Token Daily

biolizard89 Lead Namecoin Application Engineer 3 years ago

I know one of the authors of this paper (Alexei). The paper generally looks high-quality to me. I've written up a preliminary peer review of the paper, which is below. I will contact Alexei and point him to this thread so that he can comment on my review if he wishes. I'm not sure if I will have any additional peer review to provide, but if I do have any I will add it in this thread.

For me, the primary takeaway from the paper is that merge-mined sidechains have empirically shown significant difficulty avoiding mining centralization issues. I think this conclusion is absolutely true. However, there are several additional factors that I think may limit the scope to which this research is applicable, and which may benefit from further research.

Historically, due to usability issues, Namecoin had minimal usage for its intended purpose as a naming system, and was instead primarily used as a speculative investment. This resulted in decreased demand for transactions, which caused transaction fees to be extremely low compared to Bitcoin. In addition, for several years Namecoin's reference implementation was based on the Bitcoin 0.3.x branch, which had significant performance problems that made it difficult to use in production. As a result of the low mining reward and the high required effort to mine Namecoin, many mining pools chose not to mine Namecoin.

My impression as a developer is that Namecoin mining has seen significantly increased adoption since Namecoin Core was released. I think it would be interesting to see the statistics from the paper reported not only for the lifetime of the blockchain, but also for 6-month intervals, so that we can more clearly see whether things have improved over time, and also so that we can more clearly see how much we have left to do. Our analysis of Namecoin blocks 357629 to 358628 (the most recent 1000 blocks as of this writing) shows that the largest Namecoin mining pool is BTC.TOP, with 20.9% of hashrate (which is 4.1% lower than the pessimistic threshold that you cite). (That analysis is using code by /u/cassiniNMC, with a few modifications by me, run just now against my Namecoin Core node.)

It is also notable that a naming system like Namecoin may have less transaction volume than a currency like Bitcoin, for the same reasons that DNS registrars process a lower transaction volume than credit card companies. This might result in Namecoin having a naturally lower block size than Bitcoin (assuming that they both had comparable adoption rates). However, the transaction fees might be much higher, for the same reasons that DNS registrars charge much higher fees than credit card companies. Since Bitcoin's large block size has already caused significant mining centralization, it could be argued that Namecoin might naturally have a lower mining centralization than Bitcoin (particularly given that the mining reward loss from the smaller block size could be offset by higher transaction fees). As one example, Bitcoin miners currently use centralized routing infrastructure (the Bitcoin Relay Network, run by Matt Corallo), and Matt could theoretically censor blocks that don't meet arbitrary requirements. There is no Namecoin Relay Network, because there's no incentive for such centralized infrastructure due to the low block size of Namecoin. It is not clear to me how well this effect can be studied, since Namecoin has not currently achieved Bitcoin-like adoption rates, but it seems like an interesting area of study.

Another interesting failure mode is when miners switch between non-merge-mined chains based on mining profitability. This has happened in the past month due to the BCH hostile hardfork of Bitcoin; both Bitcoin and BCH have suffered disruptions to their block interval. If either Bitcoin or BCH supported merged mining, this kind of disruption would not have occurred; Namecoin has been unaffected, and Namecoin would still be unaffected if an additional merge-mined SHA256D chain appeared (even one that directly competed with Namecoin). It would be interesting to see research on how this kind of resilience that merged mining provides might compare to the drawbacks of merged mining discussed in the paper.

Finally, is the source code you used to attribute blocks available under a free software license (and if not currently, would you be willing to do so)? The Namecoin developers have tools for this purpose (see https://github.com/cassiniNMC/mm-blockstats ), but we'd be greatly interested in evaluating how your tools compare to ours.

Thanks for doing this research and writing the paper. This paper is one of a very small number of papers related to Namecoin that I consider high-quality (most papers related to Namecoin are sadly lacking in quality). Cheers!

-Jeremy Rand (Lead Application Engineer at Namecoin)

3

psztorc 3 years ago

A very cool paper, and very interesting to hear your comments as always. I particularly liked early Section 4, which I see as empirical support for the following intuition: "When a chain implements merged-mining, the MM style blocks will come to dominate." This is because the MMing is effectively free, where as the regular mining has a nonzero cost. I really liked Figure 4 and Table 8. > For me, the primary takeaway from the paper is that merge-mined sidechains have empirically shown significant difficulty avoiding mining centralization issues. I think this conclusion is absolutely true. However, there are several additional factors that I think may limit the scope to which this research is applicable, and which may benefit from further research. I strongly agree with this. In fact, I see this as evidence that, although the hashrate may be controlled by one pool, this fact, empirically, does *not* seem to result in horrible attacks (such as 51% attacks, large reorgs, tx-censorship, etc). The paper is, in fact, a weak empirical demonstrates [Satoshi's suggestion](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) that a >51% miner "ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." This makes me more optimistic about my own [Blind Merged Mining](http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blind-merged-mining/) work, which intentionally removes the ability to mine 'old style' and which is more vulnerable to malicious mining, and who's mining landscape is more likely to resemble Bitcoin's (which is favorable on the "centralization" metric, on Figure 4). Very exciting! And very cool paper...good Bitcoin papers are rare!

1

biolizard89 Lead Namecoin Application Engineer 3 years ago

Oh hey! Great to see you here, how are you? > I strongly agree with this. In fact, I see this as evidence that, although the hashrate may be controlled by one pool, this fact, empirically, does not seem to result in horrible attacks (such as 51% attacks, large reorgs, tx-censorship, etc). > > The paper is, in fact, a weak empirical demonstrates Satoshi's suggestion that a >51% miner "ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." Empirically that is true. However, there's a pretty heavy qualifier, namely that there wasn't anyone (as far as we know) with a substantial incentive to attack Namecoin either. If, hypothetically, the Chinese government had been having significant trouble with a dissident website that used Namecoin, it's conceivable that they might have issued a court order to F2Pool ordering them to reject transactions for that name. Wang Chun has told me that he's confident such a court order would never be issued, but it's hard to be sure. In any event, such a court order would also affect Bitcoin, since both Namecoin and Bitcoin have a majority of hashrate in Chinese pools, so it's not obvious to me that merged mining makes anything worse here. The specific issue that merged mining exacerbated was on the level of a single pool having too much hashrate, as opposed to a legal jurisdiction having too much hashrate, and that specific issue definitely didn't seem to be a problem based on the empirical lack of attacks that resulted.

1

psztorc 3 years ago

> Oh hey! Great to see you here, how are you? Great! I couldn't turn down such a great merged-mining paper. Hope you are also well. > However, there's a pretty heavy qualifier, namely that there wasn't anyone (as far as we know) with a substantial incentive to attack Namecoin either. ... > In any event, such a court order would also affect Bitcoin, since both Namecoin and Bitcoin have a majority of hashrate in Chinese pools, so it's not obvious to me that merged mining makes anything worse here. I think I completely agree with you. I am just saying that the paper shows us that things are not quite as bad as they could be. Instead, we could live in an alternate universe where the paper could have said something like "And, sure enough, once those pools had 51% of the hashrate, they began double-spending against the network by creating large reorganizations".

1

keepmyshirt Platinum | QC: XMY 268 3 years ago

X-post from /r/myriadcoin! Myriad "wins"! :)

2

keepmyshirt Myriadcoin to the MOON! MSKeep4t24cJXMcZmCHFH84Hhw 3 years ago

we should locate the people who wrote this manuscript and hold a Myriad Ask Us Anything :)

3

keepmyshirt Myriadcoin to the MOON! MSKeep4t24cJXMcZmCHFH84Hhw 3 years ago

might be a good cross post to cryptocurrency? myriad does come out as the winner more or less. :)

4

Myriad_Angel 3 years ago

While this paper doesn't go as far as to recommend Myriad, it certainly should inspire more researchers to investigate the properties of multi-merge mining further. This is some of the best news for Myriad in a long time :)

A quote from the conclusion:

"While merged mining is a common practice in the cryptocurrency space, the empirical evidence suggests that only a small number of mining pools is involved in merged mining. These pools enjoy block shares beyond the desired security and decentralization goals. It is currently unclear and topic of future research whether new constructs, such as multi-merged mining, will succeed in resolving the outlined issues."

4

MynaEradicator XMY: MTeYZ6SQEKBCysTSf9LdW8rAxaahWSSvPd 3 years ago

Now this is fascinating. I'll have a good read of this slowly, it's practically thesis length!

3

cryptapus 3 years ago

Neat find!

Fig. 4 and Table 8 are interesting.

4

3

25 3

titan127 Tin 1 h ago

Makes sense. My 1.4 cents in Doge are the only thing that’s up in my portfolio right now lol

1

Fubuttpussy 4 hs ago

Fuck Elon

1

Feliche1 5 hs ago

That’s false.

0

XTingleInTheDingleX Redditor for 3 months. 13 hs ago

I hooked up my moms router, can I be a Doge dev?

1

jam-hay Moon Yesterday

Dogecoin has been around for 7 years and had already faded away down the rankings until Elon had a midlife crisis, discovered crypto and old memes.

After the meme grew stale the first time it didn't appeal on tech merits, this time will be no different.

2

moondankos Yesterday

When you think about from a strategic point for Elon, makes sense. Give the doge holders who are mostly average people more money and they will invest in items like Tesla, the money will eventually make it’s way back to him. Extremely smart move. Everybody is happy.

1

ZRO25 Redditor for 17 day. Yesterday

It's NOT A JOKE ANYMORE. IS IT?

1

BombasticSavage Tin Yesterday

What developers?

5

yeahdixon Yesterday

He’s realized that the biggest transformational technology right now is crypto and he had nothing to do with it. It hurts. Now he wants in. This is his way to laugh at it all , take out the established but also succeed and claim victory

2

CryptoFacts Yesterday

So they have been working on it for 2 years and have done nothing. Sweet

9

Brettanomyces78 Platinum | QC: BTC 184 Yesterday

Pretty much, yes. They can't even be bothered to merge Bitcoin updates anymore.

2

Rohan57 Tin Yesterday

Fuck musk melon

1

Asmodiar_ Yesterday

Imagine having world changing money but choosing to do things like this.

3

Brandisco Tin Yesterday

I'll be the first to admit I don't totally understand how technically feasible it is for Elon to pump enough money into the Doge ecosystem to entice developers to improve it. However, it seems to me, for whatever unfathomable reason, Elon is hell bent on making Doge a thing. Using the relative successes of Tesla and SpaceEx as examples - I wouldn't be surprised if he is able to achieve this goal through brute force of finances, ego, and celebrity.

0

gauravii Yesterday

So that proves that the bitcoin move was in a desperation move.

0

thelovetoy 5 - 6 years account age. 75 - 150 comment karma. Yesterday

The doge dev team yeah like there is such thing

0

Aguilaaa Yesterday

I'm going to FOMO nothing in this stupid ass shitcoins...

1

randysailer Redditor for 3 months. Yesterday

Since 2019 and nothing changed geez they just totally made it obvious that hes lying thats what happens when you involve other people in your lies they stuff them up lol

1

boywhobreaksdishes Yesterday

So, it's true...

0

SSquarepantsii Gold | QC: CC 57, BTC 31, ADA 24 | r/Politics 106 Yesterday

2 years and it’s still shit. Imagine that.

14

Drspaceman1717 Redditor for 3 months. Yesterday

Elon: make dogecoin better.

Doge: we have like 3 people.

Internet: Elon is fixing dogecoin

21

CryptoBumGuy Yesterday

And he's a fucking whale in doge.

2

Logpostingman Yesterday

Without doubt.

3

OGSquidFucker Yesterday

Fuck DOGE Coin. All my homies hate DOGE Coin.

14

masterbatesAlot Yesterday

My portfolio loves it.

1

00TheTruth_FTP Redditor for 1 months. Yesterday

But funny dog 😞😞

6

CryptoBumGuy Redditor for 2 months. Yesterday

Petition to change moons to elons since his name comes up every 2 min.

12

OverlordSunn666 Yesterday

Lol wooooo 5 random ass tech guys... quite a development team 🙄

6

surgerix Redditor for 1 months. Yesterday

Time to move on. Just keep buying.

2

21 4

Dragonpuncha 1 h ago

I'm probably going to sound like Dan here, but I'm surprised only 30% think they could beat an Eagle in a fight. Would it actually be that hard?

Humans have hands and brains that can (theoretically) calculate the right time to grab into the Eagle when it tries to swoop down for the attack. And once you get a hold of it you should be able to just get it to the ground, get on top of it and take it out. It'll be bloody as hell, but I feel like most people would win that fight if they gave it their all.

1

the_krusher Yesterday

How tf is an orangutan so low? Have people seen those things??

1

Turbulent_Ad611 Yesterday

Why do people believe they could beat animals so easily when they are UNARMED.

Humans are not beating an actual freaking eagle, unless you get extremely lucky. A dog sure, a geese sure, a cat if you want to win sure. A chimpanzee already fairly questionable.

An eagle, lion, elephant, gorilla, crocodile, or grizzly, not happening if you are UNARMED XD

1

BobHilt Yesterday

Are you putting your life on the line, fighting to defend your kid's lives? Agreed.

Cats will f you up, but in a fight to the death...? They'd lose. I think similarly a single large dog or possibly a wolf, but a wolf would definitely have way better than even odds And regardless of the outcome, you're going to spend a long time in the hospital or a casket.

1

MisterJose Yesterday

Some of these are just demonstrably wrong. Chimps are way more dangerous than people are giving them credit for. You basically have no chance against an angry adult chimpanzee. And a kangaroo is not more dangerous than a chimp by any stretch of the imagination.

1

Mokuhn Yesterday

We are really weak when we are unarmed. People are too optimistic

1

Nellasofdoriath 1 day ago

I really want to know what would actually happen

1

306guy 1 day ago

My money is on the Honey Badger! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

1

facetofootstyle12 1 day ago

My money’s on the crocodile considering its death roll, that or Ellen Degeneres’ bite

0

fuxxwitclowns 1 day ago

My money is on hippopotamus!

1

swordmagic :Dab: brought to you by Taco Bell^tm :Dab: 1 day ago

12% of americans have seen the grey once lol

5

thesirenlady 1 day ago

These things always have the weirdest stuff at both ends of the spectrum. Show me the respondent who reckons they can't beat a goose. Even if you only weigh 100lbs all you gotta do is fall on it.

Now show me the dude who thinks he can best a gorilla. You wanna know what fighting a gorilla is like? Picture yourself fighting the strongest person you've ever seen then make them 4 times stronger.

18

rioting_mime 4 hs ago

The only chance I can think of against a gorilla would be to quickly gouge its eyes out but then you've got a pissed off, blind gorilla to deal with so...

1

eccol Glory to Mankind Yesterday

Gooses are *nasty* though. I mean I guess if I was in a fight-to-the-death cagematch with a goose I'd probably win, but if one picked a fight with me in a bar or something I'd 100% rather run away.

5

the-nub :JeffPersona:HOOK MY MOUTH UP TO THAT DOG'S ASS 2 hs ago

Oh for sure. Picking a fight with any wild animal is unwise, they have the fighting spirit that modern society simply does not imbue us with. But also... kick that goose in the head. You seen their necks? That'll do the business.

2

DerpsMcGee Yesterday

If the goose decides to fly away, does that count as a draw?

4

thesirenlady Yesterday

Cowardice is as good as death.

11

durZo2209 1 day ago

Also they got fangs

2

k032 1 day ago

10% do not know how big a wolf is.

20

sorrysurly 1 day ago

....country with the highest percentage of people who believe in angels so this doesnt shock me.

5

SuchExplorer1 1 day ago

I’m pretty sure that is nowhere near true.

0

sorrysurly 1 day ago

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/7_things_americans_think_are_more_plausible_than_global_warming_partner/

5

Chairman755 1 day ago

But could you beat an angel in a fight?

13

sorrysurly 1 day ago

I don't know I'm out of shape so probably not

3

otwall 1 day ago

Biblically accurate angels are supposed to just be orbs of light so I could just throw a heavy blanket on ‘em, deal with that Michael

8

btmc :AustinPersona: 1 day ago

[Biblically accurate angels are terrifying.](https://historyofyesterday.com/how-angels-really-look-like-according-to-the-bible-d4d339112619?gi=d9da1e0a1ca1)

7

the-nub :JeffPersona:HOOK MY MOUTH UP TO THAT DOG'S ASS 2 hs ago

You can't fool me, this is just Neon Genesis Evangelion fanfic.

2

Izdoy :CoolS: Yesterday

That really helps put Bayonetta's angelic designs into perspective.

3

houdin654jeff 1 day ago

You can’t beat 12%.

23

Deadinsidesince70 1 day ago

People actually think they could beat a bear?

8

[deleted] Yesterday

[deleted]

1

agcamalionte 2 hs ago

If you read further, there are actually two questions. In the second one, people were asked if they could beat each animal in a fight. 6% of people actually said they could beat a grizzly bear. Still, I agree that the title is misleading, as the article starts with the other question, comparing different animals, and only later goes to the question that is highlighted in the title.

1

mikesstuff 1 day ago

Wolves are the origin of the bitch so of course they can be beat in a fight.

0

dying 1 day ago

If Liam Neeson can do it anybody can

/s

4

campky 1 day ago

Glass Knucks

3

swik 1 day ago

Context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ5_cJCK6h0&t=213s&ab_channel=GiantBomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLpc8Fsn89k&ab_channel=Groom

4

KateBeckinsale_PM_Me 1 day ago

Ha. People think they can take a cat? Unless you get a really lucky kick in, I wouldn't bet on that.

The amount of people who thought they could take a chimp is also pretty optimistic. They're basically a giant muscle with four hands and sentient. I'm not sure there's ANY scenario where a human would stand a chance there.

Image: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2021-05-13/Animal%20fights%202-01.png

13

Adhiboy OC: 1 1 day ago

(This is going to sound like I’m advocating animal abuse or something, but I’m obviously not) You could probably hold a cat down and choke it to death pretty easily (assuming you take the pain of a few claw scratching you).

6

cirroc0 1 day ago

' cause being disemboweled isn't that big a deal... :P

0

KateBeckinsale_PM_Me 1 day ago

Probably true. It's just getting to the grab-it-by-the-throat point that will suck.

2

Shkeke 1 day ago

yes although he is painful on a regular basis I could kill my cat in many ways.

5

watchitbend 1 day ago

Couldn't defend yourself from a cat? Would I propose a flawless victory? Of course not, i'll be bleeding and wounded, but will have crushed the cats windpipe with one hand in a fight to the death. Hell, a big enough human could just crush it with their own body weight. Allowing an animal as small as a cat to kill you when it has no venom or ability to land a critical injury quickly would be a bit soft in my eyes. I know they're psychos but come on, fight for your life!!!

3

Shkeke 1 day ago

just stand on it

1

KateBeckinsale_PM_Me 1 day ago

Well, two things here; 1, I am a pussy. 2, Cats are satan incarnate. They're quick, cunning, have four of those little Freddy Krueger things at the end of each leg, can jump a couple of feet, have teeth, and a nasty disposition. Coupled with a pretty good brain, they are excellent murder machines. The only reason your garden-variety house cat hasn't murdered you (yet) is because they're smart enough to know that acting cute gets them scritches and free, no-hunting-needed food. Basically, their laziness is what keeps you alive. Fighting a pissed off cat is only likely to make me die tired and out of breath. Worse. I might survive a fight with a cat, but do I WANT to? It'll be septic shock and vasopressors and amputations and I'll live the rest of my life looking like Jocelyn Wildenstein without any fingers and toes.

1

watchitbend 1 day ago

I can understand your reservations and concerns. You make some good points, I'll request armour and health potion to increase my chances. Be side-eying neighbourhood cats for the next while too, they're probably reading this right now. Godspeed!!!

2

KateBeckinsale_PM_Me 1 day ago

Hahaha, I'll have to level up to even have a chance at surviving. Or carry around a can of cat food for a let-me-live bribe.

2

DickweedMcGee 1 day ago

Chips are humans with zero fat, much denser muscle tissue and zero inhibitions about fighting dirty. Unless that chimp is <50lbs, you're going to get your face and balls ripped off....and then die, if you're lucky.

7

KateBeckinsale_PM_Me 1 day ago

There are many other ways to die that sound far more pleasant than getting ripped apart piece by piece by a chimp.

3

rick6787 1 day ago

Anyone who thinks they couldn't take a medium sized dog has obviously never owned a medium sized dog

5

BobHilt Yesterday

I've always rough wrestled with my large dogs. Get behind them and wrap your legs around their body, and a choke type hold to limit their mobility, and you got them. If they're really fighting though, I'd recommend having some Mr. Blood Transfusion kits on hand.

1

2 5

2

1 1 5

2

4

2

25 1 8

Christian Gagnon - @InEgoVeritas

Target is under $24k then I guess https://t.co/tibEWBqQPF

0 2

Ryan Selkis - @twobitidiot

RT @michael_saylor: MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 271 bitcoins for $15.0 million in cash at an average price of ~$55,387 per #bitcoin. As of 5/13/2021, we #hodl ~91,850 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.241 billion at an average price of ~24,403 per bitcoin. $MSTR https://t.co/EwZnRkAt6k

5134 23416

Michael Goldstein - @bitstein

RT @michael_saylor: MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 271 bitcoins for $15.0 million in cash at an average price of ~$55,387 per #bitcoin. As of 5/13/2021, we #hodl ~91,850 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.241 billion at an average price of ~24,403 per bitcoin. $MSTR https://t.co/EwZnRkAt6k

3965 17298

Adam Back - @adam3us

assumed @michael_saylor would buying the dip. like clockwork. https://t.co/cgEmrZ2AgQ

8 68

Eric Wall - @ercwl

RT @michael_saylor: MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 271 bitcoins for $15.0 million in cash at an average price of ~$55,387 per #bitcoin. As of 5/13/2021, we #hodl ~91,850 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.241 billion at an average price of ~24,403 per bitcoin. $MSTR https://t.co/EwZnRkAt6k

4350 19356

Frank Chaparro - @fintechfrank

Right on schedule https://t.co/a1aKGiatkM

11 125

PSYBEAR - @cyberamine12

RT @michael_saylor: MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 271 bitcoins for $15.0 million in cash at an average price of ~$55,387 per #bitcoin. As of 5/13/2021, we #hodl ~91,850 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.241 billion at an average price of ~24,403 per bitcoin. $MSTR https://t.co/EwZnRkAt6k

2385 9813

Wayne Vaughan - @WayneVaughan

RT @michael_saylor: MicroStrategy has purchased an additional 271 bitcoins for $15.0 million in cash at an average price of ~$55,387 per #bitcoin. As of 5/13/2021, we #hodl ~91,850 bitcoins acquired for ~$2.241 billion at an average price of ~24,403 per bitcoin. $MSTR https://t.co/EwZnRkAt6k

2412 9902

Acceptable_Novel8200 Redditor for 3 months. 2 days ago

BTC has made the bottom around 47-48k, very strong,it never fell below this level from a long time, It seems like BTC is all geared up for new ATH !!

1

Background-Buyer-333 Redditor for 3 months. 2 days ago

Makes me feel better about my average cost of 52000 :)

1

chunkycheesey420 2 days ago

What does this mean for the average stud?

1

jam-hay Moon 2 days ago

Diamond Balls Mike my favourite new billionaire

1

edgellidan 3 - 4 years account age. 200 - 400 comment karma. 2 days ago

this snake oil salesman's gonna have to peddle some new wares when bitcoin gets dumpstered by eth, cardano, hbar, chainlink and avax.

0

ExplicitG 2 days ago

Top lad Saylor, making us all feel better.

1

StonkGoBrrrr Redditor for 3 months. 3 days ago

flex seal voice THAT'S A LOTTA DAMAGE!

1

ahmong 3 days ago

lmao, if he only waited a few more hours he could have lowered that average price

1

HugeLength2948 3 days ago

I bought 5 dollar this dip🚀

2

ExpiredAvocadoToast 3 days ago

Saylor is playing with fire.

Im a crypto bull but when the bears will wake up from hibernation, Saylor will either be dumping on us or digging his own grave even deeper by borrowing money to buy more dips.

Then eventually he may get liquidated.

0

Omega3568 Redditor for 3 months. 2 days ago

Quit equating this to animals. Bitcoin follows cycles so the next “bear cycle” bottom could be 75k or 50k, or 100k from the last bottom of 4K and the last bottom of 1400.00. Point is zoom out. I doubt it’s going below 20k ever again just look at the charts.

1

Apprehensive_Pea7911 3 days ago

Don't think he's buying with leverage. Why would he ever have to dump?

0

ExpiredAvocadoToast 3 days ago

Please educate yourself on the matter before making a comment. When it comes to facts no one cares about your or mine opinion. Facts are that Microstrategy sold convertible notes and used the proceeds to buy Bitcoin. \] According to their website, "Holders of notes may require MicroStrategy to repurchase their notes upon the occurrence of certain events that constitute a fundamental change under the indenture governing the notes at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest" (Microstrategy).

2

Rekkles210 3 days ago

REKT

1

AZMD911 3 days ago

Hooray to the hopefully mega HODLers!

1

PeterHeir 3 days ago

Tesla has become a financial institution which also makes some cars, batteries and solar panels at a loss. Tesla could better stop producing stuff as they are not good at it.

1

DontGiveMeGoldKappa 3 days ago

when everyone sell, you buy.

when everyone buy, you hold

when you die, ure rich.

2

leopard_tights 3 days ago

lmao this is so sad

0

ControlPotential 3 days ago

While stupid money dumps and panic sells, the smart money accumulates more and more.

10

sylsau Platinum | QC: BTC 88, CC 30, CM 18 | r/Politics 4 3 days ago

Michael J. Saylor continues to follow his DCA strategy with Bitcoin. A model for all to follow.

9

Low_Fly_1036 3 days ago

Timed announcement to try and offset rtard tweets.

1

chubbyurma Tin 3 days ago

Classic Michael

1

RussianLoveMachine 3 days ago

This is literally pennies in their portfolio so clearly just a farming attempt

1

Clash_My_Clans Platinum | QC: CC 450 3 days ago

Should have waited for the dip, but oh well that's still good for crypto

1

A_Birde Gold | QC: CC 66 | r/Politics 27 3 days ago

Just wondering how you think coins will ever get past there ATH's if everyone only buys the coin on a dip. You know actual bulls buy on ATH's right? Because buying on ATH's makes the price go up further so if you actually believe that BTC is worth more then 60k you will buy it at 60k.

3

Clash_My_Clans Platinum | QC: CC 450 3 days ago

You really think anyone can predict the market? They don't, so even tough they are a big organization they knew damn well if people starts selling then their buying at ATH will doom them.

0

pkg322 Platinum | QC: CC 147 3 days ago

I wonder whether Michael Saylor regret teaching Elon how to buy Bitcoin

35

ExpiredAvocadoToast 3 days ago

Does he? Bitcoin increased in price from measly \~35k to current 48.2k. Thats an over 30% increase that one will dream of achieving on public markets.

3

ZeusFinder Platinum | QC: CC 105, BTC 80 3 days ago

😂 probably

4

VAMPXIII Bronze 3 days ago

Saylor developing a bigger gambling addiction than us.

26

SatOnMyBalls_ Gold | 4 months old | QC: BTC 73, CC 32 3 days ago

He can affor to hodl. It's going to be hilarious seeing him richer than Elon musk in 10 years.

4

ExpiredAvocadoToast 3 days ago

No he CANNOT afford to HODL. Hodlers of his Convertible Notes can come knocking on his door and ask for their money back.

2

SatOnMyBalls_ Gold | 4 months old | QC: BTC 73, CC 32 3 days ago

Sure thing Bob. I'm sure that will happen just as i'm sure everything else you say is gospel Mr God

0

ExpiredAvocadoToast 3 days ago

You must have sat on your balls for too long that your brains leaked out. Its okay, here is the [article](https://www.microstrategy.com/en/company/company-videos/microstrategy-announces-pricing-of-offering-of-convertible-senior-notes) from Microstrategy themselves that will ELI5 to you how some of their BTC purchases happen.

0

hsifuevwivd Redditor for 1 months. 2 days ago

What would sitting on your balls have anything to do with your brain leaking out lmao? Do you have brains in your balls or something? That was a weird insult

1

ProcessMeMrHinkie 3 days ago

Mooooooon or bust (autocorrect did that for some reason)

0

BitcoinCanSaveUsAll 3 days ago

Saylor made his views clear in his recent debate on bitcoin VS gold around the 37 minute and change mark when he said something to the affect as to how "they" wouldn't interfere with bitcoin' ascention as long as folks keep their bitcoin with custodians. This is the antihisis of what bitcoin is all about and I fear any company using his playbook will eventually find that they in fact own no bitcoin whatsoever.

2

futuretothemoon 3 days ago

In the correct side of the history.

3

2

24 3

abuqasar 2 days ago

Bruh the company is selling credits finish up the headline next time

EXCLUSIVE Tesla seeks entry into U.S. renewable fuel credit market - sources

1

StraightArrowNGarro 2 days ago

OP’s headline is completely wrong.

No where in this article does it say Tesla is getting into biogas. It says that Tesla is looking to sell clean energy credits to this market.

Tesla isn’t getting into gas cars or anything like that. Tesla is going to continue pursuing the market of selling its clean energy credits.

Nothing is changing other than who can buy the energy credits.

8

YouGotDead 2 days ago

Tsla is generating electricity with biogas

0

StraightArrowNGarro 2 days ago

That is not at all what the article says. Currently there are some entities generating electricity with biogas, and they sell those clean energy credits. Tesla wants to be able to sell clean energy credits in that market. The article then mentions how some farmers (who use biogas to generate electricity) are mad at that proposal because it would appear that the Biden administration would be prioritizing Tesla over people who _actually_ use biogas. Tesla is not getting into the business of biogas. It only wants to sell credits to that market.

3

peacegirl2032 2 days ago

I thought I seen something about Tesla going with Fuel Cell. It's on my watch list

2

yohohomehearties 2 days ago

I've decided, I'm no longer accepting Tesla cars as part payment for fart gas or bit coins

1

grassyme 2 days ago

I wish I knew Elon was going through a mid life crisis before I threw in 8k at 750 🤦🏻‍♀️

28

YouGotDead 2 days ago

don't worry Tesla will double soon.

5

StonkWonker 2 days ago

True

5

Ok-Literature-5596 2 days ago

You think?

2

YouGotDead 2 days ago

Look at the price targets for tsla, $1000 $1300 $4000.

0

aTm2012 2 days ago

He’s not just positive, he’s HIV positive.

5

YouGotDead 2 days ago

Im certain

1

Chuth2000 2 days ago

The Musk will change his mind again next week.

15

BloeMeDownOO27 2 days ago

Wonder what this means future Tesla vehicles. I do believe it is a great alternative.

7

IAmInTheBasement 2 days ago

>Wonder what this means future Tesla vehicles BEV only and forever. No hybrids, no hydrogen. They're just looking at clean methods of power generation. Using waste products to make power is just good policy. If you can make money on it, do it.

2

unSplinker 2 days ago

I doubt very much it will cross over into that market, other than perhaps trucking.

6

UncleFromTheFarm 2 days ago

So they wjll stop sell their cars which go on coal which used for producing electricity?

0

SomeGuyNamedPaul 2 days ago

19% of the energy in the US grid came from coal, and that number is falling rapidly. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

3

jdubf13 2 days ago

Where China? I live in Washington state and have one coal burning plant...which should be gone by 2025ish...really hard to lay a blanket across all electricity being created by coal. Careful what you say and do some DD first

6

AutoModerator 2 days ago

News posts must be market moving and contain new information. Please avoid editorializing the title.

If your post doesn't meet the requirements above, please delete the thread before a mod sees it.

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

thinkcontext 3 days ago

This is confusing but it sounds like biogas electricity qualifies for the same subsidy as ethanol. Perhaps they'll use the electricity produced from biogas to power their charging stations, though its unclear how direct the supply needs to be. Does it have to be directly hooked up to the station or can it be a supply agreement and thus can be anywhere on the local grid?

1

thinkcontext 3 days ago

I am unclear about how Tesla is going to use the biogas. Will they buy biogas, turn it into electricity and get more in credits than the biogas would on its own?

1

rods_and_chains 2 days ago

The regulations are a bit unclear as to how renewable electricity counts. This is prolly why Tesla is looking for a ruling on it. The most obvious manner they'll potentially generate credits is with renewable electricity powering Superchargers. Clearly renewable and clearly for transportation. But many of the details are unclear because the regulation was written with a focus on biogas. (Though not an exclusive focus.)

1

thinkcontext 2 days ago

It occurred to me that they could say it was vehicle fuel if they use it for their charging stations. I wonder what the ethanol credit would work out to on a kwh basis for the biogas electricity?

1

rods_and_chains 2 days ago

The regulation (sort of) addresses that. The Tesla Daily youtube channel did a pretty good [summary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQCuSEugyX8) of the issues.

1

thinkcontext 2 days ago

Thanks, the part about converting the gallon credit to kwh was useful. To save anyone else the time, at current prices for D3 RINs of $2.30 per gallon and the EPA's definition of 22.6 kwh per gallon, the credit would be worth $.10 per kwh produced. That's certainly significant. I think there is confusion about what kind of electricity qualifies. The podcast seems to be saying any renewable electricity would qualify, he talks a lot about how solar powering chargers would qualify. I think that's incorrect, its only biogas derived electricity used to power the chargers that would qualify. Is it known how much electricity Tesla sells through its chargers?

1

rods_and_chains 2 days ago

> The podcast seems to be saying any renewable electricity would qualify To be precise, my takeaway from the podcast was that this was precisely the question that Tesla was (likely) trying to get answered in their petition. I don't think any other approach would make sense for Tesla (and neither does the podcast). Tesla is not interested in biogas per se.

1

thinkcontext 2 days ago

I'm not sure I follow. If Tesla can buy biogas produced electricity from an existing provider and get a $.10 discount for using it in their chargers, isn't that enough to interest them in biogas? They don't have to take delivery of the gas or physically hook it up to their chargers, they just have to sign a PPA with someone who can tell them how much biogas they use in generation.

1

rods_and_chains 2 days ago

Possibly? But my impression is that Tesla have zero interest in biogas. I think it just as likely they are more interested in trying to get whoever is in charge of this program (regulators?) to approve zero-carbon electricity generated renewably as credits. (That is solar power or wind power generated specifically for transportation.) Tesla wants to be producing the credits not consuming them. (But I could certainly be misunderstanding or mistaken.)

1

GreenFriend 3 days ago

Yes, this certainly raises questions. But Tesla has a good track-record for renewable energy generation. Tesla has been utilizing energy credits in their automobile business from the beginning. This could be part of their strategy to disrupt existing energy markets with solar and renewables. Biogas does seem like a stretch though.

0

NIMBYRANGER redditor for 3 weeks 3 days ago

that dip tho

0

Selfish_Development_ 3 days ago

I mean it's 50k. Lol. Oh noz

1

Schwabb_the_deck Redditor for 3 months. 3 days ago

All about the Benjamin's.

1

idrawrobots Gold | QC: CC 16 3 days ago

Get ready for Tesla to sell their bitcoin holdings.

1

N-Coy 3 days ago

The MAN called and he answered!

2

ScreecherSmith2 3 days ago

So the EPA is going to kill Bitcoin?

3

Hazardmade Redditor for 1 months. 3 days ago

Anything coming out of that administration is pure garbage, money killing, trash.

0

Epyimpervious Gold | QC: CC 71 3 days ago

Sold out for handouts? Yikes, Elon.

3

AutoModerator 3 days ago

Bitcoin Pro Arguments & Cons Arguments - Potentially earn moons by participating in the Pro & Con-test.
Sort comments as controversial first by clicking here. Doesn't work on mobile.

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

rvqbl 4 days ago

Check rule 5. You might want to resubmit this with the correct title.

3

TheFactualBot 4 days ago

I'm a bot. Here is The Factual credibility grade.

The linked_article has a grade of 66% (Reuters, Center). No related articles found for additional perspectives.

This is a trial for The Factual bot. How It Works. Please message the bot with any feedback so we can make it more useful for you.

1

NeutralverseBot 4 days ago

r/NeutralNews is a curated space, but despite the name, there is no neutrality requirement here.

These are the rules for comments:

Be courteous to other users.
Source your facts.
Be substantive.
Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated report button so a mod can review it.

1

sol3tosol4 4 days ago

"The move could represent the largest expansion of the RFS program that was created by President George W. Bush and aimed at boosting rural America and weaning the country off oil imports.

"The entry of Tesla and other electric vehicle makers to the renewable energy scheme could attract investment for a much-needed infrastructure network, including charging stations, for electric vehicles."

"...Tesla would generate the most lucrative type of credits, known as D3s, which trade at a significant premium to the larger pool of traditional ethanol credits."

Funny thought - in addition to helping to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy (Tesla's mission statement), it could turn out to be a long-term, viable and significantly profitable business for Tesla, but many of the bears will still say "look - 'CREDITS' - can't count it as profits!". :-)

19

tashtibet 3 days ago

big oils getting Fed oil subsidy for years -aren't that included in the profit? Other auto manufacturers are getting EV sale Fed tax credit-they're included as profits. Somehow Bears & corrupt medias are looking for something to troll Tesla.

1

obsd92107 4 days ago

Is this the massive breaking news that was supposedly leaked from the tesla all hands meeting

1

mindpoweredsweat 4 days ago

Any long term TSLA investor should not be worried about the bears at this point. Specific criticisms or statements from bears may be true, in which case they are worth worrying about on their own, but the bears themselves don't have any long term power anymore. Bears as a force to be reckoned with in their own right, because their FUD could harm the company long term or even tank it, ended sometime around Q3 2019. At this point, I see the bears, to the extent they have any influence at all, as just providing short term buying opportunities. I get that bears still matter if you are day trading TSLA.

14

obsd92107 4 days ago

Bears and fud are just white noises. So are macro factors like Treasury yield, pci, interest rate etc. None of this matters when company specific catalysts kick in.

1

ascidiaeface 311 4 days ago

Well said. I view FUDsters such as a certain bow tie wearing TV personality - who shall not be named anymore - as useful idiots.

9

MalnarThe 4 days ago

Mr GM-daddy?

4

ClumpOfCheese 4 days ago

Like, if anyone listened to him we’d be down 100% right now instead of whatever we actually are down.

1

bostontransplant Text Only 4 days ago

lol we biogas company now

3

2

14 3

SirSourPuss transcendent metamodernist 2 days ago

Your post has been removed as low-quality because the topic is either uninteresting, not notable enough or irrelevant to the subreddit.

To the jannies of wherever OP links this message next: hi.

1

KnockerZ Kpop Stan 2 days ago

The people who aren't wearing masks now aren't because the government told them not to last year. They're doing so because of "fuck the government" (because biden is in charge) and anti-left mentality.

See tucker carlson flip his stance on face mask

Government: Based upon the science [about potential benefits of masks for the public] we knew at the time, Don't recommend masks for the public.

Tucker Carlson: Masks work

Government: Upon further study, the government recommend masks for the general public:

Tucker Carlson: Masks are bizarre health theatre.

Last year, I argued with a lot of antimaskers. Most of them deferred to Ed Woods (The Historian) arguments with charts about mask mandates and rising cases (which it turns out the rising cases were from variants whose high infectivity rate overtook the mitigation measures offered by the masks. masks work, but not enough to keep the R below 1.) Most antimaskers on this subreddit preferred taking advice regarding a pandemic from a historian rather than the global scientific community.

When Biden got elected, i noticed the argument shifted. There were more focus on the government mix messaging. Instead of masks don't work see ed woods chart, it's now government lied, can we trust the government, can we trust experts, can we trust scientists. Keep in mind, just like your blog, it was the asian scientists, and asian science community emphasizing the masks that Americans and Western goverments chose to ignore initially. So the science wasn't wrong, the experts weren't wrong. The western government was just arrogant.

There would always be a portion of the population not wearing masks regardless of the messaging on masks. As long Dems support something, the other side will always go against it. If Dems support cleaning your ass after taking a shit, the other side would walk around proudly with shit stained pants.

1

MadHamishMacGregor 3 days ago

The summary is basically "masks don't work because people are too stupid to wear them correctly," which to me seems to be more an indictment of people than of the efficacy of mask wearing.

6

Galvaxatron 3 days ago

The summary is; for whatever reason, the authorities in the west decided to lie to us, repeatedly. Bold faced lies. And the media gleefully jumped on board with the lies. There is no reason to believe the average western citizen is dumber than the average Asian citizen, yet Asian countries didntfuck around and they all masked up. We've known masks work since before the Spanish Flu of 1918. In fact look up pictures of people wearing masks in 1918, there are millions of them. We knew masks work during the SARS and MERS outbreaks. We were encouraged to wear masks while in tight confines during SARS. The real issue is that, this time around, western authorities decided to believe we're dumb and they tried to "protect us from ourselves". And so they, and their propaganda apparatus, spread vicious lies which cost lives and helped reduce people's trust in the relevant authorities. The stupidity comes from our leaders, is amplified by our media, and is swallowed whole by the morons who think this blog post is actually spreading disinformation.

0

ChicagoTRS1 Monkey in Space 3 days ago

It just shows that our media is 100% parrots for whatever propaganda or message the government wants to dictate. Critical thinking skills are rare.

6

Galvaxatron Monkey in Space 3 days ago

I find it absolutely baffling that this post is receiving such hostile reactions. It's downvoted here and two other subs I posted it in, and in /r/Libertarian two commenters said the blog post itself is disinformation. Critical thinking skills are indeed rare.

0

saynotohalo Monkey in Space 2 days ago

English isn't my native language, so I had hard time reading this. But what is trying to be proved in this text? It just summarises what happened early 2020 that everyone already knows of and just ends with some questions that were never answered in this text.

1

Galvaxatron 3 days ago

Tried to post it on /r/coronavirus.

It was immediately deleted with this message:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/nbisb1/the_transatlantic_institutional_antimask_campaign/gxzhpp6/

Peak /r/NotTheOnion

1

Galvaxatron 3 days ago

Tried to post it on /r/coronavirus.

It was immediately deleted with this message:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/nbisb1/the_transatlantic_institutional_antimask_campaign/gxzhpp6/

Peak /r/NotTheOnion

0

ISHOTJOHNGALT Leftist Libertarian 3 days ago

The only reason it hasn't been deleted here is because this sub allows disinformation.

6

Galvaxatron 3 days ago

Where is the disinformation? I will delete it myself if you point out the disinformation found therein.

0

GreyInkling 3 days ago

"where is the the disinformation" [gestures at the entire blog]

8

ISHOTJOHNGALT Leftist Libertarian 2 days ago

Right?

1

Galvaxatron 3 days ago

Talk about terrible logic. That entire blog post is summarizing the disinformation pushed by the media and authority figures. All receipts are provided. The writer: here is a list of authority figures and media pushing disinformation narratives about masks, including receipts, direct sources and video sources. You: tHe WrItEr iS pUsHiNg dIsInFoRmAtIOn!! .... Absolutely baffling reaction.

0

AutoModerator 3 days ago

Your submission has been automatically removed because the linked source may not be reliable or may be dedicated mostly to political coverage. If possible, please re-submit with a link to a reliable or non-political source, such as a reliable news organization or an recognized institution.

Thank you for helping us keep information in /r/Coronavirus reliable!

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

nygdan 3 days ago

The actual studies taken as a whole were somewhat inconclusive, there were enough studies showing no net effect to keep the question open. The real world practice on the other hand was that docs think masks work and wear masks when they can.

On the side of this was there issue of people engaging in risky behaviour "because i have a masks" (we see this all the time, 'i have a mask, i can make a casual trip to the store',we had people trying any excise to prevent lockdowns) and the possibility of infection from mishandling contaminated masks (we see mishandling all the time: under the nose, on the throat, stuffed in pockets, handled by hands, tossed on street, brought into the home, etc).

In the end its really clear that surgical masks amd lockdowns work. Its also a lesson on how the media will simply push clickbait headlines in order to get clicks regardless of the status of the debate, even in a crisis.

2

ws31598 4 days ago

Yuuuuup. I remember my college downplayed masks and the virus itself in the beginning.

3

CheapAlternative :hayek: Friedrich Hayek 4 days ago

Fuck yeah do airborne spread next. I'm still so fucking incenced nobody in public health took the time to read up on the learnings from SARS especially the Hotel Metropole and Amoy Garden case studies, tracing and cfd models, n95 vs surgical odds ratios.

Got so much shit for wearing a mask last March/April and all summer for calling out all that fucking airborne spread denial.

Best part? I'd entered a moderately crowded elevator/room sometimes around Feb/March and people would get pissy and try to evade as if wearing a mask made you higher risk.

Oh and then a month or two later getting shit for wearing N95s in general because that's for doctor's and nurses. Meanwhile doctors and nurses were getting reprimanded for wearing N95s instead of surgicals.

Fuck the CDC honestly. They really fucked up everything save the vaccine.

83

joetheschmoe4000 :soros: George Soros 3 days ago

How much of the incompetence was the CDC itself, and how much was the Trump admin's political interference in its decisions?

1

sapphic_saracen :lesbian: Lesbian Pride 4 days ago

Honestly, I read an article in npr about how racism and residual attitudes dating to colonialism severely damaged the west’s response to Covid because we failed to learn from Asian and African countries that have had to deal with pandemics before. I know a lot of people here would scoff at that, but honestly it made a lot of sense, especially when it comes to masks. For a lot of people, non-medical professionals wearing masks in public is something weird Asian countries do, and it was almost treated as superstition by a lot of people, despite the evidence.

12

joetheschmoe4000 :soros: George Soros 3 days ago

Yeah, sometimes even if it's not directly individual racism, systems built on racism manifest themselves in the form of which sources of knowledge we choose to favor.

2

notverycringeihope99 :yimby: YIMBY 3 days ago

Yeah I feel like it's really weird we didn't follow like South Korea or Vietnam's pandemic responses because they were legitimately awesome.

5

Healingjoe :klobuchar2: It's Klobberin' Time 4 days ago

> the Hotel Metropole and Amoy Garden case studies, tracing and cfd models, n95 vs surgical odds ratios. Got any links handy? I'm v interested ^^god ^^I ^^love ^^data

3

CheapAlternative :hayek: Friedrich Hayek 3 days ago

You can find a few of the the CFD papers cited in this CDC article. * https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/6/13-0192_article Masks n95 vs other interventions: * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/ Also fun: * https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5212a1.htm * https://www.jwatch.org/na51479/2020/05/04/sars-cov-2-aerosols * https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2623

2

Dan4t :nato: NATO 4 days ago

They had an incentive to discourage the public from using masks initially. If the public didn't buy them, then it would be easier for medial staff to get supplies of mask. Coincidently when production increased and their supply problem was solved, they just happened to realize that masks are actually useful.

28

gincwut :acemoglu: Daron Acemoglu 4 days ago

Yeah, but that incentive should have been overruled by the #1 rule of public health during a pandemic: be honest and tell the truth about what you know. Trust in public health agencies is critical to a pandemic response, if that trust is ruined then your policies will be much less effective. The 1918 flu epidemic was particularly terrible because most countries lied about it and tried to cover it up because they were fighting a war. Granted, America already had a large chunk of the population not trusting anything to do with government anyway, and they probably used the lie about masks as a convenient excuse to justify their actions. But it was still a stupid move IMO.

40

SouthernSerf :borlaug: Norman Borlaug 4 days ago

That was the most stupid and shorted sighted move possible it destroyed a lot of credibility that the CDC had.

49

[deleted] 4 days ago

[removed]

0

NortySpock :borlaug: Norman Borlaug 3 days ago

> The CDC never said masking doesn't work or not to wear mask. > No, they *clearly did say* "we do not recommend masks for the general public", which is basically "no need to wear masks in everyday errands". They did recommend them for direct contact with known COVID-19 patients (obviously), but they did not recommend them for the general public in February-March of 2020. Direct CDC tweet: https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Direct CDC transcript, search for "mask": https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html Marketwatch reporting: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30 CNN reporting: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html *Still pissed at the CDC / Surgeon General for this stupid statement.*

8

Robespierre_Virtue 3 days ago

> The CDC **never** said masking doesn't work or not to wear mask. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0130-novel-coronavirus-update-telebriefing.html > For example, CDC does not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general public. The virus is not spreading in the general community. While it is cold and flu season, we don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness and certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.

8

BasedTheorem 4 days ago

> Fauci did and he was following the best-known epidemiological evidence which remains unchanged today. There is a completely different consensus among scientists in Asia.

14

CheapAlternative :hayek: Friedrich Hayek 4 days ago

We could have just as easily had a make your own mask campaign instead of the ventilator craze.

55

BishopUrbanTheEnby :enby: Enby Pride 3 days ago

The Post Office was planning on sending everyone 4 fabric masks back in March but noooooo we had a COVID denier for a President

3

repete2024 4 days ago

I seem to recall the message being "wear a mask if you're sick or around someone who's sick" from the beginning. They just took too long to acknowledge pre-symptomatic transmission.

13

InMemoryOfZubatman4 :mccloskey: Deirdre McCloskey 4 days ago

Yikes

1

ArepaConMate :keynes: Patria y Vida 4 days ago

Yep, will be making an effort to follow this substack.

3

usrname42 :chetty: Last night I dreamt I went to Mendeley ag 4 days ago

!ping CORONAVIRUS

Worth remembering how much Western medical institutions fucked up on the mask issue in early 2020 (and for comparison how Asian medical institutions got it right).

39

Iustis :findlay: End Supply Management | Draft MHF! 4 days ago

They definitely fucked up, but there is also a lot of revisionist history I see. They never said "masks don't work" they said "we think the risk of the average person touching their nose or something after touching a contaminated surface is higher than reduced airborne transmission" Now obviously that was wrong because we now know it is much more airborne than surface, but we didn't at the time.

26

Dan4t :nato: NATO 4 days ago

Naw what you're saying here is revisionist and the sources are in the very article that was just posted. And it annoys me that people try to dismiss or undermine just how bad their judgment was, because they were quite aggressive and firm about wearing masks being harmful. It does not give me much hope that they will learn from this if the seriousness of their mistake isn't highlighted. To me it always seemed that the anti-mask messaging was about ensuring that they got enough masks, since their was a shortage, and the public was taking away mask supplies from medical staff.

6

Iustis :findlay: End Supply Management | Draft MHF! 4 days ago

I mean, I skimmed through the article and it constantly points to health care professionals saying that the risk from touching mask/face is higher than the reduced airborne risk. OBVIOUSLY that is wrong in hindsight, but that's exactly what I said. But other than apparently some idiotic hospital in Texas professionals weren't saying wearing a mask hurt, just that they believed it to be a net negative.

7

usrname42 :chetty: Last night I dreamt I went to Mendeley ag 4 days ago

Their public statements at the time didn't acknowledge much possibility that they might be wrong about the balance of risks. It was treated as settled scientific fact that masks would do more harm than good for the general public, and [you were often treated as anti-science if you thought they might](https://twitter.com/JeremyVineOn5/status/1239512626134224896).

24

waltsing0 Yesterday

Wasn't part of it they wanted the very scarce masks (especially N95s and other high end ones) to be reserved for healthcare workers

1

_E8_ 4 days ago

That remains true.

0

Iustis :findlay: End Supply Management | Draft MHF! 4 days ago

That's fair, they should have been less confident in their statements given they were wrong in hindsight.

6

CheapAlternative :hayek: Friedrich Hayek 4 days ago

Nah there was a lot of "there's no empirical evidence" and "but the evidence is inconclusive" thrown around from people who ought to have known better. Fundamentally science isn't about performing experiments. It's about making sense of experimental data so that we can make predictions and extrapolate to new situations.

5

waltsing0 Yesterday

Public health is more than science, the science was *not sure tbh* on masks being particularly effective but there's zero harm to people wearing a cheap cloth mask at the store so go for it.

1

[deleted] 4 days ago

[removed]

0

skepticalbob :yellen: Joe Biden's ice cream scooper 4 days ago

Correct. They also wanted masks for hospital workers because they feared our hospitals being overrun and workers without masks would have massively increased the catastrophe.

14

CheapAlternative :hayek: Friedrich Hayek 4 days ago

Except for how they did nothing for all the nurses being denied use of a mask because the hospital didn't issue it or didn't issue it that day. Shit was insane.

5

usrname42 :chetty: Last night I dreamt I went to Mendeley ag 4 days ago

I have much less sympathy with this argument. Public health officials should not be lying to us about the effectiveness of a health intervention even if they think the lie is for the good of society. I would much prefer it if they were just wrong at the time.

35

Iustis :findlay: End Supply Management | Draft MHF! 4 days ago

I don't think they lied. I had to read tons of this shit because I was writing memos to companies on compliance etc. last Spring. The headlines were unclear, but I never saw health officials saying "masks are bad" it was always "we don't trust untrained people to use them in net-negative risk ways" (that's why doctors etc. kept using them). The honesty was there in my opinion, it was just based on bad science at the time.

7

NortySpock :borlaug: Norman Borlaug 3 days ago

Then they **should have** had a PR / technical writer review the statement for clarity and simplicity. They should have said: *"Please leave surgical and N95 masks for healthcare workers. We are exploring the effectiveness of cloth masks."*

5

waltsing0 Yesterday

You also need to consider rationing the stock, you might have the opposite effect and people buying them up because they know they're the ones that work better.

1

AnimeAlt44 :douglass: Frederick Douglass 4 days ago

They didn’t really lie tho. If you actually read full statements concerning the mask issue they often did explicitly state they want to reserve masks for higher risk healthcare workers from very early. But those nuances didn’t really make the 5 sec news sound bites and got condensed to ‘just don’t okay?’

5

NortySpock :borlaug: Norman Borlaug 3 days ago

"Please leave surgical and N95 masks for healthcare workers. We are exploring the effectiveness of cloth masks." would have been better, in my opinion. Easy to break up into two separate soundbites.

5

skepticalbob :yellen: Joe Biden's ice cream scooper 4 days ago

I agree. I understand it though.

7

ArepaConMate :keynes: Patria y Vida 4 days ago

Japan nailed it from the beginning with their 3Cs campaign. They weren't as proactive as SK or Taiwan at supressing the virus which is probably why they have worse numbers than those two, but they're a hell of a lot better than anyone in the West.

31

_E8_ 4 days ago

New Zealand (is a western-style Democracy unless you actually meant the Americas).

7

ArepaConMate :keynes: Patria y Vida 4 days ago

Australia too. I meant Americas + Europe.

5

groupbot The ping will always get through 4 days ago

Pinged members of CORONAVIRUS group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20CORONAVIRUS&message=addtogroup%20CORONAVIRUS) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20CORONAVIRUS&message=unsubscribe%20CORONAVIRUS) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)

2

8 2

GarlicKnot 7 - 8 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 1 day ago

Dumb question but is the primary advantage erc token trading rates? Or eth trade rates?

1

pinoygs Platinum | QC: CC 187, ICX 18 | NANO 14 1 day ago

So how can we make money off this?

1

thirtydelta Gold | QC: CC 30 | r/Investing 138 1 day ago

Haha, fair enough. The NEAR protocol is still relatively new. Despite it being in the top 100 networks by markets cap, I rarely see it discussed in Reddit outside of the dedicated sub. So, you might make a good return simply by buying and holding NEAR.

1

thirtydelta Gold | QC: CC 30 | r/Investing 138 1 day ago

FTA,

Aurora runs on NEAR Protocol and takes advantage of its many unique features, including sharding and developer gas fee remuneration. Aurora consists of two core components: the Aurora Engine runtime, which allows for the seamless deployment of Solidity and Vyper smart contracts, and the Aurora Bridge (based on the Rainbow Bridge technology), providing for the permissionless transfer of tokens and data between Ethereum and Aurora.

1

BigLongFootDoctor 1 day ago

Less fee soon!?

1

thirtydelta Gold | QC: CC 30 | r/Investing 138 1 day ago

Less than $0.01 to conduct ERC-20 transactions.

2

AutoModerator 1 day ago

Ethereum Pro Arguments & Cons Arguments - Potentially earn moons by participating in the Pro & Con-test.
Sort comments as controversial first by clicking here. Doesn't work on mobile.

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

lilbeetje 3 days ago

I saw the "Hide the Blockchain" UX thing and that's pretty cool too. I love that NEAR cares about user experience. not enough blockchains do that

All in all, pretty hyped for what Aurora will bring to the NEAR ecosystem

2

ethereumflow 4 days ago

Aurora is here = ETH 2.0 is NEAR

2

LaDevochka 4 days ago

From the blog:

Aurora fees are up to 1,000x lower than Ethereum’s. For example, the cost of transferring a ERC-20 token is below $0.01, while for Ethereum (at 50 Gwei and an ETH price of $3,000), it’s around $5.40.
Aurora is able to host thousands of transactions per second, representing an increase of 50x compared to Ethereum 1.0.
Aurora transaction finality inherits from the underlying NEAR Protocol, i.e. two NEAR blocks, or approximately two seconds—substantially lower even than a single block confirmation time of 13 seconds in Ethereum (which is not enough for transaction finality). Also, fast finality of NEAR blockchain reduces significantly the risk of frontrunning attacks.
Ecosystem growth on Aurora is future-proof: the sharding approach of the underlying NEAR Protocol provides for horizontal EVM scaling, with asynchronous communication between multiple Aurora shards.
Aurora offers a greener option for Ethereum users: full, uncompromising Ethereum compatibility on top of the decentralised and climate-neutral Proof-of-Stake L1 NEAR Protocol.

I would love to see how people see this changing the interoperability landscape going forward.

3

coyotefugO 4 days ago

I think the fact that you can use Aurora without transferring your ETH is a huge value prop. The ease of use combined with NEAR's carbon neutrality make Aurora a very interop solution for any ETH holder.

1

10 2 3

tylenol77 3 days ago

Well he donated to a good cause.🤷🏻‍♂️

1

Iamflev705 3 days ago

I mean I'd have happily taken that gift.

1

Angelandrew1 3 days ago

Hope he didn't use the same wrapping paper. That'd have been a bit cheeky.

2

sansa-bot bot 3 days ago

tldr; Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has told dog-themed memecoin creators to "bark up another tree." He donated tokens sent to his public wallet by the creators of Shiba Inu coin, dogelon, Akita Inu, mwDOGE, and OURSHIB. He also donated $431 million of AKITA tokens to Gitcoin.

Summary generated by sansa

1

AutoModerator 3 days ago

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

Basoosh Hungry for Proof of Steak 3 days ago

What. An. Absolute. Baller.

3

TraviAdpet Ethereum fan 3 days ago

I’m slightly confused. Was this not meant to be “burned” in the understanding it would never be used? Not upset, just confused.

1

Basoosh Hungry for Proof of Steak 3 days ago

If SHIB wanted to burn it, they could have just sent the tokens to 0x00000. They were sent to Vitalik's wallet on purpose. To what end? Dunno. Maybe for the free notoriety/advertisement. Maybe for the mystery of just what VB would do with it.

2

TraviAdpet Ethereum fan 3 days ago

Hmm. Now I’m contemplating sending mine. But the gas fees

1

chucchinchilla 3 days ago

My guess is for legitimacy by association plus publicity.

2

RogerWilco357 3 days ago

All purchases of SHIB can now be morally considered a donation to India's COVID relief fund! Buy SHIB and change the world! Don't hate!

0

chucchinchilla 3 days ago

Shilling on the banks of the dead. On behalf of the millions of Indians who are currently going through hell right now, go fuck yourself and your bullshit coin.

2

RogerWilco357 3 days ago

I'm sorry you feel that way about it. Nothing can change what has happened. "Shilling" SHIB at this point is beneficial, use the opportunities that present themselves. Don't waste it.

0

chucchinchilla 3 days ago

If you want to help India make an actual donation to an NGO fighting the battle.

1

RogerWilco357 3 days ago

Your way isn't the only way. Sorry.

1

chucchinchilla 3 days ago

Anything that doesn't involve profiting off of the dead is fine by me.

1

RogerWilco357 3 days ago

Ok I need to explain something to you. You aren't entitled to other people's money. You aren't entitled to demand how they spend it, or what charities they support or how they support them. You aren't entitled. So now that you know this, would you rather people dump their SHIB, or buy more. Which is better for you? Anyways, i'll keep promoting SHIB, and the COVID fund will benefit. Every negative comment you make, hurts it. So you decide how you will handle it. I'm done with your negativity.

1

chucchinchilla 3 days ago

Let me clarify, I give zero shits how you spend your money. What I do care about is you asking people to buy Shiba Inu coin *in the name of helping India.* If you truly cared about India, which you don't, you would just donate directly to the cause. The reality is you're a sociopathic shitcoin shiller who is using this opportunity to profit from the pain and suffering of an entire country. Do you not see how morally repugnant this is? I mean seriously, your actions today are fitting for r/iamatotalpieceofshit.

1

RogerWilco357 3 days ago

You are so angry. I hope things get better in your life. Anger leads to hate. Keep it in mind. I'm going to end this now by blocking you. Good day.

1

r-2-eth-2 4 days ago

Vitalik's Regift of Unsolicited DOGE Knockoffs Sends Memecoin Prices Plunging

The Ethereum creator has turned a memecoin marketing stunt on its head.Vitalik Buterin has told dog-themed memecoin creators to bark up another tree. Memecoin creators started sending large amounts of their tokens to the Ethereum figurehead in recent days. The memecoin mania has caused Ethereum gas fees to surge to staggering highs, perhaps animating the network's founder to strike back.

Market Conditions

ETH:    $4,092.85
BTC:    $54,334.89
Ratio:  0.0753
Date:   May 12 2021

2

gruvendubs 4 days ago

Wtf

3

DJ_Griffey 4 days ago

Smart marketing move on all the meme coins, sending free coins to him so it looks like he is supporting the coins. Who would of ever thought he would of given them all away lol...

1

2

4

8

Brooke ⚡️ - @bitcoinmom

And, in case you missed it, some VERY good #Bitcoin news :) https://t.co/vbk6Le48bz

4 22

nic carter - @nic__carter

this blows the dogecoin nascar car out of the water https://t.co/Nph0xaaxJJ

8 157

Matt Odell - @matt_odell

RT @JackMallers: I just published Announcing The Bitcoin Car. This year, at the Indy 500, car #21 will be racing for #Bitcoin, human freedom, financial literacy, financial inclusivity, savings technology, and Bitcoin open-source development. Let's go win a fucking race. https://t.co/H5vP6a2wmq

371 1742

PSYBEAR - @cyberamine12

RT @JackMallers: I just published Announcing The Bitcoin Car. This year, at the Indy 500, car #21 will be racing for #Bitcoin, human freedom, financial literacy, financial inclusivity, savings technology, and Bitcoin open-source development. Let's go win a fucking race. https://t.co/H5vP6a2wmq

366 1697

Steve Lee - @moneyball

RT @JackMallers: I just published Announcing The Bitcoin Car. This year, at the Indy 500, car #21 will be racing for #Bitcoin, human freedom, financial literacy, financial inclusivity, savings technology, and Bitcoin open-source development. Let's go win a fucking race. https://t.co/H5vP6a2wmq

193 960

Pomp - @APompliano

The Indy 500 will be very special this year. The #21 car will be a Bitcoin car. Let's go win a fucking race! @JackMallers https://t.co/RaP8sveIZK

55 353

Wayne Vaughan - @WayneVaughan

RT @JackMallers: I just published Announcing The Bitcoin Car. This year, at the Indy 500, car #21 will be racing for #Bitcoin, human freedom, financial literacy, financial inclusivity, savings technology, and Bitcoin open-source development. Let's go win a fucking race. https://t.co/H5vP6a2wmq

185 940

Jack Mallers - @JackMallers

I just published Announcing The Bitcoin Car. This year, at the Indy 500, car #21 will be racing for #Bitcoin, human freedom, financial literacy, financial inclusivity, savings technology, and Bitcoin open-source development. Let's go win a fucking race. https://t.co/H5vP6a2wmq

27 549

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

© 2021 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

© 2021 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily