Token Daily

2

2 2

2

25 1 2

unspeakableguardian 自定义 8 hs ago

按同样比例估算，全中国大概最多有几万个无症状感染者

可怕

1

grando_foo 7 hs ago

武汉是震中，跟其他地方没法比

1

grando_foo 8 hs ago

不是说只有四百万结果已经出来么，而且准确率可能还不太准，看微博上有人抱怨输出病例比例都不止这么点，光重庆就输出了二十多例，有没有可能是混检降低了阳性率？

1

judytheyang 7 hs ago

我真的完全不了解相關知識....10個人混合的唾液是否會影響檢測結果？

1

grando_foo 7 hs ago

我也不了解，不过十天测完属于政治运动，测完了就行了

1

Shifu_Chan 7 hs ago

有阳性再查

1

ccceler 9 hs ago

有一说一，中国这次防疫确实可以。但是也暴露出医疗资源极度匮乏的现状。各位反贼没有必要无脑黑。

1

aVneckshirt 2 hs ago

我觉得是在应对这方面更加显示出整个医疗制度的问题，虽然相对affordable却不分散。一旦发生疫情，这么大的城市难以应对。反正武汉初期的问题都是很值得去反思和改进的。但是防疫真的还可以了，严格的检测和隔离，后续医护人员感染几乎没有。我昨天还看到reddit有人说方航的轻症隔离是不人道的，就老美这样的想法，难怪不相信国内疫情好转。

1

matterrun 8 hs ago

幸存者偏差，而且信息不公开，您是从何得出中国抗疫可以的结论的? 病毒来源各种反转？病毒传播方式各种反转？中国的损失顶多算未知。虽然抗疫力度和一杆子插到底的程度肯定远大于欧美国家，不过从这您就得出结论了是否有点

1

rose8025 2 hs ago

做科研本来就是不断推翻各种假设的过程。你要说政府早期为了维稳有意隐瞒，这个我承认。但是你要求政府在没经过充分证伪的情况下就对一个病毒定性，是不是有点无理取闹？

1

jayantony 3 hs ago

去chonglang不好吗？

1

41957228425 7 hs ago

你说的信息不公开，病毒来源等等跟防疫措施有关系吗？当然，和台湾（#1）是比不了，但就凭和欧美比，给个“确实可以”的结论也没太过分。

1

barghestlist 9 hs ago

Imagine the transmission rate in those lines...

2

ScreamSAW 9 hs ago

测了九百万人多少有抗体的呢？有没有什么官方数据🙏

1

grando_foo 8 hs ago

这次是核酸检测，之前财新有篇已经被删的文章说1.1万人抽查抗体约有5%的人阳性

1

xenocloud1989 8 hs ago

不知道有多少抗体但好像发现了238无症状携带者

1

Order_____66 9 hs ago

This is why China will become the dominant world superpower in the next 20 years.

1

EthanHu98 11 hs ago

I would like to add how China can improve its testing capacity. Several samples are test at the same time. If they are negative, all are negative. If they are positive, then every sample is tested respectively. The validity of this method was confirmed by a research (not a Chinese domestic research). The validity is quite guaranteed when less than 30 samples are put together. This campaign is the first to massively use this method in Covid-19 testing. By doing this, Wuhan can get about 10x capacity and its original capacity was about 50k-80k per day. With some other support from other part of China, this is not hard to be done.

3

COVID19MurderHornet 5 hs ago

I think it was Stanford who did the research and proved the 30 samples accuracy, and Wuhan did it with 10 samples for better accuracy.

1

RedditItalyBot 14 hs ago

Ciao, abbiamo rimosso il tuo thread.

Hey, your submission has been removed.

Ce n'è già uno inserito poco tempo fa (o ancora rilevante) sullo stesso argomento. Puoi scrivere tra i commenti di quel thread.
Se invece stai postando qualcosa di particolarmente vecchio e non più attuale ti chiediamo di evidenziare la data originale dell'articolo/evento, e di utilizzare un thread di testo per motivare il perchè riproponi l'argomento per la discussione.
Per avere più info clicca qui: https://www.reddit.com/r/italy/wiki/help_thread_multipli

ENGLISH: There's another one, still relevant, about the same subject.
Otherwise, if you are posting something particularly old please highlight the original date of the article/event, and use a text submission to explain why you want to talk about it again. More info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/italy/wiki/help_thread_multipli

Appellati | FAQ | Appeal | FAQ (Eng) | More info about me

1

ultraformaggio 14 hs ago

Chiamatemi stronzo, ma ho smesso di credere ai dati epidemiologici cinesi da un paio di mesi.

2

EMOSCAMBIO Europe 14 hs ago

Un commento per nulla scontato e molto originale, complimenti

0

ultraformaggio 14 hs ago

Ti ringrazio per il tuo sarcasmo , buona giornata, kissini

1

alberg_30 14 hs ago

I wonder if this was partly a public stunt to rectify the massive discrimination. When I left China a couple months ago, people from Hubei were total pariahs.

1

uglyraed 15 hs ago

I still think the virus needs to be studied further to develop better testing mechanism. It is already hard to tell the difference between asymptomatic and people that are only shedding dead viruses from their body.

1

lzghome 16 hs ago

Honestly, as a Chinese person who has been in Beijing since birth, I appreciate the objectivity of reddit

I read the WSJ's original message, and some say that China has learned from Korea (in fact it's Korea that references China to some extent), some say that the Chinese government can never be trusted, but in fact people in all countries are not stupid, and China's infectious disease expert Zhang Wenhong said that infectious diseases can't be contained.

Not everyone at reddit believes in China, but I have met people who are willing to believe. We live here, are born here, in fact we are exposed to more information, at least I personally think we have more of a say than

It's more realistic to hear what a few real Chinese people and long-time Chinese residents have to say than what the Western media has to say

At least I think so.

21

magic27ball 14 hs ago

There's a strong need in their propaganda to setup South Korea as an example of success since it's the only country in their ideological camp that's not FUBAR, which is ironic since it's China that produces all those tests, not Korea, and if they actually asked China for help instead of writing propaganda praising Korea they'd actually have the pandemic under control and not cause China to come out the biggest winner. Not the first group in history to fall via hubris but still amazing to witness none the less.

14

lzghome 14 hs ago

I agree with you. In fact, before South Korea they set the example of Singapore, but after the Singaporean labor camp raised its voice for mass infection, the Western media quickly abandoned him In fact, South Korea's approach is so tough that it even includes electronic shackles for those who refuse to be segregated, and foreigners who do not comply with the mandatory 14-day segregation policy will be asked to forcibly leave the country and could face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won. And oddly enough, I don't see media like the Wall Street Times specifically reporting on South Korea's epidemic prevention measures, nor do I see any Western countries specifically learning about South Korea's epidemic F control policies. Praising South Korea shouldn't be about proving how advanced its ideology is, but rather about learning from its experience in dealing with epidemics to protect its own people, shouldn't it? It's times like these when life is what counts.

10

_Dildo_Shwaggins Yesterday

So does this mean trump is not number 1 in testing anymore? I wonder how he is going to take this L? Also it appears they are doing a mouth swab test? How accurate is that?

4

real_loganation Yesterday

But America is the hugely best at testing.

1

HAmerberty Yesterday

One of the important reasons Wuhan is doing this, is to give people confidence. Not only the US, China also suffered a lot economically during the pandemic. Even Wuhan is open now, many people are afraid to go out, so businesses are still struggling. People from Wuhan don't want to go shopping or dining out, people from other provinces are afraid to go to Wuhan. This result will find the last few carriers, and give people more confidence. Even it will cost a lot, the benefit is far more than its costs.

32

alberg_30 14 hs ago

People in other parts of China are also afraid of contact with Hubei residents. This might be an attempt to alleviate those fears.

1

lzghome 16 hs ago

Confidence comes from public health strategies, from testing and treating all When everyone is tested and treated, confidence naturally comes back, doesn't it? Americans facing a new crown epidemic can only remind me of The Governor and Deanna from The Walking Dead.

6

allsurrender 12 hs ago

It’s called coronavirus or covid-19 . New crown epidemic is some google translated name from 新冠right?

5

lzghome 12 hs ago

That's right. I use a translator.

1

mikegoto Yesterday

well, the major reason is asymptomatic patient is still carrying the disease. We filtered around 200 people with no sysmptoms but tested positive in the past 10 days here in Wuhan.

1

DoYouDigItNow Yesterday

Is anyone else catching how much makeup work this has to be if they only have so few carriers?

1

Born2Bbad Yesterday

China is amazing. I wish we could be more like China

0

ArbyntheChief117 7 hs ago

Uh no the fuck we should not

1

moongaming 8 hs ago

Hello CCPBich

1

[deleted] 8 hs ago

[removed]

1

AutoModerator Bot 8 hs ago

Your comment has been removed because * **Incivility isn’t allowed on this sub.** We want to encourage a respectful discussion. ([More Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1.3A_be_civil)) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*

1

[deleted] 8 hs ago

[removed]

1

AutoModerator Bot 8 hs ago

Your comment has been removed because * **Purely political posts and comments will be removed.** Political discussions can easily come to dominate online discussions. Therefore we remove political posts and comments and lock comments on borderline posts. ([More Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4.3A_avoid_politics)) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*

1

CharlatanNewsNetwork 8 hs ago

Every other submission is political..

1

Yaboysodope 9 hs ago

China is a fucking shitshow

0

ImagingSpectroscopy 15 hs ago

What is happening in this post?

0

BenedictCrumpledick 12 hs ago

Chinese brigading. Literally no rational person supports the CCP but they have shills to go around spreading lies.

2

DatGuyKilo 16 hs ago

There's nothing stopping you from getting that plane ticket comrade!

2

Peralta-J 16 hs ago

Imagine thinking anyone should be more like a totalitarian hellhole where they're currently exterminating ethnic minorities en masse

23

Rice_22 11 hs ago

The US said there were "enormous evidence" that the virus came from Chinese lab. It proved to be bullshit. US said there were WMDs in Iraq, that babies were thrown out of incubators and left to die, that Saddam threw people into a woodchipper. All lies. Hell, the US even tried to have a CIA asset do a AMA on reddit. https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e9ad4n/i_am_rushan_abbas_uyghur_activist_and_survivor_of/fajnlev/ But hey, surely this time the US mouthpieces claiming "enormous evidence" of genocide in China must be true.

0

socialismnotevenonce 10 hs ago

>were Was\* Get out here you Chinese click farmer.

5

Rice_22 10 hs ago

What a useless comment. I'll use my reply to cite evidence for everything I said above instead: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/politics/coronavirus-pompeo-wuhan-china-lab.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's_alleged_shredder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda#Atrocity_story https://medium.com/@rsahthion/a-reddit-ama-claiming-to-be-a-uiyghur-quickly-exposes-a-cia-asset-slandering-china-1d667c098b77

1

Kamohoaliii 5 hs ago

Ni hao pengyou.

2

showa_goji 7 hs ago

Does Xi personally sign your paycheck or is it just a stamped signature?

3

VinnysMagicGrits 7 hs ago

Lol China bot

2

Born2Bbad 16 hs ago

The comments in this sub are insane. Anything remotely anti ccp is down voted to hell and even the most ridiculous pro China BS is up voted. Look at my post history in this comment thread today. I posted that shit just to see what would happen. Reddit is broken

13

[deleted] 11 hs ago

[deleted]

0

Exotic-Attorney 8 hs ago

Yes.

6

T_Ceezy 9 hs ago

I think anyone who supports freedom and individual liberties would be anti China.

8

Peralta-J 15 hs ago

This sub is full of Chinese shills and bots. No one plays the internet game quite as well as China.

4

silentlore111 11 hs ago

That's why the downvote seems to always be 2 fir a while. Boycott xi Jin poo and china

0

rellicotton Yesterday

And our President still claims to have done more tests than all the other countries put together because we have done about 12-13M tests in 3.5 months! Ridiculous state of affairs in our country that is nearing 100K deaths.

16

slickyslickslick 11 hs ago

"anyone who wants a test can get one" no one will want a test if they cost $$$ or you have to wait hours in line for it, and it's not mandatory. 500 IQ play by Trump.

5

BinaryTimeLord Yesterday

A lot of people are saying that "Oh if China can do this so can the US testing 1 mil per day is easy" and the simple fact is no, it's not. China here is testing every human in Wuhan, America isn't they are busy tracking the outbreak, China took time to collect all these test kits to do them all at once and they only had this time because the outbreak is under control, the US can't say the same.

So it's wrong to just point at them doing this and say "US should be doing 2 mil a day no problem" because China isn't, they squeezed their capacity into a shorter time for PR.

22

EdgyMathWhiz Yesterday

I don't think it's PR: if you know exactly who has and has not got the virus, isolating the positive cases would (in a perfect world) eradicate the virus. Even if you test everyone, the longer that takes, the more likely it is that there were people you tested as -ve but have since become carriers because they've since been infected by someone you hadn't tested yet. So squeezing your testing into as short a period of time as possible seems to make sense.

5

thesillyoldgoat Yesterday

It's PR, but for a different purpose than many people assume. It isn't to impress the world or the WHO in preparation for the inquiry, it's to instill confidence in their own people so that they get out and about and start spending money again. China's domestic economy is huge and consumer confidence has taken a massive hit, this testing blitz is about getting things moving again.

28

GrauGeist8888 16 hs ago

Correct. Wuhan has had most restrictions lifted, but people stayed home out of uncertainty. Now, they have more clarity, that there basically weren't any cases, and what few there were are now being handled. Massive internal confidence builder.

4

Million2026 Yesterday

China is doing things right. If the whole world committed to doing this level of testing we could all go back to normal minus some travel restrictions.

24

danielbot Yesterday

Vietnam has been equally successful with a fraction of the testing. Vietnam used highly targeted testing, and in the early stages when they had almost no testing available they compensated with more aggressive isolation, including asymptomatic contacts.

2

liupang Yesterday

Almost all east asian countries are doing pretty well. I wonder whether it is the culture difference, or the EU/NA are facing a different mutated strain (thus more contagious) of virus?

7

hal0t 15 hs ago

You know the anti mask/covid hoax group in EU/NA? They will get slapped back into their mother's womb by the citizens, not even the government. We don't tolerate people who put their individual above the society. At least from my perspective as Vietnamese. Not gonna work in the West due to individualism.

4

Faggotitus Yesterday

High humidity inhibits the spread of the virus because it causes the exhaled droplets to quickly grow in size and fall out of the air.

2

danielbot Yesterday

Ingrained culture of mask wearing is a huge part of it. And some idiots acting out about their freedom to harm public health would not be tolerated in those cultures, it's true. So yes, culture. Good planning. Respecting the danger. All working together to fight it. So again, culture. There is no evidence that any strain of sars-covid-19 differs significantly in transmissibility or virulence.

11

slickyslickslick 11 hs ago

in Asian countries the vast majority will feel ashamed if they're not doing something everyone else has to do. in the West but especially in the US tons of people think they will die if they conform to doing what others are doing.

3

Bob25Gslifer Yesterday

See what happens when you prepare?

16

GrauGeist8888 16 hs ago

They made a plan, coordinated for overflow testing, and rolled it out in a matter of days. It cost them a couple Million USD, but it's money well spent to be able to show that Wuhan is basically COVID-free.

6

BevInTheShell 7 hs ago

I read somewhere that the estimated cost is around 2 billion RMB (\~300M USD)

2

GrauGeist8888 4 hs ago

$300M for 2M tests (5:1 pooling) would be $150 per test. Is that reasonable for bulk testing? It seems high, when I see lower commercial prices that likely have profit built in, and lack bulk efficiency.

1

mrkevrd Yesterday

The data nerds must be creaming themselves.

3

hybridglitch04 Yesterday

That's all most 1 million per day. See I can maths!

1

Hafomeng Yesterday

lmao these salty comments feed my soul

55

-Razzak Yesterday

How come recent pictures from China show them swabing directly from the throat rather than through the nose?

1

Faggotitus Yesterday

SARS-2 has been found in saliva. Poking the top back of your nasal cavity for a LRI is pretty stupid. It's what you would do for a flu.

3

-Razzak 13 hs ago

I would much prefer this test over a nasal invasion

2

yuxulu Yesterday

Because testing procedures do both.

3

2

4

2

5 2

brianddk Platinum | QC: BTC 789, Coinbase 124, CC 78 | Exch Yesterday

7-day average

Although that is one valid metric, it likely doesn't accurately reflect the current fee conditions. A standard 1to2 segwit TXN is 110 vbytes. Any TXN at or above 3 sat/b are currently clearing the mempool, and have been for the last 48h.

That translates to 330 satoshi, or about $0.03. If your in a rush and double it, you will routinely get cleared in the next block.

Most of the fee storm is passed.

1

cointastical Yesterday

This is because guessing what the fee will be ten minutes from now is difficult. So the estimates are generally now calculating a number that is way more than was actually needed.

Or people think they need next block service, when 1 hour (or three hours, who knows who cares) would have been fine.

What's the right solution?

Well, use Lightning network ⚡. Or Liquid network even, depending on what you are doing. But for on-chain, what is the right solution?

RBF.

If you are using a wallet that supports replace-by-fee (RBF), and have it enabled before creating your send transaction, you can feel comfortable going on the lower-end of the transaction fee range. If the transaction doesn't confirm soon enough for you, you simply bump the fee using RBF.

Wallets supporting RBF

2

mishax1 Yesterday

5sat\b and lower txs are being confirmed for over a day now, that considering the fact that the blockchain is 140 blocks "behind schedule"

3

kyletorpey Yesterday

Yes, the new high was hit on Friday. The article also covers the recent slow block times.

0

mishax1 Silver | QC: BTC 33 Yesterday

5sat\b and lower txs are being confirmed for over a day now, that considering the fact that the blockchain is 140 blocks "behind schedule"

2

benzhou629 Redditor for 2 months. Yesterday

> 140 blocks "behind schedule" Hows that? Can you ELI?

7

mishax1 Silver | QC: BTC 33 Yesterday

Looking at https://diff.cryptothis.com/ It says that out of the 840 blocks that should have been mined by now (the blockchain produces a block every 10min on average) there were only 700 blocks mined due to lower network hashrate since the last difficulty retarget that happens every 2016 blocks.

1

AutoModerator Yesterday

Bitcoin(BTC) Basic Info: Website - r/Bitcoin - Abstract - History - Exchanges - Wallets

Biases(Updated July, 2019): Arguments For & Arguments Against | CryptoWikis: Policy - Contribute

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

1

2

6

2

25 4

cinnapear Silver | QC: CC 794, BCH 240, BTC 54 | NANO 229 | 7 hs ago

I wonder what Ryan X. "Craig Wright is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ" Charles thinks of this revelation.

1

CTownerIsGarbage redditor for 3 months 10 hs ago

From the article:

> Another of Wright’s experts would testify on whether David Kleiman “had the requisite skills and experience to have written or significantly have contributed to the original Bitcoin software application released in 2009.”

Ira Kleiman's team should just expose Wright the same way. There's no way Wright could have coded bitcoin as he lacked the expertise, knowledge, and coding skill to do so.

edit: WHO THE FUCK DOWNVOTED ME. Fuck you, Craig Wright lover.

1

Raptorel Tin 12 hs ago

Imagine the guy writing the message chose to write "Craig Wright is the real Satoshi", just for shits and giggles. What then?

1

jmabbz 13 hs ago

that is brilliant!

1

lazarus_free 13 hs ago

There's already another older thread talkimg about this

1

braclayrab Platinum | QC: BCH 350, BTC 31 14 hs ago

oof

1

Mobilenewsflash Bronze 16 hs ago

This message has detested the BTC off-chain scaling solutions, you should check Cruzbit where developer has considered that problem when designing it.

https://cruzb.it scales up with block height.

More: @asdvxgxasjab/cruzbit-a-simple-decentralized-peer-to-peer-ledger-2944495b6129">https://medium.com/@asdvxgxasjab/cruzbit-a-simple-decentralized-peer-to-peer-ledger-2944495b6129

1

Redundant_Design Tin 16 hs ago

I think we all know what this means, the king is out of prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

8

BeachLink Redditor for 4 months. Yesterday

Fuck you creg

no one likes you.

youre a punk.

2

TiagoTiagoT Yesterday

What the fuck? Being a lying asshole has nothing to do with having autism...

1

TxTPEER Tin Yesterday

Omg this guy

1

yunibyte Yesterday

*eats popcorn

1

sidhujag 4 - 5 years account age. 250 - 500 comment karma. Yesterday

It’s not about bsv Or bch or even big blockers because bitcoin is what it is and cannot change through a consensus fork. If you read the ln paper it clearly suggests what bandwidth requirements and resource consumptions are needed to get to 7b people doing 2tx per year onchain. What he is saying is that LN alone won’t be solution because onchain won’t support that, some more innovation is needed.. hinting at possibly interoperability or some new math magic to compress information further.

The message is bang on 100%. His ideals match what original intention of bitcoin was. However how we get there will be up to imaginations of engineers who are delivering decentralized solutions at scale and not pony show of staking/validator/shard based consensus mechanisms that cover up the dirt

1

ProfessionalMulberry Yesterday

This man belongs in prison. A LIAR AND A FRAUD - no doubt

Get Rekt $BSV

4

ShmehNameTaken 4 - 5 years account age. 125 - 250 comment karma. Yesterday

Who actually believes this idiot is Satoshi?

Do we just talk about him because he continues to insist he is?

He doesn’t even act like “Satoshi”

2

AvoidMyRange redditor for 1 week Yesterday

It's hilarious to me that so many people here are calling for block size increases when we literally had completely empty blockchain every day for months prior to the halving. Ofcourse right now it's a little congested, once difficulty dicreases that's gonna clear up again and things are, again, fine.

There is literally no problem.

4

__heimdall 16 hs ago

The inelastic throughput is a problem, whether it matters right now or not. Either BTC is meant as a value store and is relegated to large transactions and accounting between centralized parties where low throughput is fine, or BTC is meant to be used as a daily peer-to-peer money where it sure as hell be able to handle more transactions. Imagine how pissed people would be if their Visa stopped working on Black Friday, or if they charged higher fees due to traffic.

1

nyaaaa 7 hs ago

> or if they charged higher fees due to traffic. Uhh, good morning.

1

AvoidMyRange redditor for 1 week 16 hs ago

Bitcoin has never "stopped working", the fee is just fluctuating. Believe it or not, when you pay with your visa, that costs a fee aswell, you're just paying it in other ways (or it gets deferred to the merchant). As for practicality, Bitcoin will be both - a store of value and a secure way to pay large amounts on-chain, and a p2p money mostly used off-chain with ways to settle on-chain aswell. Bitcoin is still in its infancy, it is 11 years old. The internet was invented in 1983, so you can compare it with the internet in 1994.

4

__heimdall 15 hs ago

Well bitcoin hasn't crashed or anything like that, but "stopped working" depends on your definition. If a "working" bitcoin network keeps the mempool empty and fees lower than say $0.50, it has stopped working. If "working" is only that blocks get solved eventually, that's a low bar. Off-chain is a whole other debate. There are really interesting things that can be done there, but fundamentally they do throw out the trust less peer-to-peer goals of bitcoin. Whether that matters is up for debate, but going off chain is a huge change. Off-chain solutions like the lightning network are massively complex solutions to a very simple problem. If one of my backend server is running out of resources in production I throw another server at it to double capacity. I should then go back to optimize things, lower memory usage and compute time, but you add capacity short term so you can have time to solve the problem properly. Off-chain solutions are more akin to trying to resign the internet or custom design a new chip architecture because my server is overloaded.

0

nullc 5 hs ago

> but fundamentally they do throw out the trust less peer-to-peer goals of bitcoin I think that's entirely untrue. One can create off chain things that themselves don't have trustless peer to peer behaviour, like a digicash server... and get other advantages in exchange. But non-p2p and trusty things are just one option out of *many*. And fortunately, all of the many options can exist at once and users can use whichever best meet their needs.

1

__heimdall 5 hs ago

There are definitely cool things that can be done, and don't get me wrong I don't think all off-chain solutions are garbage. I am a bit concerned with the idea that the only way to make bitcoin scale is off-chain though. It can add really novel features and platforms, but the main protocol really still should be able to stand on its own without it.

1

coinjaf 7 hs ago

Your definition of "stopped working" completely depends on what your subjective definition is of what a working bitcoin means and what to expect of bitcoin. Which is in your case is clearly a bogus expectation. \> If a "working" bitcoin network keeps the mempool empty That's the opposite of a working bitcoin. Mempools \_must\_ be non-empty. \> fees lower than say $0.50 Who promised you that? Not Satoshi for sure. You believed some random people who didn't themselves understand bitcoin and now you think the universe owes you cheap transaction and bitcoin has to bend over backwards just to give it to you? \> but going off chain is a huge change Bullshit, Satoshi already talked about payment channels and even implemented the necessary bits for them. Unfortunately there were bugs in those bits which caused them to be disabled or ignored until proper fixes/replacements were invented and implemented. \> complex solutions to a very simple problem Bullshit again. Nothing about a decentralized incentive balanced blockchain is simple. \> If one of my backend server A decentralized P2P system is not a backend server. \> but you add capacity short term Not if that is too expensive or risks the whole system stopping. \> Off-chain solutions are more akin to trying to resign the internet or custom design a new chip architecture because my server is overloaded. No, off chain solutions are, in your bad analogy, more like actually smart things like caching, QOS and load balancing.

1

__heimdall 5 hs ago

Man its always impressive how quick people on rbtc and rbitcoin are to jump from conversation to aggressive, defensive argument. Let's try this one at a time. \> That's the opposite of a working bitcoin. Mempools \_must\_ be non-empty. Fair enough, though a bit nitpicky. The mempool is the short term buffer to hold transactions until a block is available. The mempool staying at less 1MB in size isn't a big deal, but once it starts filling up and falling behind its a scaling problem. Easy solutions are increasing block size, longer term solutions may be minimizing the memory size of each transaction. \> Who promised you that? Not Satoshi for sure. You believed some random people who didn't themselves understand bitcoin and now you think the universe owes you cheap transaction and bitcoin has to bend over backwards just to give it to you? Unnecessarily personal, but yes the idea that transaction fees stay low is a given in the goals of bitcoin. Who would reasonably propose a peer-to-peer money that costs say $8 per transaction??? \> Bullshit, Satoshi already talked about payment channels and even implemented the necessary bits for them. Unfortunately there were bugs in those bits which caused them to be disabled or ignored until proper fixes/replacements were invented and implemented. This is news to me, I was not aware of any plans for off-chain channels prior to the lightning network timeframe. Regardless, this is not a black or white debate and I see merit in LN. That said, if its worth it then there's no need to arbitrarily keep the block size hamstrung. If LN delivers on zero-fee transactions and almost instant conformation then it will be adopted. \> Bullshit again. Nothing about a decentralized incentive balanced blockchain is simple. What? I'm not saying the bitcoin protocol is simple. I'm saying the short term fix of increasing block size is a much easier fix to the problem than building LN. It has been in development for years and has plenty of problems to solve before its ready for broad use. \> A decentralized P2P system is not a backend server Sure, but its the same problem. The transaction throughput is bottlenecked by the protocol's block size. There is no technical reason for the hard cap or why it can't be increased, even if only to buy time for more robust solutions. \> Not if that is too expensive or risks the whole system stopping. What are the risks with raising block size? I'm only aware of issues related to it being a hard fork, is there something else though? \> No, off chain solutions are, in your bad analogy, more like actually smart things like caching, QOS and load balancing. Sorry but this is completely wrong. You cache data that hasn't changed so you don't need to spend higher resources to read from the single source of truth (usually your database). Off-chain strategies are purposely changing data outside the single source of truth (the blockchain), it isn't a cache. If you want to compare it to data, its more akin to running periodic backups. Your database is left with stale data purposely to avoid scaling issues, and you occasionally take the time to write fresh data back to the DB. The risk is that any data not yet saved could be lost or corrupted, and if needed elsewhere it may not be available.

2

coinjaf 4 hs ago

\> aggressive, defensive I don't see where I am aggressive. Defensive is just a requirement as rbtc and co are deliberately infecting newcomers with disinformation and completely wrong explanations on what bitcoin is and how it works. That nonsense then ends up being repeated over and over again here. \> 1MB What is that arbitrary cutoff point that you picked there? There is nothing related to 1MB in current bitcoin. \> but once it starts filling up and falling behind its a scaling problem. Nope. Mempool needs several times the blocksize of backlog during normal operation such that even when 3 or 4 blocks are found in quick succession, there's always enough fee to fill those blocks. If blocks are not always full, security suffers. \> Easy solutions are increasing block size Maybe you've missed the last 8 years of discussions, but there's absolutely nothing easy about that. It's also a hard fork, which by definition is hard (even though that's not what the "hard" in the name stands for). \> fees stay low is a given in the goals of bitcoin ... $8 Nope. Check the white paper. Absolutely not a goal and certainly impossible to put a price tag on how "cheap". The goal is a working decentralized system, everything else comes 2nd to that at best. \> I'm saying the short term fix of increasing block size is a much easier fix to the problem than building LN. Which is untrue. Other than the block size increase that has already happened several years ago. Plenty of shitcoins have already proven this too BTW: all bigblock forks are broken in many ways, including security, as well as simply dead. Not only obvious when you think theoretically about it for a minute, also observable in practice. \> This is news to me I think they were called payment channels, or maybe that's just the name I've heard Peter Todd use for it lateron. Not sure anymore. Either way: transactions have a version number in them that satoshi intended to allow newer version transactions "overwrite" older ones. Only the last version would settle on the blockchain. From very far away that's exactly the idea of LN, but Satoshi's implementation was susceptible to DOS attacks and was generally not secure (a cheating miner could mine a non-latest version transaction). \> That said, if its worth it then there's no need to arbitrarily keep the block size hamstrung. Nobody is doing that. \> If LN delivers on zero-fee transactions It won't and nothing will be zero-fees. Again: that is not a promise that needs to be delivered. You were lied to if you believe that promise and you should stop listening completely to whoever promised you that. Same for the idea that a "block size increase is easy". You're just wasting your time with that line of thought, which is blocking you from discovering many more exciting rabbit holes that bitcoin has to offer. \> and almost instant conformation It already does. \> The transaction throughput is bottlenecked by the protocol's block size. There is no point in putting a bigger harddisk in your backend server if the bottleneck is somewhere else. Similarly, the block size can not be increased without first taking out other bottlenecks. \> There is no technical reason for the hard cap or why it can't be increased, even if only to buy time for more robust solutions. Yes there is. And time was already bought by a blocksize increase a few years ago. This nonsense is old debunked bullshit, you're not saying anything new. \> What are the risks with raising block size? I'm only aware of issues related to it being a hard fork, is there something else though? A good question is always better than throwing out false assumptions as truth. Increased block size means increased cost of running a full node, which means fewer people can or will do that, which means centralization. Bitcoin without decentralization is just a crappy version of Paypal. \> You cache data that hasn't changed so you don't need to spend higher resources to read from the single source of truth (usually your database). There are many different caches in a PC, not just webcache. LN can be viewed as literally a form of (write) caching: some blob of data changes many times, but only gets written to permanent record once in the end. Besides, you're attacking an analogy now, one which I already said was bad. \> Off-chain strategies are purposely changing data outside the single source of truth (the blockchain), it isn't a cache. That's exactly what a disk write cache does as well. \> write fresh data back to the DB Except the blockchain is an immutable database, you only get one chance. So best to wait as long as possible.

2

__heimdall 3 hs ago

Well we definitely disagree on a few things but I do appreciate all the time you put into having a conversation. You are right, I misspoke with the 1MB limit. I thought the increase to 2MB was completely cancelled after segwit drama, apparently its more or less a hard cap at 4MB but generally blocks fill at around 2MB. I still don't agree with the idea that blocks always need to be full, or that the mempool should have multiple blocks worth of transactions pending, but that may not matter much. Personal I think block size should be allowed to fluctuate similar to how difficulty fluctuates, it hurts the system to have transactions that get stuck for days or fees that get bid way up. I'm also not sure how a hard fork is technically hard. Contentious sure, but its really just a software patch that much be rolled out to a majority of miners. It has caused plenty of drama over the years, but there's no way to avoid that when decentralized. With regards to full node sizes, I'm not sure how block size guards against that. A block doesn't need to take up the max space on disk, the amount of space required will be dependant on the number/size of transactions stored. You could set max block size of 1TB but if there's only 2MB of transactions that all it needs on disk. (Don't misconstrue that as a recommendation to raise the block size this some ridiculous level, I have seen people say that and its a terrible idea). All that said, I do see real merit in LN and similar ideas. Its a really clever idea and can have great uses, but I have a lot of concerns for bitcoin of the only way for mass adoption is by going off chain. Inevitably off-chain solutions will be centralized in my opinion, even if only because a company builds a better mousetrap that breaks into mass adoption.

1

nyaaaa 7 hs ago

Visa has stopped working infinitely more times.

1

garlichead1 16 hs ago

like in a big city when most shower between 6-8. so when there is a little congestion and some people don't have water it's not a problem because we had water the whole night?

0

AvoidMyRange redditor for 1 week 16 hs ago

That issue is actually much harder to fix than bitcoin's congestion. Again, the water will never ever run out, it will just cost you a little bit more during a drought, if you can't wait 'til 9pm. To stay within your rather labored analogy.

1

garlichead1 16 hs ago

well you just say there is no problem at all. high fees and congestion is a problem, even if it's only for a short period of time. there is no benefit in denying it.

2

AvoidMyRange redditor for 1 week 16 hs ago

Whether it's an issue really depends on what you consider "high" fees tho.

1

shinyspirtomb 16 hs ago

There is a problem. It's evident now and it could be more evident in the future. They have the ability to fix it. "Yea, my car is usually fine. The engine got a little hot and now it's on fire but that'll stop after it finishes burning." Jk with that last analogy ;)

0

coinjaf 7 hs ago

Who is "they" in this decentralized open source development environment? And why are you not part of "they" if you're so sure "they" can do it?

1

AvoidMyRange redditor for 1 week 16 hs ago

The internet was invented in 1983, so think of bitcoin right now as the internet in 1994. The same main protocols are still used to navigate the world wide web, but solutions have been implemented to increase scaling (and scalibity) and ease-of-use. The same will happen to bitcoin to the point where the average user might not even consciously notice they're using it or whether they're using it off- or on-chain. There are always obstacles, the smartest solutions are just usually not the simplest.

1

BitJunky7 Yesterday

Same old story!

1

Blixx87 Gold | QC: BTC 56, LTC 39 | CC critic Yesterday

Does CSW have a response to this yet? I can’t wait for this lol!

2

Fhelans Gold | QC: CC 40 | NANO 8 14 hs ago

"haha... Yeh that was me, just a prank.. Haha... Got you. Told you I'm Satoshi"

1

JollyInspection 12 hs ago

it said we are all satoshi so craig wright is satoshi confirmed.

1

chillfactor0 Bronze Yesterday

No double spaces after a stop.

1

educateyourselfsilly redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Would be an epic slow roll though. Next message says "JK Bitches! Imma dump on you now!"

1

cm18 Platinum | QC: BCH 449, CC 51, BTC 39 | r/Technolo Yesterday

If he actually controls those addresses, signing a message like this muddies the water.

1

BTC_Kook Crypto God | QC: BCH 139, BTC 35 Yesterday

Lets see an openssl command to independently verify.

1

PandemoniumPVP Yesterday

Seriosly, he acts like he is retarded

1

chek2fire Yesterday

i have a proper explanation for Faketoshi.

Bonded courier have stole his keys and sign this message :P

5

abbeyeiger Platinum | QC: CC 906, BTC 129, GVT 47 | r/Politic Yesterday

This whole CSW charade reminds me of the current president occupying the white house: To most people, he is an obvious joke of a man and a total fraud liar......

Yet, a small base of acolytes hangs on tighter with each failure and employs extreme mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance in order to desperately maintain the illusion of integrity, skill and stability- in an ever increasingly obvious con.

What a shitshow.

8

aminok Platinum | BTC 1321, ETH 1101, CC 422 | TraderSubs Yesterday

I don't believe he has real followers. They act like sockpuppet accounts run by paid shills, or fellow scammers who hate the cryptocurrency movement, with all its dangerous beliefs about individual liberty and privacy, and want to coopt/disrupt it. If you examine their behaviour online, it's all about: * trying to scam the less informed that BSV is the legitimate large block alternative to BTC, which has the effect of diverting attention away from BCH * trying to scam the less informed that cryptocurrency is not about individual sovereignty and privacy, and is instead all about centralized gatekeeper and surveillance by the government over the populaces' private financial transactions

3

[deleted] Yesterday

[deleted]

1

aminok Platinum | BTC 1321, ETH 1101, CC 422 | TraderSubs Yesterday

What part of my comment are you responding to? I don't see the relevance of your comment to mine.

1

sidhujag 4 - 5 years account age. 250 - 500 comment karma. 9 hs ago

Moved it up

1

11 7

Christopher Wheeler - @Stocktrader

Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility · GitHub https://t.co/zrPt3uh4yD

1 2

Daniel Ƀ - @csuwildcat

RT @chris_belcher_: Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility https://t.co/MQWoRJikxC Alice sends tx A->B but the coins actually end up in Z. Then when normie Carol sends a tx an analyst must deal with possibility that Carol's coins disappeared too

80 217

Dennis Parker⚡️ - @Xentagz

RT @chris_belcher_: Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility https://t.co/MQWoRJikxC Alice sends tx A->B but the coins actually end up in Z. Then when normie Carol sends a tx an analyst must deal with possibility that Carol's coins disappeared too

48 125

Matt Odell - @matt_odell

RT @chris_belcher_: Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility https://t.co/MQWoRJikxC Alice sends tx A->B but the coins actually end up in Z. Then when normie Carol sends a tx an analyst must deal with possibility that Carol's coins disappeared too

37 96

Marty Bent - @MartyBent

The end of SHUM is upon us. Shoutout to @chris_belcher_ for putting the team on his back. https://t.co/a63ehJq6qc

0 1

Steve Lee - @moneyball

RT @chris_belcher_: Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility https://t.co/MQWoRJikxC Alice sends tx A->B but the coins actually end up in Z. Then when normie Carol sends a tx an analyst must deal with possibility that Carol's coins disappeared too

14 30

Jonas Schnelli - @_jonasschnelli_

RT @chris_belcher_: Design for a CoinSwap Implementation for Massively Improving Bitcoin Privacy and Fungibility https://t.co/MQWoRJikxC Alice sends tx A->B but the coins actually end up in Z. Then when normie Carol sends a tx an analyst must deal with possibility that Carol's coins disappeared too

4 1

tws0 redditor for 3 days 1 h ago

Bitcoin have been favourable to me

0

overcookedit 3 hs ago

Couldn't a firm with large resources simply scan the blockchain to see any address that received the amount that was sent? Let's say it takes 20 minutes, at 12:00 Alice send 0.1456 and by 12:20 a random address received 0.1456. Seems like it could be narrowed down to just a few options pretty quickly.

I'm glad btc is trying to improve in these areas, but just seems like Monero has it beat in this area. BTC->Monero-> BTC seems easier.

2

belcher_ 3 hs ago

That's the purpose of multi-transaction CoinSwaps. So from the OP: > AliceA (15 BTC) ----> CoinSwap AddressA ----> BobA (15 BTC) > >. > > BobB (7 BTC) ----> CoinSwap AddressB ----> AliceB (7 BTC) > > BobC (5 BTC) ----> CoinSwap AddressC ----> AliceC (5 BTC) > > BobD (3 BTC) ----> CoinSwap AddressD ----> AliceD (3 BTC) Alice sent 15 BTC and got back three outputs (7 BTC, 5 BTC, 3 BTC) which add up to 15 BTC. So an analyst of the blockchain who started with AliceA (15 BTC) couldn't simply search for the number 15 later on because they wouldn't find it. The problem with Monero is scalability. If you ran Monero at bitcoin's current traffic levels, common mid range desktop systems couldn't even keep up with it. While on Bitcoin you've got full nodes run on raspberry pi's that easily keep up with new blocks. That also allows bitcoin to do cool stuff like blockstream satellite, or sending blocks over radio waves. So yes Monero might be more private than bitcoin in it's current form, but what's the point if you're limited to 100x-1000x fewer users?

3

overcookedit 1 h ago

Thanks for the explanation. I guess it still needs fungibility so you don't end up with BobD's dirty coins. Filthy BobD.

1

belcher_ 1 h ago

All those transactions look exactly like regular bitcoin transactions. So there's nothing to tell CoinSwaps apart. Also, Bob is a market maker who does CoinSwaps and PayJoins with a wide variety of people. He'll have lots of different sources of coins coming into his wallet (and mixing that wallet with others via payjoin) which should make taint dilute out to zero (assuming a sane taint tracking algorithm)

1

lazarus_free 2 hs ago

And that's not even taking into account the potential future usage. If many more people start using crypto, Bitcoin still has room to grow (even with the last resort of increasing the block size) whilst Monero is very limited. And I'm saying this as a crypto enthusiast by no means I hate Monero. I wish actually that there was a way to scale with the level of privacy that Monero offers. But I count 8 transactions if every arrow is a transaction how is this cheaper than Coinjoin?

1

belcher_ 2 hs ago

Half the arrows in that diagram can be skipped because of [private key handover](https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/9144bd57a91c194e332fb5ca371d0964#private-key-handover). Also one CoinJoin isn't equivalent to one CoinSwap. Take the example of JoinMarket which has to repeat coinjoins many many times in order to get some privacy, by default the tumbler script creates 10-15 coinjoins (and those coinjoins are much better than regular transactions). Each CoinSwap provides much better privacy than each CoinJoin, so for the same amount of privacy CoinSwap uses much less block space. I don't think CoinJoin can ever get to CoinSwap's level of privacy because the transactions are so obvious. For Monero, if you take into account the cost to sybil attack then this scheme has even better privacy because of the fidelity bonds, which make it much more costly to sybil attack than Monero. (You could sybil attack Monero by creating many many many dust outputs and never spending them, then if a user chooses those randomly as decoy inputs then you can exclude them from your analysis. And creating dust outputs only costs miner fees)

2

lazarus_free 58 mins ago

Very interesting, thanks

1

admin-mod 3 hs ago

What about fees? As time goes the transaction fees are going to increase.
I hope this method is not implemented as default. People can pay more for more privacy.

2

belcher_ 3 hs ago

This scheme uses way less block space per unit privacy than equal-output coinjoin. So it would be saving block space if it existed. For small transactions people will of course use Lightning. But they'll always be a place for on-chain, and on-chain privacy.

3

lazarus_free 4 hs ago

Nice I love the idea and the part where it explains that the main advantage over Lightning and Coinjoin is that Coinswap is not distinguishable from another transaction so exchanges have no way of blocking it. Simply brilliant!

I believe privacy at the base layer is the most important battle we need to fight.

But the good thing is, Coinswap can be implemented without further soft forks so we just need to build the software we won't even have to fight for a privacy update that may be frown upon! I believe it will benefit from Schnorr but it's not entirely necessary.

And also on top of that it helps the whole network no matter if you use it or not because it adds a reasonable amount of doubt to your normal transactions! They could be Coinswaps!

Just too good to be true, really excited for this technology!

!lntip 20000

3

belcher_ 4 hs ago

Thanks for the comment and tip. The writeup has a brief section on schnorr.

2

lazarus_free 4 hs ago

Cheers I just skim read it but will read until the last bit when I have some time.

1

lntipbot 4 hs ago

Hi u/lazarus_free, thanks for tipping u/belcher_ **20000** satoshis! *** *[^(More info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/lntipbot/wiki/index) ^| [^(Balance)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=balance&message=!balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) [^(Send me a message)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=drmoore718)*

1

xboox 7 hs ago

The discussion is happening over at the Bitcoin subredit : https://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/gqt1zu/extensive_and_well_written_high_level_design_for/

3

btc_max 9 hs ago

I intend to create this CoinSwap software. It will be almost completely decentralized and available for all to use for free. The design is published here for review. If you want to help support development I accept donations at https://bitcoinprivacy.me/coinswap-donations

Donated!

4

belcher_ 8 hs ago

Thank you!

1

lazarus_free 4 hs ago

Donated as well 😉 Keep it up 💪

1

belcher_ 4 hs ago

Thanks!

2

lazarus_free 4 hs ago

Just a question: if it is implementable now and is so great, why haven't we advanced more into this yet? While we have reasonably advanced on Coinjoin implementations. I mean is there any theoretical hurdle that could make it not work, or has it been tried and failed? Or is just a matter that it's a new concept and we just need patience and resources and somebody to work on it and develop it?

1

belcher_ 3 hs ago

It's a lot more complicated to implement than coinjoin. When I first started working on bitcoin privacy not even coinjoin existed so it seems like a good idea to try that first. Also coinswap needs segwit to work, so in 2013 when it was first proposed nobody knew how to solve transaction malleability. Edit: Adding to this, coinswap always had the problem of "who goes first" which was solved by fidelity bonds (also known about for years but nobody really worked on it until I did last year).

3

lazarus_free 3 hs ago

Thank you!

1

bitusher Yesterday

CoinSwap doesnt break any of bitcoin's assumptions or features like an auditable supply or pruning. It can be built on today's bitcoin without any new soft forks.

Very nice!

!lntip 5000

14

belcher_ 8 hs ago

Thanks!

2

lntipbot Yesterday

Hi u/bitusher, thanks for tipping u/belcher_ **5000** satoshis! *** *[^(More info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/lntipbot/wiki/index) ^| [^(Balance)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=balance&message=!balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) [^(Send me a message)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=drmoore718)*

1

bitdex redditor for a day Yesterday

btc CoinSwap to the moon

5

buttonstraddle Yesterday

yes please

privacy is of utmost importance

14

Aussiehash Yesterday

How much anonymity and block chain analysis uncertainty does Lightning provide. Say 10 stores selling counterstrike skins. Lots of small transactions, all via lightning, consolidated intermittently on chain. How could chainalysis determine which are fake volume, which are payments to skin modders and which are payments to the store operators ?

6

belcher_ Yesterday

Imagine a future where a user Alice has bitcoins and wants to send them with maximal privacy, so she creates a special kind of transaction. For anyone looking at the blockchain her transaction appears completely normal with her coins seemingly going from address A to address B. But in reality her coins end up in address Z which is entirely unconnected to either A or B.

Now imagine another user, Carol, who isn't too bothered by privacy and sends her bitcoin using a regular wallet which exists today. But because Carol's transaction looks exactly the same as Alice's, anybody analyzing the blockchain must now deal with the possibility that Carol's transaction actually sent her coins to a totally unconnected address. So Carol's privacy is improved even though she didn't change her behaviour, and perhaps had never even heard of this software.

In a world where advertisers, social media and other companies want to collect all of Alice's and Carol's data, such privacy improvement would be incredibly valuable. And also the doubt added to every transaction would greatly boost the fungibility of bitcoin and so make it a better form of money.

This undetectable privacy can be developed today by implementing CoinSwap, although by itself that isn't enough. There must be many building blocks which together make a good system. The software could be standalone as a kind of bitcoin mixing app, but it could also be a library that existing wallets can implement allowing their users to send Bitcoin transactions with much greater privacy.

17

djpeen 2 hs ago

It seems that this would be much easier to use for casual users. You would not have to prepare your wallet in advance, you would not have to manage coins. You simply engage with the coinswap market to make a spend disconnected from your wallet

1

belcher_ 2 hs ago

Yep. That's a little bit how joinmarket is. The user just types in an amount and clicks "send", and a coinjoin for that amount gets made. This is possible because of the liquidity market. But even so joinmarket has some flaws and a solution based on coinswap is ultimately better I'd say.

1

3

25

Dan McArdle - @robustus

RT @clarkmoody: For those unfamiliar with Bitcoin, this is how you prove ownership of an address. No court, judge, or legal proceedings required. https://t.co/1B9VPhvH0D

125 590

aluna lee ⚡ - @onemanatatime

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

1332 4061

Ledger Only Gives Away Knowledge - @ledgerstatus

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

1245 3816

Jonny Moe - @JonnyMoeTrades

This is pretty wild. https://t.co/01wW8adyb2

0 6

Nick Szabo⚡️ - @NickSzabo4

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

1177 3583

Dan Held - @Dan-Held

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

1120 3356

Andrew "Not cool enough for an ETH scam" Glidden - @asglidden

RT @stephendpalley: Hard to see how his lawyers stay on in the case if this is true. Also hard not to see how he doesn’t get defaulted, held in contempt and (potentially) referred for a perjury prosecution. https://t.co/Ryfy8fJiaT

12 79

Preston Byrne - @prestonjbyrne

RT @stephendpalley: Hard to see how his lawyers stay on in the case if this is true. Also hard not to see how he doesn’t get defaulted, held in contempt and (potentially) referred for a perjury prosecution. https://t.co/Ryfy8fJiaT

10 55

Daniel Jeffries - @Dan_Jeffries1

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

932 2776

John Lilic - @JohnLilic

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

932 2778

Matt Odell - @matt_odell

RT @clarkmoody: For those unfamiliar with Bitcoin, this is how you prove ownership of an address. No court, judge, or legal proceedings required. https://t.co/1B9VPhvH0D

25 104

Pierre Rochard - @pierre_rochard

RT @bitstein: It's always been that easy. https://t.co/1pZSTUYmhe https://t.co/DGpS1lYw3W

18 151

Daniel Ƀ - @csuwildcat

Anyone with half a brain knew Craig would never provide proof he is Satoshi, given he isn't and doesn't have the keys. But b/c he was dumb enough to claim ownership of specific addresses, it was just a matter of time before one of those address owners ended his perjurous charade: https://t.co/gZRp3H0m7p

1 14

Charlie Lee [LTC] - @SatoshiLite

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

736 2182

Pontus Lindblom - @ponli137

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

617 1809

CZ - @cz_binance

REKT We are all Satoshi, except CSW. https://t.co/gXoBxUyf5T

43 214

Adam Back - @adam3us

“Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” -Florida Judge Beth Bloom, quoting Sir Walter Scott’s "Marmion" in court finding. https://t.co/QiXIF9N7er in the "final list" CSW claims was delivered from claimed tulip trust (which judge also doubts exists).

9 84

Ari Paul - @AriDavidPaul

@dickcata @22Centurycrypto @crypto_fruit Lol. https://t.co/RRHGQQzZAy https://t.co/sU3q85Thkm

0 0

Michael Goldstein - @bitstein

It's always been that easy. https://t.co/1pZSTUYmhe https://t.co/DGpS1lYw3W

1 11

Samson Mow - @Excellion

RT @MyLegacyKit: Oh. My. God. 😂 Not just one... but a freaking 145 addresses of the Tulip Trust list have been signed! 🤟 "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud." Amen. https://t.co/Vu7Qxcdd05

33 188

Dovey Wan - @DoveyWan

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

416 1168

฿TF%$D! - @CryptoHustle

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

420 1184

Aron van Ammers - @aronvanammers

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

418 1173

Keiser Report - @KeiserReport

RT @alistairmilne: And just like that, the web of lies spun by Craig Wright are completely destroyed ... https://t.co/BJyMrVBMlo

1 13

Marty Bent - @MartyBent

RT @Zectro1: Someone just signed a message calling Craig a fraud from 145 addresses Craig claimed were his in the Tulip Trust. I verified the first few addresses on the list, and their signatures and presence on Craig's list checks out. https://t.co/gwTy8GcmiF https://t.co/4hHCKr8NCA

2 9

2

25 2

1seraphius 2 days ago

Exile this weedy man.

1

westw00d1 2 days ago

This lockdown is a complete sham. They know it, and we are idiots for lapping it up and blindly complying with their ridiculous "guidelines".

3

tomcat426 2 days ago

Witness surely thay mean informant, we have turned into a police state

0

thatbloke83 Hampshire 2 days ago

"Do as I say, not as I do"

2

xjagerx 2 days ago

I won't lie, when this story broke on Friday I couldn't get mad because, in the same conditions, I would have done the same. If my wife is ill, if I am becoming symptomatic, and my best support network is 260 miles away with an empty guest house, it's a no brainer. I want to get there while I am well enough to transport my family there, so in case we are incapacitated my kid can be looked after by family. I despise the man, both due to his actions as a human and his ideas towards humanity, but on Friday night I couldn't call for him to go because deep down I know I would have done it.

But, now we know the truth. This was not a mercy dash. This was flaunting. This was a minor holiday. As people watched their beloved get burried on Zoom, or worse were there and unable to hold together people broken by the agony of death, he drove back and forth to look at bluebells.

I haven't seen my family since January. If he is still in a job on Monday night, I drive to them on Tuesday morning. Fuck lockdown, it's over.

27

snapper1971 2 days ago

>I haven't seen my family since January. If he is still in a job on Monday night, I drive to them on Tuesday morning. Fuck lockdown, it's over. And risk how many people you've never met or will ever meet? What gives you the right to endanger life because you're pissed off at the government?

4

Dzvf 2 days ago

Exactly the same as us buying cheaply from the Fasr East where people die in appalling working conditions - do we care about their lives - nope

2

JustKeepSwimming101 2 days ago

I agree with almost everything you've said apart from the last section about ignoring the lockdown rules. Two wrongs dont make a right regardless of Cummings arrogance and selfishness.

16

itsnobigthing 2 days ago

Whether you individually agree or not, this will be the takeaway for most people. If Downing Street defend this guy’s decision to visit his mum for her birthday, stroll amongst the bluebells and pop to a local tourist town, then it clearly sends the message that those things are a-ok.

6

StoneheartedLady 2 days ago

That's the reaction I have. Why would your take away from this be "I'm going to be as big a cunt as this person I despise, fuck it if I kill someone I love"?

9

Roguetrad3r 2 days ago

But that’s the problem, if the view is it’s “one rule for thee and one for me” as people have been saying then the public buy in to the rules will collapse

6

raatz02 2 days ago

Assholes who make laws about quarantine then break them because rules are for ~other people~ should be locked up. Can Boris live without him?

3

MibbesAyeMibbesNaw 2 days ago

I think Johnson has had enough. He wanted the title but not the responsibility. He's become the invisible man of UK politics (cf Nicola Sturgeon). At the end of this latest disastrous Tory term, I'd be astonished if Johnson was the one leading them into the next GE.

1

davie18 London 2 days ago

Wow can’t believe the witness has allowed their identity to be revealed. They’re well and truly involved with this now, probably have reporters camping outside their house. I’d have wanted to stay anonymous I think...

5

ZanzibarGuy 2 days ago

But then there's the risk of getting mixed up with Laura K's anonymous sources.

1

starbucksresident 2 days ago

more....

https://twitter.com/iamsimonyoung/status/1259591486523486209

6

MkGlory 3 days ago

Does breach of lockdown rules count as an offence? Can it be prosecuted?

2

Donnakebabmeat 3 days ago

I know one thing. He's Joris Bohnson's "Spin doctor". Or to put it another way, a fucking liar.

5

MibbesAyeMibbesNaw 3 days ago

He should be sacked but, functionally, it won't make any difference. They're hardly going to delete each others' numbers and never talk again, but what it may do is weaken Bozo even further. He's still to fully recover from covid and from understanding the full seriousness of exactly what being elected prime minister actually means. I reckon Murdoch is lining up Gove for a Putsch. And the whole of the UK has to suffer in the meantime.

5

starbucksresident 3 days ago

Wakefield would later give an account of her husband’s Covid-19 experience in an article for the Spectator. “Dom couldn’t get out of bed. Day in, day out for 10 days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms.”

Suspect is pure fiction.

14

dispelthemyth 3 days ago

It will be very funny if the government do end up sacking him but he will worm his way back after a few months.

2

cuntRatDickTree Scotland 2 days ago

They'll just work with him in secrecy.

2

alwayslurkeduntilnow 3 days ago

What an absolute cockwomble

13

Quailman81 2 days ago

Thats a insult to wombles

1

PleaseMakeItSpecial 3 days ago

And that is now my new favourite insult. Thank you.

0

HotPinkLollyWimple 3 days ago

At least we won’t have to see him dressed like a complete wank noodle!

1

alwayslurkeduntilnow 3 days ago

Its beautiful

3

CrazyCodGod 3 days ago

you know, it says so much that literally every top tier tory is out defending this guy, an unelected advisor and they are risking it all for him and making a mockery of the rules. this guy is the king and boris just the puppet, no way they would do this normally.

25

sunkenrocks 2 days ago

someone at sky reported it was an instruction from Tory hq

3

romase 2 days ago

Yeah, he must have some dirt

2

umop_apisdn 2 days ago

But the Tories have no problem with powerful unelected bureaucrats!

5

Jagermeister_UK 3 days ago

He's not going anywhere. He runs the government.

11

easyfeel 3 days ago

Is it a criminal offence to deliberately spread COVID-19?

8

Fleeting_Infinity 3 days ago

Can he be charged with an act of terrorism? Knowingly spreading the virus is terrorism.

19

newaccount42020 3 days ago

Lol

https://twitter.com/richgoulding/status/1264265711490392064?s=20

9

kerrangutan 3 days ago

Rules for thee, not for me.

18

ShalidorsHusband 3 days ago

Don't worry, I'm sure Laura Kuennsberg will be along soon with another anonymous source to explain it all away.

56

PantherEverSoPink 3 days ago

She gets a lot of hate on Reddit. I can see why regarding this thing but why like all the time? There's other Tory shill journos surely? It's it because she's BBC?

0

dchurch2444 2 days ago

It's a publically funded broadcaster, on pain of imprisonment. The least you can expect is that their political editor does not have her tongue so far up the arses of Tory ministers that she's single handedly saving them a fortune on bog roll.

2

Groot746 3 days ago

She reports accounts from government sources as uncritically analysed explanations of what actually happened when a story damaging to the government is released, and the lies contained within these then become part of the larger narrative: see for example when somebody told her that Labour had had their supporters bussed in to "Leeds hospital" to disrupt Hancock, or literally last night when she said the police hadn't been involved when they very clearly had. Basically, she comes off more like a government spokesperson half the time than a journalist, and it is ALWAYS in favour of them rather than this just being part of how she operates.

23

PantherEverSoPink 3 days ago

That makes sense, thank you.

4

Groot746 3 days ago

No worries mate! It's a frustrating set of affairs, especially as her actions help dilute support for the wider BBC

6

HydonianHootsman Dundee 3 days ago

Political editor at the publicly funded BBC is a hugely prominent position in the field of british political news media, she's the peak of the entire BBC being recentred into being the media arm of the Conservative party, not just the government.

39

PantherEverSoPink 3 days ago

Good point, I forgot she's political editor. I think I'm starting to understand.

12

mos2k9 3 days ago

I've seen Peston get stick too but not as bad. Keunssberg is just too close to government and doesn't critically analyse from what I see. She was getting abuse earlier whilst reporting the No.10 statement, which I thought at the time was uncalled for. She didn't follow up with anything though so in the end it was justified. Katya Adler used to get a lot of stick too for her reporting on the EU during the Brexit period, but she has improved immensely as far as I know. Basically whatever sources she was using initially weren't very good.

10

PantherEverSoPink 3 days ago

Thanks for explaining. It's that kind of reporting where "so and so says this" is just taken as fact and that's a real problem in today's world. I get you, thanks.

5

d4rti Surrey 3 days ago

She’s visible and obvious about it.

48

PantherEverSoPink 3 days ago

And as political editor she shouldn't be. Fair enough, I get you, thanks.

18

MrMagicMoves 3 days ago

I do wonder is why these witnesses who saw him up north didn't go public with this sooner? We're now well over a month further down the line and this would've been so much more damning had it been 'caught in the act' it a couple of days later

It's despicable what he's done and he should be sacked for it but if you have info like that on someone it's on the publics interest to make that known and it would be easier to be investigated by journalists

0

PearljamAndEarl 2 days ago

It *was* investigated by journalists. That’s why he didn’t just go public himself and why it’s taken some time to come to light. Better for things to be verified and double sourced than him get it wrong and falsely tar someone’s name.

3

OolonCaluphid 3 days ago

There are loads of tweets about sightings of him in Durham on may 10th made at the time. It's been out there.

6

jep51 3 days ago

Not really - people have now made sacrifices, and they will take more note of this because most of the country has been abiding by the rules and for many it has been absolute hell. This wouldn't have had quite the same reaction back in March. Not to mention, get the government to defend it - just when everyone is already losing faith in them - and now releasing this. Outstanding journalism.

13

JustJoinAUnion 3 days ago

Because they wanted to embaris the government by making them defend the bastard first

17

Xiol Greater Manchester 3 days ago

They've been sitting on this for a while. This was about giving the government enough rope and then, bam. Now they all looks like twats and its *chefs kiss*

44

newaccount42020 3 days ago

And the people defending them look like even bigger twats.

10

washawashaaa 3 days ago

Lovely bit of journalism here. Release the first bit of info, watch them all scurry to cover it up, change their stories (although I bet they never expected the cabinet members to defend him so strongly) then release a bit more to blow those excuses to bits. Absolute tekkers

182

One_Sauce 3 days ago

You love to see it.

7

fourfuxake 3 days ago

There’ll be more denials and rebuttals tomorrow. Then comes the third wave: pictures and hard evidence.

32

washawashaaa 3 days ago

Definitely. Saving the killer blow for the Sunday papers. You love to see it.

24

starbucksresident 3 days ago

I reckon that was the strategy... very well executed!

54

washawashaaa 3 days ago

This is like an "AAAAGUUEEEROO" moment for the jouros (yes I miss football)

37

kurtanglesmilk 3 days ago

AJOURNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

14

chrisminion86 3 days ago

What a frigging arrogant twat! Needs sacking

41

00DEADBEEF The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern I 3 days ago

You know what I find most difficult to believe in all of this? Somebody married Dominic Cummings. He is physically and morally disgusting.

75

lgbt_safety_monitor 3 days ago

You had me at ‘rich, famous and powerful’

15

Ehernan 3 days ago

His wife wrote a sickening article about him in the Spectator. Boak.

34

CapableLetterhead 2 days ago

... Omg. No.

1

OolonCaluphid 3 days ago

"Stop staring at my chest, sweetheart... "

8

Ehernan 3 days ago

Boak cowk vom

3

tiny-robot 3 days ago

And this is after they were both diagnosed? They were busy going out and spreading thier germs everywhere? Absolute bloody cunt. Thousands are dead across the country due to this disease. Did he contribute?

106

jalfrezi13 3 days ago

Especially when you consider there was a spike in Durham not long after he went there...

35

Josquius Durham 2 days ago

Disease ridden traitorous cunt is all i will say about him.

6

The_Bravinator Lancashire 3 days ago

Maybe he caught it there on an earlier trip...

4

Emideska Amsterdam 3 days ago

Virus.

1

2

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily