Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Bullshit the bots knew, it’s because there are some dirty fuckers in Coinbase who can make fast money and do so anyways. Bet you $100000 that a few Coinbase top dogs messaged some friends and told them to buy 0x

Oh yeah, they say this is about bots. That's the 100% total explanation without any other explanation that is plausible. Nothing to see here.

​

/s

So, with knowledge that only an insider could've possessed, a bunch of people started trading before the knowledge became public and made a huge profit as a result? Huh, I wonder if there's a term for that...

Should a trader have acted on the notification from Lightningsignals?

Bots, bots, bots everywhere

particularly because even a small informational advantage can yield big results in the crypto markets.

Please, I'm hodling coins I bought at $1200. It will take more than a little volatility to get me to sell.

Snapshots:

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

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

Other traders argue that something bots can't do better than humans, at least for now, is fundamental analysis

Which is better, bots or humans?

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: glailorenzo

tldr: Neutrino will allow trustless control of your mobile bitcoin wallet and will be faster than SPV wallets.

​

The Neutrino protocol requires less computation on the part of Bitcoin full nodes because filters sent to Neutrino clients must be computed only once for all Neutrino users.

​

Because Neutrino users can control their own keys and broadcast their own transactions, we hope Neutrino-based apps will enhance the permissionless and censorship-resistant properties of Bitcoin.

​

Neutrino is currently on testnet only, mainnet release is 'in progress'.

Thanks for doing this. Eclair mobile wallet takes a long time to startup. How much faster can it get with these GCS filters?

And by way, when watchtowers? :P

Sounds pretty cool:)

Beautiful stuff.

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: roasbeef

Being honest here. This is not the type of investment by Ripple I hoped for to improve the XRP ecosystem. USD 25M is not much these days in VC funding, but still quite a boatload of cash.

I understand the sharing community is on the uprise, but I don't see how this would improve the XRP ecosystem (yet) - specifically other than being paid in XRP? Could someone enlighten me?

man between this and mojaloop today has been great.

Your submission was automatically filtered because ccn.com is not an approved site. You can read more about the changes on /r/altcoin this here. If you think ccn.com should be whitelisted, please submit ccn.com here.

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

The potential of crypto to capture all three of transactions that size that occur each day? What happened to cryptoCURRENCY?

No it wasn't lmao

I hope they paid their tax /s

Humm..

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: dra9ons

They are eyeing more fees as their current fee structured business is getting disrupted

More competition the better, within BTC.

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: CosmicHemorroid

good stuff

Hi I have some questions.

What is this projects relation to 0x? both are protocol trying to make a huge orderbook. I was thrown off by a post mentioning "0x genesis trade". Or simply is 0x and paradigm just competitors attempting to achieve the same goal?

Will this protocol be tokenized so consumers are able to purchase?

Thanks and good luck

Source at /r/slatestarcodex

Scott should stay out of politics, even meta-politics.

We currently have a president who thinks Nazis are kinda-okay, a popular senator who thinks communism is kinda-okay, and bunch of media and political elites who think democracy and capitalism are kinda-okay.

Every society worth living in has some form of social orthodoxy. The problem we face today is a complete disintegration of the social orthodoxy. Having created a free, open society where atheists can go howling at every odd-colored moon, we have proceeded to let every atheist howl be treated as equally meritorious and the result is complete cacophony.

Other commenters on this thread speculate about what possible social orthodoxy Scott wants to remove. But of course they can't name it, because there is no social orthodoxy left to remove. Frankly, at this point, we'd be better off if we could agree on some useful social orthodoxy just to stop all the screaming.

If you disagree with this, I ask you to name one non-trivial belief that someone could publicly hold today in the United States (or similar democracy) that would amount to a serious risk to themselves. (Examples from non-free societies: Chinese exiles who criticize China will can get their families who still live in China jailed. Russian exiles who expose corruption at the highest level get murdered even after living abroad for years.)

Maybe someone can come up with a few. I can't. I can name a few from the past. But whichever ones you come up with represent the dwindling hope for cultural unity in free society, so think twice before challenging them.

Good article, I almost never regret reading something by Scott Alexander.

This one is about societies in which freedom of thought is curtailed and how scientifically-minded people often fail to adapt to such conditions.

He lists a number of scientists who were supposedly burned at the stake for their scientific discoveries, but in actuality had been severely punished for their opinions on non-scientific questions such as the nature of the Trinity, or for making political missteps like antagonizing the Pope.

Scott contrasts it with scientists who played the political game well and managed to create a bubble of rationality around them, like Andrey Kolmogorov who

lived in the Soviet Union at a time when true freedom of thought was impossible. He reacted by saying whatever the Soviets wanted him to say about politics, while honorably pursuing truth in everything else.

The author never explicitly mentions an object-level issue of how this relates to the cultural landscape we live in now, but I'm sure we can connect the dots. James Damore, for example, could probably be described by this paragraph:

If you think it’s impossible to be that oblivious, you’re wrong. Every couple of weeks, I have friends ask me “Hey, do you know if I could get in trouble for saying [THING THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY GET IN TROUBLE FOR SAYING]?” When I stare at them open-mouthed, they follow with “Well, what if I start by specifying that I’m not a bad person and I just honestly think it might be true?”

It's a good read and the discussion in the comments is great too. I guess it's on-topic for this sub insofar as it deals with speaking truth to power of refraining to do so.

Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:

• Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning on /r/slatestarcodex with 70 karma (created at 2017-10-24 11:43:49 by /u/dwaxe)

^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^FAQ-Code-Bugs-Suggestions-Block

^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!

What's wrong with social justice?

ITT: People quietly congratulating themselves on Scott having finally revealed his tacit approval for their personal prejudice or ground-axe.

Also people quietly gnashing their teeth in frustration at his inability to grasp how important and obvious their personal prejudice or ground-axe is, as shown by his subtle hint that he doesn't agree with it.

Luckily, we don't live in a society with actual secret police; and learning that $topic is a taboo is not that hard: You need to be convinced that $topic being taboo is a realistic possibility (and you don't need to be convinced that $contrarian_viewpoint is the truth of the matter). This becomes easier if someone explains the actual reasons for $topic being taboo to you.

Once this possibility has been brought to your attention, it does not need too much savvy to figure out whether $topic is really taboo.

Censorship and punishment for heresy are not so strict that you need whisper-networks for this. Meta-Punishment is not so strict that you get punished for publicly stating "the norms of this discussion of $topic appear to be quite toxic; hence I chose not to participate".

In Scott's analogy: Something you cannot do under Stalin, but very much can do in our society, is to say: "You know, this thunder-lighning thing is pretty politically charged, and does not look like a healthy topic. I pity all the people who made the choice to die on that specific hill; this appears unwise, regardless of the actual arguments."

In so far, I think it is a pity that Scott did not explicitly list off a bunch of taboo topics, as a PSA for people who might otherwise be drawn to these topics like moths to a flame without stopping to think about it.

Most of such taboo topics share the amazing traits that the object-level truth is entirely irrelevant in 99% of the cases, from a decision-theoretic viewpoint. Pointing out this fact is luckily not taboo.

For example, if you believe that it would be moral to discriminate against half-orcs in Dungeons&Dragons, then I think you're evil and have nothing more to say to you (conflict of values; we might need to compromise on decisions, though).

If you think such discrimination would suck, then we have established that HBD is irrelevant (outside of scientific inquiry), since not even the most die-hard racists believe that the span of human biodiversity is larger in real life than in DnD [in DnD you would classify orcs, elves and humans as different races of the same species, since they produce viable offspring- AFAIK half-orcs are not sterile. In DnD, baseline-humans and half-orcs differ on quite a few stats on the population-level, like lower intelligence and charisma, but higher strength for half-orcs. This is truth (read the rule-book!). Doesn't change the fact that your typical half-orc-wizard will have quite a lot more Int than your typical human-warrior, and both should have equal moral worth].

Now, there is a good reason for the norm that HBD is a taboo topic: If you believe that sufficiently many people are morally deficient enough to believe that discrimination against DnD half-orcs would be OK, then you should declare any discussion of HBD as heresy. I am not that cynic, but have some understanding for people who are.

I think we as rationalists can use the termite approach in weakening dogmas no matter what they are as long as they are factually inaccurate. We just need to push for the right epistemology while shutting up outside anonymous places about the actual controversial dogmas (i.e. no culture wars). If someone has the right epistemology and universally applies it then they are getting rational and their belief in dogmas are weakened.

This can also prevent people from leaving one dogma and then get stuck in another such as the negation of the first dogma.

Factual accuracy of claims is orthogonal to the power of the one who makes the claim.

I find the kolgomorov option morally repulsive, but dying quietly to a stalinist purge is a futile sacrifice. Then again, you don't have to pick one or the other.

I guess it depends on the proportion of kolmogorovs to kantoroviches to true believers, as well as the moral quality of the regime. If it's 95% true believers, culling 5% kantorowitches every year, you might as well live to keep the truth in play. But what if the regime is only maintaining its grasp on power because half the scientists are kolmogroveling? That would be a moral disaster. You would have abilene paradox'ed your way to hell.

Obviously the Soviet Union has fallen, the House Un-American Activities Committee has disbanded, the internet happened, social media happened, and for better or worse intellectual freedom in much of the world is at an all-time high. All these concerns about political savvy vs. complicity among thinkers in a "censored society" are fascinating and disturbing, but are they actually relevant anywhere today? It's tempting to guess China, but although China has a deep censorship problem and some deep science problems, they're not the same problem (if anything the opposite).

No, though Scott clearly has something specific in mind, it's closer to home. A strong orthodoxy exists among a large part of his home culture about certain questions of scientific fact. This orthodoxy seems obviously motivated by political concerns, which might even be understandable ones depending on your view, but facts are facts and the domain experts all know the truth. Nonetheless, top administrative leadership in their field has openly spoken against what the experts know to be true, or at best encourages public debate among laypeople in order to blur the issue while stifling discussion among the actual researchers. Organizations go out of their way to avoid mentioning the subject in public statements, or if necessary they take up evasive euphemisms and hedges. Real social harm is at stake depending on what actions people take based on this knowledge, so researchers discuss in hushed tones whether it's nobler to avoid complicity and quit their careers, or stay and try to change things from within by doing the best work they can in the conditions they have. Scott is obviously talking about Scott Pruitt's leadership of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

However, our Scott's "whisper network" already exists and it's not very whispery. It's the academic press. Regardless of how the political orthodoxies might fluctuate in some part of the world for some number of years, the rest of the academic world is still chugging right along with theory and data and peer review. Maybe the world lost some potentially great work from suppressed dissident thinkers in the USSR and USA during the Cold War, but e.g. Lysenko had no influence outside his country and never actually got to move the global state of the field backward. Likewise with the subject Scott's transparently alluding to, climatology, there are plenty of people who live outside the censored society (even if not geographically) and are continuing to move their field forward. When they give presentations at conferences and publish articles in journals, they speak quite plainly; the social orthodoxy doesn't even have enough presence to merit disclaimers or subtlety. Socially they may be encircled between hateful denialists and hair-shirted zealots, but the global institution is large enough and strong enough that they can do their work undisturbed in the academic bubble and only have to deal with the social friction when they go home and visit their families for the holidays.

For sure there's still the question of what to do when the experts possess socially important knowledge that contradicts widespread public belief. I think it's only fair to consider that different people have different roles. It's not entirely incumbent on the thinkers who actually do the discovering to be in charge of communicating it to the lay public; those are different skill sets, and frankly they frequently lose public debates to people who know less but are better at persuading. Instead there's a separate role for popularizers, who don't create new knowledge at the center of study but help diffuse it out into the rest of society, which still requires them to have a great deal of expertise and close connections to the first group so they don't risk misinforming instead of informing. It is most definitely the role of policymakers, whether they're conversant in a given subject or not, to seek and heed informed guidance instead of just reading the polls. And then there are the allies, who love the ideas of intellectual discovery and free inquiry but aren't skilled or employed in that particular field ourselves (even if we're in some similar but unrelated field). Perhaps it's not really our role to try to win arguments against the orthodoxy by memorizing as many relevant facts as we can to bring them, because even if we don't accidentally get something wrong, we're still perpetuating the notion that armchair debates between laypeople are a good way to settle these kinds of issues, which is a big part of the problem. But we can still learn and share knowledge just for the sheer joy of knowing it, and we can still argue correctly that the orthodoxy is overwhelmingly rejected by a virtual consensus of the experts, and we can march in rallies to support taking that consensus and those experts more seriously.

Can we please stop speculating about which particular object-level heresy this is about? Per Paul Graham’s follow-up FAQ to “What You Can’t Say” (which is the spiritual ancestor to the meta-level discussion Scott is having):

Why didn't you say some of the things you can't say?

The most extreme of the things you can't say would be very shocking to most readers. If you doubt that, imagine what people in 1830 would think of our default educated east coast beliefs about, say, premarital sex, homosexuality, or the literal truth of the Bible. We would seem depraved to them. So we should expect that someone who similarly violated our taboos would seem depraved to us.

If I said this kind of thing, it would be like someone doing a cannonball into a swimming pool. Immediately, the essay would be about that, and not about the more general and ultimately more important point.

Another alternative would be to say milder, moderately controversial things, like those Larry Elder wrote about in The Ten Things You Can't Say In America. I haven't read this book and have no idea if it's any good, but these are certainly not the ten things you can't say in America. I can easily think of ten that would be more shocking.

If I stuck to this kind of mildly shocking statement, it would give people the comforting illusion that these ideas, which you hear often enough on talk radio and in bars, represent the outer limits of what you can't say.

In fact, finding the outer limits is very, very hard. Popular controversialists just go for the low hanging fruit. To really solve the problem would take years of introspection. You have to untangle your ideas from the ideas of your time, and that's so hard that few people in history have even come close. Isaac Newton, smart as he was, wasted years on theological controversies.

Scott’s position is even more perilous than Graham’s because he is explicitly talking about the subset of What You Can’t Say that turns out to be true. There’s a lot of WYCS that turns out to be false anyway (two examples: defeatism among the Allied Powers during the World Wars and communist ideology during the Red Scares), so the only real lessons we can draw from, say, McCarthyism is something along the lines of, “don’t go too crazy trying to weed out crypto-heretics, because you’re going to have enough false positives to ruin innocent people”. The parable of the witch hunt only makes sense to people who realize that witchcraft doesn’t exist. Scott’s writing a guide for heretics to conspire to protect and investigate the truth while hiding from the Inquisition. If he comes out and says he’s talking about the yellowists, he’s no longer writing about how heretics can continue to operate in all times and places; he’s writing about yellowism.

While I'm probably more social justice aligned* than the average SSC reader, I will say that it is a problem.

I remember a few years back, there was this big call in a bunch of corners of the media to have, "a national conversation about race." Then Mark Cuban decides to talk about how, to his shame, he's sometimes afraid when he sees a group of young black men at night. Those people then jumped on him for being racist. I'm not trying to white knight for a billionaire- I mean he didn't really suffer any actual repercussions for that, but I do think it's a bit telling that the 'national coversation about race' was supposed to be one sided.

That said, I think a bigger taboo than race in American society is questioning the purpose/heroism/honor of the US military.

*funnily enough, I was much more on the fence about stuff like that before Trump was elected. I guess certain events just force you to pick one way or the other.

Potential counterpoint or caveat to this post: The economist and blogger Tyler Cowen has convinced me to start viewing the world through more of a Straussian lens. Here is the key idea:

"That a successful society is necessarily based on some amount of lies..."

I think there is at least one founding myth of the US that is potentially this kind of lie. More charitably, perhaps we could call it "deliberately vague nonsense"? This is the myth:

"All men are created equal."

Now obviously, not every person is born with the same set of skills and capacities, so it can't mean equal in that sense. What about something more vague, like "equal moral worth"? I would argue that when we reflect deeply on that idea, we are going to run into some version of the trolley problem when it comes to actual policymaking.

But I think Tyler Cowen's claim here, and I would agree with him, is that having a society where people believe that "All men are created equal" may be extremely helpful towards fostering a culture of strong work ethic, helping out one's neighbors, making sacrifices for the country, etc.

I'd like to bring in the role of capitalism in all of this. Why did we not get Lysenkoism in the West? I think the answer is that a farmer who has to compete in the market cannot afford to be wrong for very long. Capital selects for beliefs that are genuinely predictive by awarding them with more capital.

Similarly you may notice a disconnect between rhetoric and business practices. Let people say what they want, but observe how they act. The problem comes when government starts to enforce the rhetoric across all businesses, thus destroying the selection mechanism...

More of a historical question, but with relevance to the kinds of social structures behind Kolmogorov complicity situations: in pre-modern Asian states (e.g., Qing China and earlier) were there any Galileo- or Bruni-like scientific heretics? If not, why not? The only thing that comes to mind is the Burning of Books and Burying of Scholars, but that's one time, a long time ago.

I get the feeling this post isn’t really about whether the late medieval Catholic Church persecuted scientists.

The comments section over there brought up "dog whistles". Scott's done a whole post on those:

[A]lthough dog whistles do exist, the dog whistle narrative has gone so far that it’s become detached from any meaningful referent. It went from people saying racist things, to people saying things that implied they were racist, to people saying the kind of things that sound like things that could imply they are racist even though nobody believes that they are actually implying that. Saying things that sound like dog whistles has itself become the crime worthy of condemnation, with little interest in whether they imply anything about the speaker or not.

The comments offer a different understanding of dog whistles: they're leaks in your whisper network. Accusing someone of dog-whistling is saying "I know about your whisper network, and this dog whistle is proof of your heresy". One poster even almost-publicly accuses Scott of heresy via dog-whistle:

Nevertheless, we still both know what the other is talking about (more or less). So consider it a critique from the other side that has pierced your whisper network. Maybe the thunder does come first for some of these unspeakable issues.

Scott suggests that the Authorities turn a blind eye to the whisper networks, but admits that the secret police won't have any reason to do so. The comments section is a microcosm of the issue.

The subtext is so loud in this one I was looking for acrostics

To the people below who claim to know what this is about, then explicitly go about not saying what it is: quit bluffing or quit being so obscure.

I wonder what this could possibly be a metaphor for?

Pretending it's entirely a metaphor for that -- because there's more than one metaphor here, but that's the one this applies to most -- I'm concerned by this line:

Even the savvy Kolmogorovs within the global warming community will be forced to admit that their theory just seems to attract uniquely crappy people

The Subject Of The Metaphor is correct. Unbridled, unvarnished truth-seeking in the relevant sphere will lead you to TSOTM eventually.

TSOTM also attracts unusually crappy people. It revolves around a difficult topic, and we live in a world where crazy x-ists outnumber unbridled truthseekers at least a thousand to one. Even people who present as the latter can share more traits with the former -- unbridled truthseekers are for various reasons less likely to be someone who could be personally harmed by some implementations of TSOTM, therefore it doesn't necessarily occur to them to approach the subject respectfully. This spirals to madness on more occasions than anyone's comfortable with.

Recognizing that TSOTM attracts unusually crappy people is vital if one ever wants to live in a world where it doesn't. Knowing how to disavow the other 90% (optimistically) of TSOTM supporters is the only way to possibly advance your 10%. Even a nominal member of the 10% who doesn't do that is dangerous -- it implies they don't notice, at least not as fully as they should, how harmful the 90% is to advancing the conversation.

The possibility Scott doesn't recognize this is worrying, to say the least.

I do not see that much of a dichotomy here maybe just because I think on a meta level. For me clearly the Kolmogorov option works just fine except that it does not only involve the thinkers themselves but also their patrons and mentors.

Take Galileo example. He was educated in benedictine Vallombrosa Abbey that was founded in 1038 and later in University of Pisa that was founded by edict of pope Clement VI - who was himself benedictine scholar educated on Sorbonne College in Paris that was in turn founded by Robert de Sorbon a french theologian in 13th century - an era of high scholasticism when the west was already acquainted with the whole Aristotelian corpus. So in that sense Galileo already stood on the shoulders of Kolmogorovian giants.

Also just to note this whole problem is much older than current culture wars, Stalinism or Inquisition. The story of Socrates taking hemlock because he corrupted Athenian youth with his strange ideas is well known. Pythagoras was founder of strange cult that revered numbers and was on one occasion almost lynched by angry mob that set fire to building he lived with his acolytes. Supposedly Archimedes was killed by random roman soldier after responding "do not disturb my circles" when asked about his name - despite direct order to retrieve him alive by roman general.

So what I mean to say is that for me in a sense it is a lot more about infrastructure. Having a system in place that protects and rewards unique thinkers is almost more important to advances than those thinkers themselves. And now I do not say that one always has to be careful and patient. Maybe sometime it is better to unleash scientific shock troops to show that the emperor is naked. But is should better be coordinated and useful endevour.

I feel like the example of Kolmogorov stands a decent chance of becoming akin to Galileo in terms of people who are very wrong using it as a fully generalized defense. "I'm not allowed to talk about X in polite company and get ostracized for it, I'm just like Kolmogorov". In this case, X meaning things like racism, antisemitism, misogyny, et cetera. This seems like a trap to be careful of.

If only there was an anonymous place of communication where people didn't know each other's true identities - so couldn't get them in trouble - and where they could discuss information freely with little to no censorship... if we had such technology, why, the whisper network would be almost redundant, since information would be so readily available.

I now simultaneously feel socially shrewd yet intellectually cowardly for being a definite Kolmogorov in real life (I'm a pediatrician).

I feel this is related to the IQ post.

This topic has been submitted several times. Please check the front page of /r/Bitcoin for previous submissions, as well as /r/Bitcoin/new. You can also try using the search bar. Thank you.

^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^/r/Bitcoin ^^moderators ^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.

It seriously is as important to establish systems to deal with the aftermath of hacking attacks as integrating various methods to prevent hacking attacks

Cannot understand why these guys want to be associated with this or any other crypto non-sense.

Aren't you Winklevosses rich enough ?

Isn't "I could comfortably live on this for 100+ lifetimes" enough money ?

Why the extreme greed and always wanting more ?

Why not do something good / useful with your money ?? Like setting up wildlife reserves for elephants, gorillas, rhinos, planting trees, etc ??

Going all-in GUSD to the moon. Wish me luck!

So the Winkies want to be behind bars?

https://blocklr.com/news/winklevoss-stablecoin-climbs-tether-plummets/ 🤯

Then it's not really stable is it?

Bitcoin is a tree.........the Bitcoin Blockchain is the god damn Amazon.

Snapshots:

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

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

If 2017 was a year when fundraising for decentralized protocols dominated headlines, 2018's emerging narrative is about empowering investors.

21 million, what a fun coincidence!

If you want to kill something send it to committee.

Jesus, didn't see that coming

This is big news, for the space and for the Decred community specifically, but there's another angle which I haven't seen represented in the comments thus far.

There is an opportunity here for people who like what Decred is doing and want to contribute. There are opportunities for software developers of course, but also for people with a wide range of other skills. Now that stakeholders have control of the Treasury I expect to see a gradual increase in spending and expansion of the scope of work.

If you value autonomy in your work, it's a great project to work on.

Does decred have a nice wallet?

This is great, and every coin that has a 'dev fund' should do something similar.

It’s great that decreed has made this move! I personally think it is a massive step for them. Dash did this 3 years ago and it has been a game changer.

Dash doesn’t have any veto power from the top. Whatever stake holders say goes

This is not future tech. It just went live on mainnet.

https://proposals.decred.org/

Congrats on the release. I've been looking forward to see politeia in action.

it will be interesting to see if marketing is part of the first proposal

<insert statement about this being huge>

Cool. Like what Dash did three years ago.

Good work guys!

Investors.... aka it's creators? Who do you think owns the most coin? This actually sounds like they are paying themselves with investor funds holy shit

A huge step towards giving stakeholders total control over what happens with decred. I'm looking forward to voting on the first proposals.

This is huge. Managed proposals and additions all by the stakeholders.

This is a major milestone for crypto, although I don't expect the masses to realize that immediately

Nice article. This blog post about Politeia's launch is a good read too.

Politeia is going to be a fun ride.

I thought decred already had a functioning treasury. Decred is way behind Dash, pivx, smartcash, literally by years.

You should be paying close attention to this.

One word... KIN

https://www.21mil.com/

His project

Very well written. 👏

Bitcoin Maximalist have turned me off Bitcoin completely.

You wish

I suspect Ferdous is mostly just sick of Twitter.

Success isn't anti-competitive.

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: Cinnabon

Great read. Need to corroborate but pretty solid stuff.

To investigate further, I categorized the projects and mapped the categories that I found into a 4-layered structure (see below).