatively stable unit of account.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 29, 2018 09:15:14
/r/btc/comments/9jmnow/bitcoin_cash_adoption_will_happen_so/e6unb0s/

Agreed. A universal invoicing standard as well as robust accounting system could probably be done in a way that would be a selling point over legacy systems. We must also create systems to allow the business to 100% convert operations to Bitcoin. 3rd parties could facilitate Bitcoin to mafia money transactions. The business could use Bitcoin backed stablecoins to peg their Bitcoin to stable units of account in the transitional period.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 29, 2018 09:09:27
/r/btc/comments/9jd5h6/a_youtube_channel_posting_1_video_per_day/e6sk7by/

Keep in mind 2 cents/6 minute video would be 20 cents per hour, or 4.00 for 20 hours. Most people pay 2-15 times more for that for services like cable, netflix, hulu, etc

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 28, 2018 08:45:41
/r/btc/comments/9jd5h6/a_youtube_channel_posting_1_video_per_day/e6qlzwu/

>2 cents per view, not per video. A proper sentence must have a subject and a \*verb. Also, numbers under ten should be spelled out. Please correct and resubmit. &#x200B;

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 27, 2018 11:49:05
/r/btc/comments/9is0x8/next_generation_social_media_will_give_the_user/e6mv5fz/

The user can still do everything it could before in terms of compartmentalization of posts and accounts. Nothing has changed in that regard. The only difference is instead of broadcasting posts to Facebook's walled garden, the user broadcasts it to competing algorithms. This eliminates centralized social media giants from easily harvesting all the data. It is more private, not less. &#x200B; All posts can still be restricted to the desired social circles as they could be before, but instead without the intermediary.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 25, 2018 17:24:32
/r/btc/comments/9is0x8/next_generation_social_media_will_give_the_user/e6mr9nc/

The user can still have different pseudonyms across different accounts. This is a solution so the same pseudonym doesn't have to register 10 different social media accounts in 10 different walled gardens. Additionally it takes the power away from the walled garden owners.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 25, 2018 16:30:45
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69w2ad/

Agreed, we were just proposing in case anyone was interested

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 15:40:20
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69o4jk/

The sending address is never disclosed to the 3rd party. The receiving address is only disclosed upon a disputed payment. The amount of the contract is disclosed to the third party, but this can be shielded by the user generating hundreds of fake contracts (spoofing) to shield the throughput. &#x200B; Multisig is essentially no different from a 3rd party payment processor.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:56:42
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69n7dz/

When the user signs the contract he is agreeing to pay "X amount in to Y address by Z deadline." If the user fails to make the specified transaction, the escrow agent releases the collateral to to the Y address. No identities are involved. If funds are properly made private on both ends, the escrow agent will have no idea what is going on. Contract spoofing can be done to hide throughput if needed. All disputes are deterministic.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:44:24
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69mw4n/

The contract only indicates a receiving address, amount to be sent to said receiving address, and a time deadline to send to the receiving address. No identities or other details are involved.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:40:13
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69ma50/

Your proposal comes with a different tradeoff. The user does not need to post collateral, however, he can still doublespend. This means your proposal is essentially acting as insurance, not as doublespend prevention. Insurance would be done more efficiently by the merchant simply pricing in the doublespend probability directly into the product, instead of consulting a third party. &#x200B; My proposal eliminates the doublespend cost (thus reducing transaction cost), however, it comes with the tradeoff of posting collateral with the trusted third party.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:31:56
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69l3wl/

There is nothing inherently wrong with 3rd parties. As long as all desired properties of the transaction are achieved, then 3rd parties are acceptable. The system can be setup in such a way that the 3rd party is completely blind to all transaction details. The only tangible tradeoff is that funds must be held by the 3rd party. This proposal is really only for smaller sized transactions, so storing funds with the third party is not a huge problem

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:16:18
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69ktm1/

Only the collateral has to wait two blocks. The merchant can accept the 0-conf transaction instantly because if it is doublespent the funds can be recovered from the trusted third party after the user walks out the door.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:12:28
/r/btc/comments/9h6wgl/0conf_can_be_secured_through_blind_escrow_the/e69kal2/

The above proposal allows the 0-conf transaction to achieve near 100% security, while retaining nearly all characteristics of a peer-to-peer on-chain transaction. Transaction details are mostly shielded from the 3rd party as only disputed transactions are reported. Even upon a disputed transaction, if set up properly, the escrow agent will still not know either of the involved parties. Additionally, fake contract spoofing could be used to shield the transaction throughput of the user from the 3rd party. 0-conf by itself is reasonably safe for most use cases, this is simply a proposal for anyone who is interested.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 13:05:18
/r/btc/comments/9h266g/a_nonsegwit_batched_transaction_with_759_outputs/e695930/

If you can't afford a full node, then you wouldn't be able to afford to use the base chain. It's one or the other. If there are billions of users all on a network with tiny little blocks, you won't be running a full node anyways because the base chain would be too expensive

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 09:34:29
/r/btc/comments/9gxr2a/government_learned_long_ago_that_disinformation/e694kuo/

Everything is just an opinion. At some point we have to build structure for the sake of communication

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 09:23:22
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e68kzm5/

Fiat means "An arbitrary order." All currency, (Bitcoin, gold, green paper) is an arbitrary order. Some will insist that fiat means "Value by decree." This is wrong. Green paper does not have "Value by decree" because no divine individual can decree it to have value. Green paper has value because market participants use it. Green paper must compete like all other forms of currency. It is not a special case.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 19, 2018 00:24:42
/r/btc/comments/9gv3xb/distributed_bandwidth_storage_and_computing_can/e68bjpp/

In a static environment you are probably right, but ISP's have to compete. If they actively block their users from using demanded services they will not be in business much longer.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 21:37:41
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e688qlo/

Why don't you read the whitepaper before you start launching baseless attacks. Nothing Orwellian about it.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 20:52:16
/r/btc/comments/9gxr2a/government_learned_long_ago_that_disinformation/e67x7b0/

I said peer-to-peer cash, not Bitcoin Cash. I said it is inevitable that peer-to-peer cash will win. Forks don't matter. Only speculators care about forks.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 17:48:01
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e67vmvi/

Economic force is all over the Bitcoin design. That is in essence why it works. Miners cannot cheat or they are economically forced out of the system.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 17:25:11
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e67vc11/

Force and voluntary interaction are not mutually exclusive. Blockbuster voluntarily participated in the market, consumers voluntarily participated in the market, and Netflix voluntarily participated in the market. Blockbuster involuntarily went out of business and consumers involuntarily cannot shop at Blockbuster. No aggression occurred, yet economic force was applied.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 17:20:52
/r/btc/comments/9gv3xb/distributed_bandwidth_storage_and_computing_can/e67b5se/

I was originally using this non-Google link, but people were having trouble loading it. [https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf](https://4html.net/ViewerPDF/#/source/Free.pdf)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 12:54:09
/r/btc/comments/9gtno6/we_really_really_need_to_focus_all_our_effort_on/e670odi/

Check out the Freedom Project

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 10:26:32
/r/btc/comments/9gv3xb/distributed_bandwidth_storage_and_computing_can/e66zgg2/

If this idea interests you, consider reading the full whitepaper, or joining our Discord to discuss more (link on pg 1 of whitepaper)

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 10:07:52
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e66yp65/

Nobody has even addressed the central point of the original post.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 18, 2018 09:55:54
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e665naq/

It was economic force. Please go into a Blockbuster and take a selfie if you don't believe me.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 17, 2018 22:10:08
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e661toa/

Please take a selfie in a Blockbuster and get back to me

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 17, 2018 21:13:03
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e660fuk/

Every action the consumer takes is a cost. Late fees, driving to the store, cleaning the disk, returning the disk are all costs. Just because it is not priced in at the counter does not mean it is not a cost. It's simple economics.

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 17, 2018 20:52:07
/r/btc/comments/9govbd/netflix_didnt_replace_blockbuster_through/e65vokf/

Literally cannot post anything on this subreddit and not have 10 clowns trolling over some stupid semantics. No one was literally forced at gunpoint to switch to Netflix.... Derrrrr

Commented by /u/guyfawkesfp in /r/btc on September 17, 2018 19:35:15