Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

'C'-simple.... but it's written in python ?

The playstore link seems to be wrong. 'No such app'

I get the seeming Pareto-improvement logic of this nifty proposal, but I am against it, because it establishes the precedent of a taxation-like direct monetary link between base layer and and an arbitrary agent , the EF. That opens up a scary can of worms.

I reject any dev fee to the EF unless it becomes radically transparent first.

Public goods are subjective. I reject any dev fee unless there is a sybil resistant method for the community to vote on where the money is spent.

Solve these two problems then maybe we can talk about it.

Otherwise theres 0 chance the community will allow a centralized authority to spend their tax dollars(ethers)

please let us not open pandoras box

0.1 per block could become far too much money, creating an ill-motivated monster. Protocol-based funding ought to target some sort of real-world value.

Largely agree with funding public goods through inflation, but it should be managed by a community-operated DAO (not the Foundation). The Foundation can have voting rights within the DAO, but not absolute power. There should be a clear mandate to communicate how these funds are spent in a radically transparent manner. Strongly disagree with how the Foundation handled the grants recently, for example, and would not like to see more of the same behavior.

I should add the funding issues faced by many teams right now is in large part a result of the initial token sale allocation. Expecting the community to shell out even more to cover for that oversight seems misguided and unfair.

Isn't this pork-barrel politics, blockchain style?

What is the justification for reducing the issuance? I was told by econoar that 2 eth/block was optimal and not arbitrary.

Have you done any calculations of how much money is expected to be raised in this manner? I'm not completely opposed as long as it's only temporary but I'm not keen on setting what is in my opinion a terrible precedent for a relatively small amount.

As useful as it is to give the EF more funding, the precedent this sets pushes governance norms too far from those that engender decentralization. Protocol changes should be limited to strictly technical upgrades.

I think this is a good proposal.

I support inflation funding for dev and ecosystem growth. I also think it's important to recognise that ETH holders will be bear this cost so should directly influence it's direction. This could be simply accomplished by a carbon vote or similar mechanism dictating who the recipient(s) is/are. Implicit in the reduction of issuance paid to miners is the acceptance that that issuance is not needed for security. Then, as inflation, it is coming out of existing ETH holders pockets. Simple priority and preference signalling from ETH holders (ETH curated lists, better carbon vote, etc.) can then be used to dialogue with the recipients of the funds and keep them accountable.

Its a good proposal, certainly worth considering. Two points:

1. Is it needed? Does EF need money? I also like that is only temporary, but if in the short term EF doesn't need more funding, then it doesn't solve anything.
2. Miners who bought ASICs get screwed over. IMHO unfairly.

​

Anyway I'd likely support it. It's very true that perfect is the enemy of good

No this is taxation and promotes the EF into an elitist government position.

This can be done voluntarily now. No one is doing it. Forcing a protocol change to enforce it is tyranny.

It's something that can be done voluntarily, now. No one is doing it. There is no reason to legislate it with code.

It creates a perverse incentive for future justifications of taxation.

It opens the door for "Why don't we just...

extend the time period...

increase the amount...

etc...

conversations that should never happen in the first place.

Why EF? Why not EFF or Mickey Mouse or Murray Rothbard's corpse?

How do you know EF will pick the correct winners and losers?

The author literally mentions how the innate power of Ethereum to launch a DAO that reflects the community sentiment won't happen. People will launch DAOs for Yelp reviews. The OP, assumably, thinks this is more important than Yelp reviews. I see this as evidence the OP is an extreme minority and no one else agrees with them. Which is only further evidence they are a tyrant if they are willing to force change on everyone else to suit their god-emperor worldview

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology imo.

It entrenches that privileged, elite, address in a position of government over the rest of us.

I'm a huge fan of you Evan but I'm highly against this proposal.

> Why should I like this if I’m an….

​

… Eth holder: inflation goes down

… Eth developer: more money for more projects (and possibly better salaries?)

… Ethereum fan: more public goods get funded immediately

… Ethash GPU miner: because this will make ProgPoW much more likely to happen.

​

Eth holder: Inflation has less impact on price than most people think. 0.2/block is not significant.

​

Ethereum fan: A tax which goes to a central authority would be against decentralization. Who decides where the money goes? This proposal is against every ethereum fan in terms of ideology

​

On mining: ProgPow is a hard topic but I think it doesn't give us any longterm gain and increase the possibilty of a chainsplit which is not in the interest of anyone...

I'm a huge fan of you Evan but I'm highly against this proposal.

Why should I like this if I’m an….

… Eth holder: inflation goes down
… Eth developer: more money for more projects (and possibly better salaries?) 
… Ethereum fan: more public goods get funded immediately
… Ethash GPU miner: because this will make ProgPoW much more likely to happen.

Eth holder: Inflation has less impact on price than most people think. 0.2/block is not significant.

Ethereum fan: A tax which goes to a central authority would be against decentralization. Who decides where the money goes? This proposal is against every ethereum fan in terms of ideology

On mining: ProgPow is a hard topic but I think it doesn't give us any longterm gain and increase the possibilty of a chainsplit which is not in the interest of anyone...

I'll copy my reaction: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/b47hb7/a_simple_way_to_fund_more_public_goods_in/ej4vhf4/

How do you feel about the proposal but without the ProgPow discussion? I don't see why you try to solve both problems at once. ProgPow (and I'm one of those ambivalent ones) and protocol/infrastructure funding are two very different things.

Some people will argue that you're sneaking in either ProgPow or EF funding, depending on what they (don't) want to happen. If you'd had to drop one proposal, which one would it be?

/u/EvanVanNess how do you feel about the proposal but without the ProgPow discussion? I don't see why you try to solve both problems at once. ProgPow (and I'm one of those ambivalent ones) and protocol/infrastructure funding are two very different things.

Some people will argue that you're sneaking in either ProgPow or EF funding, depending on what they (don't) want to happen. If you'd had to drop one proposal, which one would it be?

I like this idea.

Dropping a link here for this discussion which is occurring on r/ethereum as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/b47h2x/a_simple_way_to_fund_more_public_goods_in/

Thanks for sharing. I'm personally open to rational discussions of modest issuance-funding- especially since we can expect net issuance to only decline from this point anyway. The hardest part of managing this is the administration of those funds. I am not equipped to produce these analyses, but I'd like to see the following before saying we should pursue it further (probably directly from the EF):

1. Provide a proper analysis of current EF funding, and why it is insufficient to meet either current dev needs and/or long term dev needs. My understanding is that the EF has ~$70m of ETH and ~$30m in fiat. Are they currently gun shy to spend more due to the possibility of a prolonged bear? Or do they feel there are not enough worthy efforts to fund? Or that additional funding is not required for current efforts? This should be like any business investment- driven by a clear expectation around long term ROI, even if it is not fully quantifiable. Right now, this is difficult because as far as I know, the EF hasn't even asked for more money via such a mechanism (perhaps because it is likely to be controversial).
2. Identify a proper set of processes (and organization) for the EF to manage these funds appropriately. This ranges from fund security to how the funds would be allocated to prospective projects / needs, minimizing the possibility of grants being made based upon favoritism. The EF cannot be seen as a kingmaker, but it can (continue to) be seen as a strategic accelerator.
3. Determine if such funding is needed in perpetuity is also something we should consider, or at some point, would the EF have enough to fund itself in an on-going manner without additional issuance rewards. I do see a risk, for example, of the Foundation in 100% fiat. Fiat accounts can still be seized, but leaving the money as ETH brings volatility risk.
4. Analyze if other mechanisms might be more effective to stimulate ecosystem development (e.g., put something in the protocol which allows for clients to collect a reward if miners / stakers use this software), although this introduces the possibility of negative competitive behavior among client teams, or for open source software forks which redirect the reward to others.
5. Think critically around the role of the EF as Ethereum transitions from a network under rapid technological evolution, to one which is actively supporting an economy which is perhaps worth trillions of dollars. i.e., I could see a day when the most important organizations to Ethereum are not the EF, but other dev / user organizations, private companies, DAOs, governments, etc. The EF has to be ready to mature with those changes in the landscape- especially if they are granted funding at the protocol-level.

Here’s the simple 3 prong plan:

• Implement ProgPoW if audits are passed.

• Mining rewards are reduced to 1.8 ETH per block.

• 0.1 per block goes to a new address administered by the Ethereum Foundation (EF) to be spent exclusively and transparently on public goods

Why should I like this if I’m an….

… Eth holder: inflation goes down

… Eth developer: more money for more projects (and possibly better salaries?)

… Ethereum fan: more public goods get funded immediately

… Ethash GPU miner: because this will make ProgPoW much more likely to happen.

It's an interesting proposal and all stakeholders get something out of it, and leave not 100% happy, which means it's maybe a good compromise.

Key question for me that people will weigh: Does reducing inflation directly outweigh the mimetic impact of introducing funding via block rewards?

I am personally ok with funding public goods via the EF via block rewards and other chains are using mechanisms like this effectively. It's a simple, small but powerful alignment of economic incentives between current holders/users/participants and potential developers. It's pragmatic and deals with a current constraint all of Ethereum's ecosystem faces together -- funding continued, competitive development of ETH 1.x and 2.0 both as well the funding of all Ethereum public goods.

Cross posted from r/Ethereum

Here’s the simple 3 prong plan:

• Implement ProgPoW if audits are passed.

• Mining rewards are reduced to 1.8 ETH per block.

• 0.1 per block goes to a new address administered by the Ethereum Foundation (EF) to be spent exclusively and transparently on public goods

Why should I like this if I’m an….

… Eth holder: inflation goes down

… Eth developer: more money for more projects (and possibly better salaries?)

… Ethereum fan: more public goods get funded immediately

… Ethash GPU miner: because this will make ProgPoW much more likely to happen.

It's an interesting proposal and all stakeholders get something out of it, and leave not 100% happy, which means it's maybe a good compromise.

Key question for me that people will weigh: Does reducing inflation directly outweigh the mimetic impact of introducing funding via block rewards?

I am personally ok with funding public goods via the EF via block rewards and other chains are using mechanisms like this effectively. It's a simple, small but powerful alignment of economic incentives between current holders/users/participants and potential developers. It's pragmatic and deals with a current constraint all of Ethereum's ecosystem faces together -- funding continued, competitive development of ETH 1.x and 2.0 both as well the funding of all Ethereum public goods.

Adding Mimble wimble doesn't let us audit for inflation bugs in the code though

Nice article, love to see the pros & cons of the different protocol’s privacy features

Pumped to see this coming to Litecoin now I understand how it compares to Monero/Zcash a little better.

Why shouldn't we make MW txns the default? If I am the only MW user, surely my txn history can be linked together...

Nice article but it's more focused on fungibility. Can MimbleWimble make Litecoin as scalable as there won't be any need for a 2nd layer?

It does not need it. But it will surely help adoption.

Well written and easy to understand article. Thanks for the rundown on all the different types of privacy solutions.

Very exciting news! I will be ready for the hardfork.

Subscribe or Sign in to continue reading

Hahahah, thanks I needed that laugh.

Dinosaurs talking about asteroids, tick! tock!

Bitcoin doesn’t need Wall Street, that’s a huge misconception.

I legitimately thought we hadn't got out of the previous recession yet. Huh.

The yield curve is the difference between the yields on longer-term and shorter-term Treasuries. A yield curve inversion happens when long-term yields fall below short-term yields. It has historically been viewed as a reliable indicator of upcoming recessions.

Why? While the short-term side of the yield curve is mainly driven by Federal Reserve policy that reflects current economic strength, the long-term end of the yield curve—10-year Treasuries and further out—is thought to indicate bond investors’ long-term views of the market.

If bond investors are bullish on the economy and believe interest rates will go up, they are more willing to hold short-term bonds and hope to harvest the higher yields later on. On the flip side, if bond buyers believe the economy is heading downward and interest rates are likely drifting lower, they’d prefer to hold the longer-term bonds in order to lock in the current higher yields.

In that case, the higher demand for longer-term bonds will drive up their prices and lower the yields. Yields on long-term bonds are usually higher during economic expansions because bond investors need more compensation to be locked in. But when the sentiment gets too bearish, the long-term yields can fall below the short-term yields.

That’s what’s happened Friday.

Experts are split on which yield curve is the most reliable, but the Fed prefers looking at the curve between the 10-year and three-month Treasuries, which on Friday turned negative, to minus 0.196 percentage points.

While a yield curve inversion has preceded recent recessions, it doesn’t happen immediately, and the lead time has been very inconsistent. Historically, a recession can come anywhere from one to two years after the curve flips upside-down, and the stock market usually continues to gain from the day of the inversion until its cycle peak.

So we’ve got more time to watch.

So we had a post on this yesterday; I'll have to remove this as a dupe, I'm afraid.

https://youtu.be/dTAAsCNK7RA

Much of curve was already inverted. Global QE and CB intervention make it hard to say what we're even looking at though -- and tbe latter is the the scary part. Friday's "reporting" from fin "press" has been odd, clickbaity garbage. The algos and press will step up the panic when 2s and 10s invert. ~10bps spread. Can't stress enough we don't know what much of this means. Global QE with negative rates was basically science fiction less than 10 yrs ago.

All par for the course.

Welcome to r/Capitalism_In_Decay^Ⓐ☭

CID is run by and for communists and anarchists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.

This subreddit is a safe space for socialists; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

If people are willing to take less money to lock their money up for a longer period of time it means they are pessimistic about the near term which is offering a higher return.

More often than not a inverted yield curve precedes a recession. A old bond trader told me "Buy the 30 year when the yield curve is inverted"

It means that short term yields are higher than long term yields...

Buckle up - Yield curve inversion has been a 100% indicator historically, assuming it persists.

Amazing post thanks for sharing.

Awesome analysis, shockingly fitting regression! This is a solidly data-driven market analysis and eventually a price prediction, which is not even the core of the topic.

Consider posting this in /r/dataisbeautiful

I like the model, as it nicely explains the past from a simple principle. I also think it has merit to explain the next cycle or two. But what I don't like about it is that it keeps predicting ~10x price in each and every price cycle. Exponential growth without any saturation mechanism or slowdown appears unrealistic.

If this scarcity-based model is more accurate, it predicts even faster rise of price than the typical logarithmic chart we usually see, e.g. here

That is because the S/F ratio will increase exponentially with time, not as a power law.

I'm fine with both ;-)

Making something hard to obtain doesn't make it valuable. Neither is work volume a measure of value. Value is subjective and ideological. You must asses the object as good, productive, or useful in order to give it a positive value. And unless that object is the sole source of a particular human need, then its value is subjective. Even then, a person's own estimation of the value of their own life is essential to determining the value of an object required to continue that life. As a trader who is looking to assign value to their objects, the best you can do is look for market prices of comparable objects. In the area of new technology, where no comparison is available, you have a very complicated, actually impossible calculation. You need to predict future desirability, future utility, and future competition. That's why, until Bitcoin's place in the future financial system is established, its price discovery is going to be a challenge. I think you have to start there; at where you believe Bitcoin will fit in the future of financial tools, which involves also predicting the effectiveness of Bitcoin's competition within this crypto market.

Now imagine how much they could steal with $50 or $100 on chain TX fees....

To be fair here, custodial wallet exit scams existed before LN. It just adds another layer of scamming opportunity.

As we saw it also applies horizontally, with forks. BTG was plagued by malicious wallet, and for a while I think even Electron Cash had a fake knockoff. Although those weren't exit scams but wallets stealing private keys.

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

i'm removing this post because it's a dupe of the #3 thread at the top of the page right now

Damn he definitely kept over 20 mil from the Enron days

The smartest guys in the cell

Hmm, white collar convicted felon who lost thousands of people their jobs knowingly with fraud and multi millions in peoples' net worth gets asked about his plans... the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to white collar prosecutions vs. blue collar crime is another disgusting aspect of American capitalism.

Mr. Skilling has met with individuals who specialize in cryptocurrency, blockchain and software development in recent weeks, two of the people said.

I’m giving this guy all of my money in his company’s ICO. He couldn’t possibly screw people over a second time.

I hope this second act involves 10' of rope and a 20' drop.

Anyone dumb enough to invest in this is a clown.

God bless business-friendly Republicans.

Enron 2: Electric Boogaloo

And, like so many criminals, he leaves prison and goes right back to doing what he did before.

Fuck him I want my money back.

At what point do your arrive at the conclusion that this isn't going to end well?

The next time Jeff Skilling is going to fire the 10% worst performers because that’s how he gets his money, take a running kick in combat boots to his crotch to send his balls back in his abdomen.

Or, you know, you can do it now, no need to wait.

Unless they’ve millions squirrelled away, I’d be surprised if they get this financed.

What could possibly go wrong?

....so open multiple accounts below 25 BTC?

We saw a rapid uptick in institutionalized participation, at sizes that BlockFi and the current crypto borrow market is not able to support at a 6% rate.

Ftfy. :)

They seem to want lots of small customers and no whales. If they were doing legit lending, they wouldn't pay less interest to their biggest investors. Would you rather manage tracking and payouts to a few massive "investors", than thousands of small ones?

It's harder to keep a Ponzi going with whales in the mix. You need to attract even more whales to keep it going, and someone with $1mil+ on deposit isn't going to be held off by excuses or bullshit.

"The interest is denominated in crypto, is supposed to be paid monthly and the way BlockFi intends to earn it is lending crypto to financial institutions.."

The key word in that sentence is "intends to earn". Why would a "financial institution" want to borrow "crypto"?

They are going to blow all their investor money and then fold.

How are they gonna pay 6% interest on a deflationary currency no one wants?

​

The reason I get interests from my CU is they lend my money then pay me part of the loan interest they make.

I'm all for paid shills.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is

^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))