Token Daily

1 2

2

3

2

3 2

2

3

3 2

krom1985 1 day ago

Because Stone Cold says so.

1

Mark_Bear redditor for 7 weeks 2 days ago

I have to admit, not too long ago I thought about stone tools being used as "money" in the really, really early days. So, I was delighted to see the image of "the first bitcoins". But then, I thought, those stone tools, for those people, at that time, had an incredibly high "intrinsic value".

Yes, they were also scarce, portable, recognizable, difficult to counterfeit/create. These are 4 of the 7 properties of good "money".

Meanwhile, stone tools are not divisible or fungible. Break one in half? Kind of loses some value. I'm sure some were better than others.

Not sure about durability.

So... I have to be an asshole, and say, "even though I was thinking of stone tools as money just a few days ago, they're not really money."

Again, the 7 properties of good money:

durable
divisible
fungible
portable
recognizable
scarce
difficult to counterfeit/produce

Stone tools/arrow heads have some, but not all of the properties. Still, they DO have tremendous intrinsic value (or did when they were made). Thus, I would classify them as actual wealth, not "money".

2

Donald-TokenHash 2 days ago

Yeah, wealth is close enough. I think Acheulean tools began to have a standardized, commodity type shape and size because homo erectus used to make them (specialized clans with access to adequate quarries) so they could be exchanged, not only for their functional value. There are large caches of Acheulean tools found that have never been used giving the impression they were like treasuries. Also, I think, if they were used as money it is only natural that they were used for counting as well e.g. laid out and aligned to count days, weeks or months until the next moon, period, season, etc. Also, to count herds or quantify distances. Acheulean tools have been found far away from their source quarries, unused and in great quantities, so that also reinforces my idea that Erectus, Antecessor and Neanderthal had trade routes between clans.

2

Mark_Bear redditor for 7 weeks 2 days ago

That is SO cool! Thank you. I had an Anthropology professor who went out and tried to make stone tools, using stones and... stones. He came back with banged up fingers and knuckles. We laughed. Then he directed our attention to the boxes full of rocks and invited us to try it. I smashed myself a few times. Now, I look at small, hand-made stone tools as "gems". Crafted by ancient "masters". The "commodity" aspect is totally fascinating. A "quasi money" form. Thank you! Good stuff. Keep up the good work.

2

dietrolldietroll 2 days ago

2

Donald-TokenHash 2 days ago

i should have used a different title!

1

7 2

snissn 1 year ago

0xBTC is an unforgable scarce asset that exists within the ethereum smart contract ecosystem

2

jimmybitcoin 1 year ago

I get a chill down my neck when I read this stuff from the pioneers.

1

TheGreatMuffin 1 year ago

The thread title is unfortunate, but the linked article is by Nick Szabo, one of the people who gave birth to the ideas about the blockchain in the first place. Nick Szabo always gets an upvote.

3

BitcoinAllBot 1 year ago

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

1

rapodac 5 years ago

I'm still not sure exactly when this was published. The post is dated: "SATURDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2008".

But in a later post, the author (Nick Szabo) uses the anchor text "2005" to refer to his bit gold article:

only a few people had read of the bit gold ideas, which although I came up with them in 1998 (at the same time and on the same private mailing list where Dai was coming up with b-money -- it's a long story) were mostly not described in public until 2005, although various pieces of it I described earlier...

Also, a recent post claiming that Szabo is in fact Satoshi Nakamoto refers the to 2005 as being the year the bit gold idea was first written up.

Is there any other evidence supporting the idea that Szabo published this post in 2005?

3

[deleted] 5 years ago

look at the URL in your OP

3

asciilifeform 11 years ago

Publish any substantial progress on this technology and they (tm) will have you killed. I am quite serious. Cryptographically secure, decentralized currency is a threat to literally every government on the planet (as well as international banking cartels, and many other powerful organizations.)

Roll it out all in one go, when the system is fully developed and unstoppable.

We've had the requisite math for at least a decade. Ever wonder why you still can't convert your dollars into tax-free, untraceable "e-cash"?

0

genpfault 10 years ago

[Good times](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market).

2

jerf 11 years ago

> Ever wonder why you still can't convert your dollars into tax-free, untraceable "e-cash"? "Because nobody will accept it as payment" seems to cover it for me. New currencies have _both_ the chicken-and-the-egg problem and the "boil the ocean" problem, along with a value proposition all the but the most paranoid will find very dubious, and also smelling of fraud (even if it isn't fraud, how is my grandmother to evaluate the crpytographic security of a new currency when I'm not even $10,000 worth of sure myself?). Somehow, I think conspiracy theories are not needed to explain this phenomenon.

6

alexjc 11 years ago

This has more promise: http://ripple.sourceforge.net/

3

5

4 6

16 2

jsgoyette 2 years ago

Everyone could if Satoshi stays out of the game.

Correction: not quite, Satoshi staying out would only bring it up to ~4.4%, assuming he has about 1000000 Bitcoin.

1

eqleriq 2 years ago

It was always "currently impossible" for everyone to increase their BTC by 5% a year. What are you trying to say, because what you're saying is nonsensical.

1

dooglus 2 years ago

Currently the supply of BTC is increasing at around 4% per year. Previously it was much higher. In the second year for example the supply doubled - that's 100% monetary inflation, and it was theoretically possible for everyone to double their holdings. Now it is impossible for everyone to increase their holdings by more than about 4% per year.

6

Jaamg 2 years ago

I'm saying we've passed the point when Bitcoin's inflation (monetary base expansion) went under 5%. Edit: see the link.

1

chuckymcgee 2 years ago

That's assuming no (or very few) coins have been lost. If enough have been lost, then the inflation rate could be above 5%.

1

DINKDINK 2 years ago

> If enough have been lost, then the inflation rate could be above 5%. Lost coins would drive deflation not inflation.

2

chuckymcgee 2 years ago

It requires you to recalculate the present rate of inflation. If there are, say, only 13 million coins around instead of 16 million, that makes the present rate of inflation higher.

0

zomgitsduke 2 years ago

Do it now before you can't get it anymore.

We as humans LOVE scarcity. Almost everyone I know admits "I should get some Bitcoin to hold onto" but no one ever does it. I tell them at some point, owning a single Bitcoin will be a goal obtained throughout one's entire life. They don't believe me.

11

Light_of_Lucifer 2 years ago

> They don't believe me. They didnt believe with the internet either. Humans are generally dumb AF when it comes to predicting the future. We will all be well off in 10-20 years. We will be the smart ones

1

Guy_Tell 2 years ago

> I tell them at some point, owning a single Bitcoin will be a goal obtained throughout one's entire life. I'm pretty sure it is already the case in some parts of the world.

2

_jstanley 2 years ago

The worldwide annual median income[1] is only $850 USD, so just owning 1 BTC means you own more than most of the people in the world make in an entire year. [1] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-median-income-worldwide.htm

4

Guy_Tell 2 years ago

Yup but median wealth is likely a more suited metric and even [in the US owning 1 BTC can be a life challenge for some people](http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2010/03/09/Study-finds-median-wealth-for-single-black-women-at-5/stories/201003090163)

1

PoCaMiQu 2 years ago

[“The best time to buy bitcoin was a few years ago, the second best time is now”.]( https://imgflip.com/i/1hlmpp)

3

BitttBurger 2 years ago

> Almost everyone I know admits "I should get some Bitcoin to hold onto" but no one ever does it. Yep. We've gone from "LOL Bitcoin?" to literally everyone I talk to saying "I should've bought some" but the months/years go by and they never do. It's an interesting thing to point out, this is usually how massively successful investments start. Back when you could've bought Apple stock for cheap, nobody wanted to. And that's the key. You buy when nobody wants to, and nobody else cares.

9

Lite_Coin_Guy 2 years ago

and in the end the same people tell you it was "all luck" ;-)

10

zomgitsduke 2 years ago

Honestly, it is luck. There's no guarantee Bitcoin will explode in value. It seems likely, but I'm not betting my life savings on it. There is also the luck factor that you heard of it before most. Learning about it when BTC is $200 is much more different than learning about it at $775

2

Senojpd 2 years ago

You also don't get it.

10

Shibinator 2 years ago

I love when I get told this though, it's an immediate flag to add that person to my mental "doesn't get it" list.

3

jmw74 2 years ago

Yeah, bitcoin sort of lays bare how imprecise our language is around money.

Sure, you can run fractional reserve with bitcoin just like you can with gold. However, given that a "promise to pay bitcoin" doesn't carry a lot of advantages over "actual bitcoin", there's not very many reasons to accept such promises.

With gold there are more reasons - gold is harder to divide and transport than paper promises. So it can be advantageous to hand it over to someone and get a promise to return it. With bitcoin, I can only presume someone would do this just to earn interest. So, the risk that the bitcoin won't be returned should be priced in to the interest rate. And I suppose another reason might be that small amounts of bitcoin are relatively expensive and slow to transfer.

Still, this is not bitcoin. It's a promise to pay bitcoin.

2

2cool2fish 2 years ago

The main reason that IOUs work and in fact are necessary for markets and will be necessary for Bitcoin, is to accommodate time preferences. I am not really using my bitcoin now, so if I can receive compensation by contracting with a broker to take my btc now and pay me back later with more btc, that's a happy arrangement. The broker then of course contracts with those who need the btc now who will return more later. If this broker becomes reputable and is willing to provide proof of reserves and proof of balance sheet, the IOUs themselves might become acceptable has having some value. Indeed for more interest, I might even be willing to lend into a fractional reserve scenario. An IOU market might develop. Notice how very very different that is than a fiat monopoly system. In fiat, a base dollar is not distinguished from a derivative dollar. The units on the balance sheet of the Fed are called dollars, as are the unite of IOUs at the retail bank. Notice, of course, that there is no open verification of the Fed's balance sheet, or any banks. Notice, the freedom to use or not use any of the crypto currencies; no requirement for government compulsion to use. Notice how the broker has no recourse to failed risk getting covered by monetary expansion. Risk is rewarded because it's actually risk.

1

Aardvaarkian 2 years ago

> there's not very many reasons to accept such promises. Every exchange ever? Some, like BFX, are even bolder than fractional reserve -- outright *issue you debt tokens* FFS.

1

jmw74 2 years ago

As I said, not many reasons to accept such promises :)

1

btuestion 2 years ago

It's likely that almost literally every single bitcoin service is holding less bitcoin than they should be. There is almost no regulation and very little reason not to.

1

theymos 2 years ago

They're not incompatible. It's theoretically possible to have an interest-paying Bitcoin deposit account which practices fractional reserve, loaning out 90% or whatever of its deposits and relying on the fact that a bank run is very unlikely. This would increase Bitcoin's M1 money supply.

AFAIK all examples of interest-paying Bitcoin deposit accounts have turned out to have been scams, but such accounts would legitimately be feasible if Bitcoin ever reaches the point where you could use BTC to invest in bonds (etc.) with very low risk in BTC terms. This'd probably require a very stable BTC price.

4

Gaby_64 2 years ago

but it would not be bitcoins, rather off-chain tokens issued, you cannot create bitcoins out of thin air other then mining

1

Rishodi 2 years ago

>but it would not be bitcoins, rather off-chain tokens issued, You're wrong here again. If a depository institution accepts 100 BTC and loans out 90 BTC, it is operating at a 10% fractional reserve. The borrowers could receive actual BTC, not some other token. It would work the same as any other currency.

1

Gaby_64 2 years ago

you are wrong, that is not what fractional reserve banking does the 100BTC would be the 10% and 900BTC would be created out of thin air and lent FRB creates money

1

Rishodi 2 years ago

No, it is you who misunderstands how fractional reserve banking works and the concept of the [money multiplier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier#Mechanism). Money is not created "out of thin air". It is lended from deposits on hand; this process repeated through multiple iterations is what leads to amounts borrowed at a multiple of available deposits, as determined by the reserve ratio. To continue the provided example, the 90 BTC are then deposited into other depository institutions, of which 81 BTC can be lent out (maintaining a 10% fractional reserve). That 81 BTC are deposited again, and 72.9 BTC can again be lent out. Following this geometric series to its conclusion yields maximum total outstanding credits of 900 BTC from the initial 100 BTC deposited. Fractional-reserve banking does not require a central bank. It can be used in conjunction with precious metals (whether with actual metals, or metal-backed certificates), fiat money, or cryptocurrencies. It does work differently with fiat money, as reserves can be created and injected into the system by the central bank -- this is the money being created "out of thin air" that you're referring to. But that is not a defining characteristic of fractional-reserve banking, which can be conducted with literally any currency. Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) do not necessitate full-reserve banking. However, they do make it far easier to publicly verify that a depository institution is utilizing full-reserve banking by keeping all customer deposits accessible rather than lending them out. Coinbase's vault is an example of this: funds deposited by a customer go into an address and stay there, making it trivial for each customer to verify that their deposits are not being lent out, and may be withdrawn on demand at any time.

1

Gaby_64 2 years ago

I had it wrong but money is still being created out of thin air by banks https://youtube.com/watch?v=t5ayg3hbhoM With bitcoin keeping a 10% reserve would not really do anything as the ammounts would have to add up to the original ammount Ah but the total debt would be 9 times the original amount, im having a hard time seeing the debtors money, he could theoretically take out all his money at once after it was lent out again so that the money lent out was created out of thin air

1

Rishodi 2 years ago

Okay. I watched your video. Now you watch [this one](https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/monetary-system-topic/fractional-reserve-banking-tut/v/overview-of-fractional-reserve-banking). I'm guessing that what you're missing is the fact that lending money increases the money supply, and that this fact is true for all currencies even when the monetary base (M0) is unchangeable, as is the case with Bitcoin. I used to have the same misunderstanding myself.

1

Gaby_64 2 years ago

Ya that's it. So the banks would end up with 9 times the original amount after all the debts are repaid? This is continually happening giving the illusion that money is being created out of thin air, seems like a ponzi scheme, it counts on the fact that there will always be more and more debt to be generated. That there is never a point of total resolve of all debts. But I believe that time will come as cryptocurrencies absorbs all wealth with its hyper liquidity.

1

Rishodi 2 years ago

>it counts on the fact that there will always be more and more debt to be generated. Debt is theoretically unlimited in a fiat monetary system in which new money can be created at any time by the central bank. It's also theoretically unlimited if the reserve ratio is unlimited. But there are practical limits in any case. >That there is never a point of total resolve of all debts. There shouldn't be. Lending is a necessary part of a healthy economy, as is a functioning market for interest rates. In Bitcoin, credit is currently extended through P2P lending, and the effect on the money supply is the same: new loans increase it, and paying off loans decreases it.

1

Gaby_64 2 years ago

Now the question is, can frb work with bitcoin where the majority do not put their money in a lending institution?

1

Gaby_64 2 years ago

Is this really sustainable? http://www.usdebtclock.org

1

bitledger 2 years ago

No you are incorrect. Banks do not lend based on reserves. You are implying that Banks are restricted to lend based on deposits on hand. That is not how modern banking works. Banks are not restrained by their reserves but rather their access to capital. A healthy bank can issue loans as long as there is demand without needing to wait for depositors. Instead Banks just tap capital markets to maintain their reserve limits. So OP Is correct Bitcoin is not compatible with the expectations of a modern monetary system, because there is no mechanism to issue loans without first having Bitcoins. The old chicken and egg. Modern Fiat systems are not based on MONEY as the primer but rather on the productive capability of the borrower. Now we can argue till the cows come home on whether this is sound monetary principle, or whether some full reserve backed system is better.

1

Rishodi 2 years ago

I addressed this in the third paragraph of my prior comment. It does not make Bitcoin incompatible with fractional-reserve banking.

1

theymos 2 years ago

Sure, but when economists talk about "money supply" they often include this not-entirely-real money. That's what the wiki article is talking about, and it links to the wikipedia article regarding the different definitions of "money supply".

2

Gaby_64 2 years ago

it caused confusion with my brother, FRB insinuates that money can be created out of thin air

1

theymos 2 years ago

> FRB insinuates that money can be created out of thin air That's a misunderstanding. Fractional-reserve banking was done even with gold, and it didn't create more gold. Economists might say that it increases the *money supply*, but that's different from increasing the amount of base money. Even in USD, it isn't *exactly* FRB which creates money out of thin air -- it's the Federal Reserve buying bonds from banks which does that --, though FRB is important in this process.

2

nullc 2 years ago

You also can't secretly create insolvent off-chain tokens, if the users of those tokens demand proof of solvency. ... But people will frequently accept things that aren't provably solvent. Go look at almost every Bitcoin exchange for an example.

4

btcchef 2 years ago

Aren't you a someone?

1

FMTY 2 years ago

aren't you a marsupial

1

luke-jr Luke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 2 years ago

Go for it...?

3

gerikson 2 years ago

Block 420,000 was mined on 2016-07-09 16:46:13 UTC according to Blockexplorer.com.

1

FMTY 2 years ago

yeehaw! someone added it

1

BitcoinAllBot 2 years ago

[Here is the link to the original comment thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4v80h5/someone_needs_to_update_the_bitcoin_wiki_with_the/" data-event-action="comments) Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: FMTY

1

SearchForTruthNow2 5 years ago

There maybe up to 5 million lost according to an old study...

3

tippecanoe42 5 years ago

Source?

2

SearchForTruthNow2 5 years ago

https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf

1

tippecanoe42 5 years ago

That paper has been discredited so many times in so many places.... And if you know the paper, you know that.

2

tippecanoe42 5 years ago

In fact, **the fucking authors** discredited their own report. They retracted it: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road/index.html

3

SearchForTruthNow2 5 years ago

ok I ll read it more carefully and check criticism as well.

2

mdanko 5 years ago

Some coins are lost forever, no worries there is almost 21 quadrillion satoshi to transact with.

1

kamenoccc 5 years ago

There's also the transaction fee. But eitherway, I posted this because I wanted to point out that bitcoin is supposed to be a better alternative to the banking system; not something based on it.

1

bitcoind3 5 years ago

A bitcoin bank could work exactly the same as banks do right now, with fractional reserve and everything else. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent it.

1

Jaketh 6 years ago

So, will bitcoin mining eventually become pointless?

3

ericanderton 6 years ago

Some say it's already beyond the point of diminishing returns.

2

JoshTay 46 6 years ago

TIL that the whole bitcoin paradigm is beyond me.

"My computer solved an equation and created an imaginary "coin" that is going up in value daily compared to the dollar. I can use this coin to buy stuff, but I have no idea how much an item is going to cost from day to day since the coin becomes more valuable daily because the supply is limited by how fast a computer can "mine" them up to an arbitrary limit in 127 years."

This stuff makes fiat currency seem simple.

5

CantHugEveryCat 6 years ago

Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's say that we agree to use shiny pebbles from the earth as exchange currency. The pebbles are neat, but have very few practical uses. Anyone can mine as many shiny pebbles as he likes, but the process of digging for them is hard and time consuming, so the value of the pebbles and the willingness to dig for them are bound to each-other. The system works as long as no-one is able to effortlessly conjure arbitrary amounts of pebbles to flood the market with. The amount of pebbles in the earth is finite, so with time it becomes harder to mine for them. When all pebbles have been mined, there is no longer any use in trying to dig for them, but they can still be used as currency indefinitely.

3

JoshTay 46 6 years ago

Are you saying that bitcoin is just a variation of the gold standard without the hassle of mine collapses? So all the wealth of the world will be held in those 21 million virtual coins? Does fractional reserve banking come into play? Will rap music need to be rewritten? Life ain't nothing but bitcoins and bitches?

1

losermcfail 6 years ago

"My computer hashed a page of ledger transactions plus a nonce and came up with a number that was lower than the current difficulty and was thus accepted by the network as a new addition to the blockchain. As a bonus for doing so I got to pay myself 25 bitcoins in this ledger page and the network was cool with it."

3

JoshTay 46 6 years ago

Well, when you explain it like that, it makes total sense.

1

Supersnazz 6 years ago

Bitcoins are infinitely divisible though.

7

dlev_ 6 years ago

It is still based on decimal notation though, and I remember reading there is a limit to the numer of decimal positions the bitcoin system accepts - 8 if I'm not mistaken. ...which would ultimately lead to price deflation?

1

Supersnazz 6 years ago

Yes, over time prices would become lower. I also assume there could be some way of dividing bitcoins even further. Assuming the system continues to exist.

1

MrFlesh 6 years ago

who cares 70% of bit coins are not in circulation either. This garbage experiment will end in paralysis.

0

losermcfail 6 years ago

This garbage experiment will end central banking. Forever.

0

MrFlesh 6 years ago

No it won't You already see in bitcoin all the follies of RL banking....and that is because consolidation & monopoly is the end game of capitalism not an aberration.

0

JoshTay 46 6 years ago

Not for a long time. It is difficult for the common folk to understand, and many will act with distrust. I am not saying the distrust is right or wrong, just that it will exist. And I fully realize that our current system is bizarre, but most people just accept it and don't understand the underpinnings. Bitcoin will exist as an alternative currency and grow in popularity, but it is not going to replace the federal reserve system anytime soon. Despite all its bizzaro qualities, people on the whole still have confidence in the US dollar.

3

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

Oh my yes, the several thousands of dollars I have made in the last year are certainly signs of paralysis.

2

MrFlesh 6 years ago

You are capped at a maximum of 30% of the bit coin market. If 30% of the worlds RL money were locked away the world economy would collapse.

1

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

I don't think you understand the degree of divisibility in the bitcoin. if 30% of bitcoins are locked away, then the remainder still has enough functionally tradeable units to replace every single denomination of paper, coin, and bank entry several times over.

1

MrFlesh 6 years ago

You've got that backwards. 70% are locked away. You are are putting the problem in a vacuum stop doing that. Going forward more and more will be locked up just like RL cash and cause gridlock in the bitcoin economy, just like RL.

1

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

There is a minimum tradeable unit in USD, the penny. It isn't very divisible beyond that except for bank interest skimming. Even if 99 percent of bitcoins were locked up, there would still be enough divisible units to exchange every coin, dollar, and bank entry in the US. I don't think you understand BTC very well...

1

MrFlesh 6 years ago

You are making a mathematical argument on which you win, but that argument is completely useless when you apply it to economics.

1

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

Considering the very backbone of economics is based upon mathematics, I would be quite interested in an expanded version of your argument.

1

MrFlesh 6 years ago

No matter how many times you divide that single bit coin in your theory there is still someone out there that dominates the entire market. Second thing wrong with your theory is that bt coin economic environment will seize up due to lack of liquidity long before that single bit coin is worth enough to cover the entire market.

1

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

Your statements are not self-evident. They are opinions posed as certainties. That is not the mark of a good debater.

1

duckya 6 years ago

I don't believe you, show proof or gtfo, every time I read about these bitcoins it seems like a scam.

0

Grumpy_Kong 6 years ago

Then I don't know who you are reading then. Also I don't care enough about fake internet points to scan all of my bank receipts and walk you through the concepts of arbitrage and exchange rates right now.

2

4 2

cecilkorik 6 days ago

I appreciate the sentiment of this article. It is important for everyone to take responsibility for any of their own content they care about -- including ensuring that it is safely backed up and archived. It takes a lot of work and a lot of planning to make a good data storage plan.

But the article takes several dives into hyperbole that are a little questionable, like this:

But magnetic media like hard drives have a much shorter life, lasting only three to five years.

Bwuh? Huh, who knew I've been sitting on a Methuselah collection of hard drives. Are my still-functional 20-30 year old hard drives rare? Should I donate them to science?

5 years is not that old for a hard drive. Once you get through the infant mortality phase, most of them will be happy to plug away for decades.

2

Barrn009 6 days ago

Your brain is rotting.

0

SlothimusPrimeTime 6 days ago

Ummm...is the link to the article your proof of concept?

4

BattleCatPrintShop 6 days ago

You had to load it in Netscape Navigator. Here’s the copied text from the user above me who copied text for the other guy... Many MySpace users were dismayed to discover earlier this year that the social media platform lost 50 million files uploaded between 2003 and 2015. The failure of MySpace to care for and preserve its users’ content should serve as a reminder that relying on free third-party services can be risky. MySpace has probably preserved the users’ data; it just lost their content. The data was valuable to MySpace; the users’ content less so. What happened to MySpace MySpace is a social networking media site where performers could upload music or other content for access and distribution to its user community. It has always been a free site, with revenues coming from ads and programming that targets users for specific products. Formed in 2003 in imitation of the social gaming site Friendster, MySpace grew rapidly and was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in 2005. By 2008, MySpace was the leading social networking site, valued at one time at US$12 billion But it declined in popularity – thanks to an overprevalence of ads, concerns about exposure of minors to sexual content and other issues. In 2011, News Corporation sold MySpace to Specific Media, who sold it again in 2016 to Time Inc., which was in turn bought by the Meredith Corporation in 2018. So the company went through three changes in ownership over a 12-year period, and saw revenues and membership drop precipitously over that time. One sale might be fine, but three sales over short term suggests to me a troubled business that was not in a good position to watch over others’ intellectual property. Anyone using MySpace as a storage service who did not have alternate backup is simply out of luck. You left your intellectual property sitting beside the information superhighway, and when you came back 10 years later it was gone. MySpace is not alone in encountering problems. Amazon cloud services, for example, also experienced a a substantial outage in 2011 and another in 2017. Though temporary, and without actual loss of data, these outages left users without access to precious and important files for some time. In a statement, Myspace said, ‘We apologize for the inconvenience.’ chrisdorney/shutterstock.com A much bigger problem Preserving content or intellectual property on the internet presents a conundrum. If it’s accessible, then it isn’t safe; if it’s safe, then it isn’t accessible. Accessible content is subject to tampering, theft or other sorts of bad actions. Only content that is inaccessible can be locked and protected from hacking. The internet currently accesses about 15 zettabytes of data, and is growing at a rate of 70 terabytes per second. It is an admittedly leaky vessel, and content is constantly going offline to wind up lost forever. Massive and desperate efforts are underway to preserve whatever is worth preserving, but even sorting out what is and what is not is itself a formidable undertaking. What will be of value in 10 years – or 50 years? And how to preserve it? Acid-free paper can last 500 years; stone inscriptions even longer. But magnetic media like hard drives have a much shorter life, lasting only three to five years. They also need to be copied and verified on a very short life cycle to avoid data degradation at observed failure rates between 3% and 8% annually. Then there is also a problem of software preservation: How can people today or in the future interpret those WordPerfect or WordStar files from the 1980s, when the original software companies have stopped supporting them or gone out of business? A nonprofit startup called The Internet Archive is preserving snapshots of the web on an ongoing basis, but mostly this is for top-level public HTML webpages such as The New York Times website and Facebook, not for underlying content files. As of last fall, its Wayback Machine held over 450 billion pages in 25 petabytes of data. This would represent .0003% of the total internet. Universities, governments and scientific societies are struggling to preserve scientific data in a hodgepodge of archives, such as the U.K.‘s Digital Preservation Coalition, MetaArchive, or the now-disbanded collaborative Digital Preservation Network. Preservation is hard and expensive in time, money and equipment. To be most useful, it not only has to be stored, but hosted in a form that is accessible and available for future reuse. Actual storage costs less than $0.05 per gigabyte, but storage is only a small percentage of the costs of preservation. Acquisition, networking, maintenance and administration all require substantial and costly human labor. Budgeting models suggest a 10-year preservation expense of around $2.50 per gigabyte, or $2,500 per terabyte, or $625,000 for the files MySpace failed to preserve. Huge amounts of new content are uploaded to the internet every day. Fingon ss/shutterstock.com Considering your own data So yes, the internet is rotting, but archivists and digital librarians like myself knew it was rotten already, as did anyone who ever got a “404 File Not Found” error. Where there is economic incentive to keep and use data – such as user information, profiles or browsing history – it may exist for quite a long time. It has been said by many that data is the new oil, and corporations are anxious to drill and exploit this resource. However, where content is less valuable to whomever owns the servers, there is less incentive to invest in preserving it. A survey of 10 million hits from 25 random sites in 2004 suggests that 404 errors occur at close to 3% of targeted URLs. The internet is growing much faster than it is rotting, but both things are happening at once. No giant internet company has your interests closer to its heart than its own. One preservation network is known under the acronym LOCKSS – Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe – and that’s a good rule of thumb. Always have a backup, and always have multiple backups. Guard your privacy and guard your content, at least that content you may wish to have preserved, like photos, email, that screenplay or novel, or video and music files. Copyright rules do not prohibit storing content you may have purchased, as long as you don’t put it out for public sharing. Free storage is a great offer, but sometimes you only get what you pay for. The internet is neither secure nor permanent. It never promised to be, and users should not assume that it will become so. Parts are rotting and corroding and collapsing as I type this. Just hope and plan to not be resting on that platform when it falls.

1

Spadey0 6 days ago

Don’t worry, i got the job done for the other guy

2

SlothimusPrimeTime 6 days ago

Can I get a TL DR please?

1

BattleCatPrintShop 6 days ago

Ok but this is straight from memory and I read this at least an hour ago.. TL DR: Blah blah the hard drives that store your photos and music from Myspace for neglected and only really were meant for a 5 year lifespan so probably anything you had on there is gone. This can be true for newer websites we all love also if they’re not careful so we hope they are careful. Storage costs something like 30 cents a gigabite but the act of storing things costs more like $2.50 a gig. Other stuff, but that’s the jist...

3

SlothimusPrimeTime 6 days ago

If I could hug you I would.

1

igetbooored 6 days ago

Website repeatedly attempts to reorient my browser and disregards attempts to scroll. Can't read the article.

+1 dogshit website

42

Spadey0 6 days ago

Here’s the article copy and pasted: Many MySpace users were dismayed to discover earlier this year that the social media platform lost 50 million files uploaded between 2003 and 2015. The failure of MySpace to care for and preserve its users’ content should serve as a reminder that relying on free third-party services can be risky. MySpace has probably preserved the users’ data; it just lost their content. The data was valuable to MySpace; the users’ content less so. What happened to MySpace MySpace is a social networking media site where performers could upload music or other content for access and distribution to its user community. It has always been a free site, with revenues coming from ads and programming that targets users for specific products. Formed in 2003 in imitation of the social gaming site Friendster, MySpace grew rapidly and was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in 2005. By 2008, MySpace was the leading social networking site, valued at one time at US$12 billion But it declined in popularity – thanks to an overprevalence of ads, concerns about exposure of minors to sexual content and other issues. In 2011, News Corporation sold MySpace to Specific Media, who sold it again in 2016 to Time Inc., which was in turn bought by the Meredith Corporation in 2018. So the company went through three changes in ownership over a 12-year period, and saw revenues and membership drop precipitously over that time. One sale might be fine, but three sales over short term suggests to me a troubled business that was not in a good position to watch over others’ intellectual property. Anyone using MySpace as a storage service who did not have alternate backup is simply out of luck. You left your intellectual property sitting beside the information superhighway, and when you came back 10 years later it was gone. MySpace is not alone in encountering problems. Amazon cloud services, for example, also experienced a a substantial outage in 2011 and another in 2017. Though temporary, and without actual loss of data, these outages left users without access to precious and important files for some time. In a statement, Myspace said, ‘We apologize for the inconvenience.’ chrisdorney/shutterstock.com A much bigger problem Preserving content or intellectual property on the internet presents a conundrum. If it’s accessible, then it isn’t safe; if it’s safe, then it isn’t accessible. Accessible content is subject to tampering, theft or other sorts of bad actions. Only content that is inaccessible can be locked and protected from hacking. The internet currently accesses about 15 zettabytes of data, and is growing at a rate of 70 terabytes per second. It is an admittedly leaky vessel, and content is constantly going offline to wind up lost forever. Massive and desperate efforts are underway to preserve whatever is worth preserving, but even sorting out what is and what is not is itself a formidable undertaking. What will be of value in 10 years – or 50 years? And how to preserve it? Acid-free paper can last 500 years; stone inscriptions even longer. But magnetic media like hard drives have a much shorter life, lasting only three to five years. They also need to be copied and verified on a very short life cycle to avoid data degradation at observed failure rates between 3% and 8% annually. Then there is also a problem of software preservation: How can people today or in the future interpret those WordPerfect or WordStar files from the 1980s, when the original software companies have stopped supporting them or gone out of business? A nonprofit startup called The Internet Archive is preserving snapshots of the web on an ongoing basis, but mostly this is for top-level public HTML webpages such as The New York Times website and Facebook, not for underlying content files. As of last fall, its Wayback Machine held over 450 billion pages in 25 petabytes of data. This would represent .0003% of the total internet. Universities, governments and scientific societies are struggling to preserve scientific data in a hodgepodge of archives, such as the U.K.‘s Digital Preservation Coalition, MetaArchive, or the now-disbanded collaborative Digital Preservation Network. Preservation is hard and expensive in time, money and equipment. To be most useful, it not only has to be stored, but hosted in a form that is accessible and available for future reuse. Actual storage costs less than $0.05 per gigabyte, but storage is only a small percentage of the costs of preservation. Acquisition, networking, maintenance and administration all require substantial and costly human labor. Budgeting models suggest a 10-year preservation expense of around $2.50 per gigabyte, or $2,500 per terabyte, or $625,000 for the files MySpace failed to preserve. Huge amounts of new content are uploaded to the internet every day. Fingon ss/shutterstock.com Considering your own data So yes, the internet is rotting, but archivists and digital librarians like myself knew it was rotten already, as did anyone who ever got a “404 File Not Found” error. Where there is economic incentive to keep and use data – such as user information, profiles or browsing history – it may exist for quite a long time. It has been said by many that data is the new oil, and corporations are anxious to drill and exploit this resource. However, where content is less valuable to whomever owns the servers, there is less incentive to invest in preserving it. A survey of 10 million hits from 25 random sites in 2004 suggests that 404 errors occur at close to 3% of targeted URLs. The internet is growing much faster than it is rotting, but both things are happening at once. No giant internet company has your interests closer to its heart than its own. One preservation network is known under the acronym LOCKSS – Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe – and that’s a good rule of thumb. Always have a backup, and always have multiple backups. Guard your privacy and guard your content, at least that content you may wish to have preserved, like photos, email, that screenplay or novel, or video and music files. Copyright rules do not prohibit storing content you may have purchased, as long as you don’t put it out for public sharing. Free storage is a great offer, but sometimes you only get what you pay for. The internet is neither secure nor permanent. It never promised to be, and users should not assume that it will become so. Parts are rotting and corroding and collapsing as I type this. Just hope and plan to not be resting on that platform when it falls.

15

igetbooored 6 days ago

I appreciate you doing this.

6

Spadey0 6 days ago

I go the extra mile to make things easier for people

7

00STAR0 6 days ago

The hero we need, but not the one we deserve

1

19 7

greenypatiny redditor for 5 weeks 1 day ago

itt people dont understand why there are confirmations

2

wmoschen 1 day ago

What a jokechain

4

celtiberian666 1 day ago

BCH had a 2 block reorg due to a bug in Bitcoin ABC. There was a 24 block reorg in BTC also due to a bug in Bitcoin Core in the past. Neither were "51% attacks", just honest nodes orphaning the attacker. Working as intended, just as described by Satoshi himself in the whitepaper:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

Both chains are protected by the same principle: it is more profitable for the miners to stay honest than to steal or double spend. That's it.

0

norfbayboy 1 day ago

What was the date of that BTC reorg?

1

celtiberian666 1 day ago

Two reorgs/rollbacks: 8th August 2010 11/12 March 2013 [More info here.](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702755.0)

0

norfbayboy 1 day ago

Ah, so the Aug 2010 reorg was back when Satoshi Nakamoto was still lead programmer and the reference client was QT.

3

SlymaxOfficial 2 days ago

This makes bch worthless. It is not money. It is not a store of value. Rip bch

10

101-KvSR 2 days ago

So who’s transaction was it anyway?

Did someone send BTC to a BCH address and the BCH associated with the original address get given to a CoinEater where a miner could claim it?

0

BitcoinCitadel 2 days ago

To Tual it.

0

Tyngast 2 days ago

Very concerning. I would not own BCH after this.

9

equalunique 2 days ago

The interesting part of this particular attack on bitcoin cash, though, is that it was arguably executed in an attempt to do something ostensibly good for the community, not to reward the attackers or to take the funds for themselves.

I guess this is pretty democratic then.

2

EvanGRogers Anarcho-Capitalist 1 day ago

Two groups decided they know what's best and pushed their agenda. Sound oligarchic

1

mjslawson 2 days ago

This is why the Binance hackers only took Bitcoin (BTC), a reorg of the Bitcoin blockchain is practically impossible.

2

ADU22 2 days ago

This is good for Bitcoin

17

datoimee 2 days ago

This should be on Wiki as definition of a "Shit Coin"

4

Cryptoguruboss 2 days ago

That’s what happens when you make changes without vetting properly that’s why bitcoin is a winner in all aspects.. when it comes to my money I want better safe than sorry that’s how every human should be for their hard earned money.. don’t be a fool carried away by scaling and transaction fees and all that crap.. I would anytime spend 3$ to transact 8k over loosing it all over a centralized coin like bch.. with time scaling will happen on layer one on btc when hardware tech evolves to a point you can run 10/100 mb blocks on raspi node.. be patient it’s your money.. your hard earned money don’t gamble be safe

9

Marcion_Sinope 2 days ago

This is a 51% attack. The absolutely worst attack possible. It's there in the whitepaper. What about (miner and developer) decentralized and uncensorable cash? Only when convenient?

Imagine having your money subject to the tender mercies and wild mood swings of convicted felon Roger Ver.

Disturbing.

18

Jadencallaway 2 days ago

What was his felony?

4

Bitcoin_to_da_Moon redditor for 2 weeks 2 days ago

http://lesperanceassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mr.-Vers-Guilty-Plea.pdf Roger Ver is a well-known scammer https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/8h4dit/roger_ver_is_a_wellknown_scammer/

1

KZSpectre 2 days ago

Per wikipedia: In 2002, Ver pleaded guilty to selling explosives without a license, to illegally storing explosives, and to mailing the explosives. Ver bought 49 pounds of "Pest Control Report 2000" explosives, sold at least 14 pounds of them as large firecrackers on eBay, stored the explosives in a residential apartment building, and mailed them to customers via the U.S. Postal Service. He was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison.

9

Jadencallaway 2 days ago

What was he doing? Was he trying to do something ..?

2

KZSpectre 2 days ago

He was sellin firecrackers on eBay. He was trying to make money.

6

Marcion_Sinope 2 days ago

Explosives designed to kill predator animals on farms. Luckily no children were killed by Roger who stored the deadly explosives in a busy apartment building.

2

Jadencallaway 2 days ago

Ah okay. That's not terrible. Just stupid

1

DismalQuestion redditor for 4 weeks 1 day ago

If you were living next to him at the time your opinion may differ.

5

joeknowswhoiam 2 days ago

> That's not terrible. It seems like the judge who put him in prison begged to differ. Putting other people's life at risk this way for your own profit and without their consent is so egotistical. Typical of people who believe ends justify the means. It's the same kind of people who will tell you that this "attack" on BCH wasn't one because the results of it is something they agree with, that those colluding miners were "honest". They don't care one second that the means used are the antithesis of how a censorship-resistant cryptocurrency should work.

7

junglehypothesis 2 days ago

He put at risk the lives of postal workers and those living near him. He knew what he was doing and they were more like small explosives than firecrackers. Serious enough for him to goto prison and evidence he will sacrifice anybody to attain personal wealth.

8

Quantris 2 days ago

I can't wrap my head around how they screwed this up. If the point of changing the rules was to allow "segwit recovery" then why didn't they just tighten up the rules in such a way that the "theft" wouldn't have been accepted as a valid transaction?

Miner attack aside (BCH miner centralization is not news), IMHO the bigger problem is that the devs apparently have no idea what they're doing and royally screwed up a change to a fundamental rule of their network to the point that a coordinated re-org was *the least bad option*.

26

baconmastah 2 days ago

Funny how not too long ago, XRP was viewed as being just another centralized fiat alternative. With this nonsense, XRP arguably has all of BCH's strengths with none of its weaknesses.

0

CP70 2 days ago

[Error generating supporting XRP comment. Error #A462Z4736IE. Please contact systems administrator.]

9

Marcion_Sinope 2 days ago

lolz

1

Marcion_Sinope 2 days ago

Hmmm....Yeah, no, that doesn't really work. They're both garbage.

13

baconmastah 2 days ago

Really? Because I've been hearing a lot of good news about XRP these past 2 years. XRP seems to be set to ironically become the banker's coin. Whether it's through usage of the Ripple network itself or using XRP to bypass giantass money transfer fees, it's been one of the more visible alts in the news. I see a future for it. But BCH? No. Just no. XRP dethroned it in record time and does everything better than it. BCashers fucked up massively in trying to paint BTC as just a store of value and BCH as the cheap spending coin. Now that their one strength's merit is devalued by how centralized and prone it has become to 51% attacks, it's a worthless shitcoin. You really should explore other coins out there. Being a Bitcoin maximalist means you tunnel vision yourself away from the possibilities. EDIT: Ok, I get it, this sub has a lot of Bitcoin maximalists. But I do hope you guys realize there is a future outside of just Bitcoin. Bitcoin will remain an ever so important and well known coin in the crypto space, but with so many other coins out there also supported by strong developer teams and growing sources of capital, there's just no need to get your jimmies rustled by the mention of other coins!

0

mokahless 1 day ago

Love it. Prime canned responses. It even seems toned to this sub specifically. Can't tell if you're paid or not. You'll probably have an excellent canned response for me. If you don't, then you might actually not be paid for this. So we'll see.

1

murt 2 days ago

XRP is angled as the banks coin because it had the same centralization weaknesses as BCH. It can be controlled, which is very appealing to banks.

5

Subfolded 2 days ago

I'll admit I don't research XRP much aside from what I come across in passing, but my concern with it would be that if you think of the use case, it's a good use case but there's no reason why the actual value of the XRP token needs to rise in value. It's a vessel to get from one back to another. I do think it'll be popular/adopted though.

2

typtyphus 2 days ago

let's do a rollback

It's almost as if the attack was bait

19

dietrolldietroll 2 days ago

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/bsjoaw/bch_suffered_a_51_attack_by_colluding_miners_to/

2

bnuttall 2 days ago

If I owned any BCH I would dump it now, I think any reasonable person would, being afraid this attack will lower its value, the fact that its not dropping suggests how centralized it is.

27

celtiberian666 1 day ago

BCH had a 2 block reorg due to a bug. There was a 24 block reorg in BTC also due to a bug in the past. If you really care about reorgs you should also dump BTC. In both cases miners rejected blocks they don't agree to and refused to work on them. Working as intended, from Satoshi himself in the [whitepaper](https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/bitcoin.pdf): >They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism Both chains are protected by the same principle: it is more profitable for the miners to stay honest than to steal or double spend. Thats why BTC is alive to this day (despite reorgs), thats why BCH is still alive. Otherwise the largest miners would have already colluded to do bad things.

0

scottfc 1 day ago

I've never seen anything about a Bitcoin 24 block reorg, when did this happen?

1

celtiberian666 1 day ago

In 2013. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/

2

mokahless 1 day ago

Your example of a reorg working as intended has nothing to do with a legitimate 51% attack.

0

celtiberian666 1 day ago

Who is the victim? Nobody. More like a 51% defense. Just like happened in BTC twice in the past.

2

MadDwarf2 Yesterday

Sorry this is nonsense, it is the same thing as the USA calling their "war budget" the "defense budget"...

0

stas2k 2 days ago

Sold my pre-fork BCH yesterday as soon as the news hit. There is no way this this currency can be trusted.

6

mbrochh 1 day ago

It took you this long to come to this conclusion?!

4

stas2k 1 day ago

Nope, I just randomly saw a post about BCH and remembered I had those because of the fork. :) Dumped them on Coinbase, now got some cash to spend

1

ph0enix999 redditor for 7 weeks 2 days ago

...a crypto where an elite can undo transactions is no better than fiat.

72

celtiberian666 1 day ago

[Is it, really?](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702755.0)

0

101-KvSR 2 days ago

https://www.crypto51.app/ for $200k USD you can do it with BTC for two blocks.

0

SYD4uo Yesterday

bcash: >Estimated cost of 1 hour 51% attack *$28,364*

1

damchi 1 day ago

You must've missed the *theoretical* part...

1

mokahless 1 day ago

From their website: \> Using the prices NiceHash lists for different algorithms we are able to calculate how much it would cost to rent enough hashing power to match the current network hashing power for an hour. **Nicehash does not have enough hashing power for most larger coins**, so we also calculated what percentage of the needed hashing power is available from Nicehash In other words, the site you linked does not compute the real costs to scale that high.

3

101-KvSR 1 day ago

Supply/demand would increase the cost, but that as a base minimum is not great. It should cost a lot more than $1m/hr to operate more than half of the mining of BTC.

1

mokahless 1 day ago

You're missing the point. NiceHash doesn't have that amount of hash rate to sell. And the big mining companies aren't selling more than they use to mine, themselves. You'd need to get a design team and get wafers done. Then you'd need to support the electrical and physical hosting cost of all that equipment. And since that would take time, you'd need to base your estimate on future total hashpower instead of present hashpower. So yea, it costs WAY more than $1m/hr to operate that.

1

101-KvSR 1 day ago

When Binance was considering a reorg, it was within the realm of possibility to bribe/reward mining pool operators (top 3-4) into orphaning blocks that held collectively over 51% of mining capacity. An entity with leasable hash power could charge a base minimum of 200k USD/hr for 51% capacity excluding block rewards. We have to consider that there are many entities with hash power that don’t currently involve themselves in Cryptocurrency. SHA-256 ASICs have made keeping up harder in that particular area of compute power however entities may have a greater quantity rather than performance quality of compute power that makes the network vulnerable, I recall when mining pools reached 50% and miners within the pool went to other pools but the industry has changed to hardware manufactured pool mining and it’s not in anyone’s interest for A) three or four entities to conspire, whether bribed or in their self interest, to pass resolutions with 51% hash power and B) disregard others compute power capabilities that haven’t entered the arena and how much those services would cost and if they would be leasable. Further development and decentralization is required to keep the network secure against bad actors and this isn’t 2012, we aren’t in baby steps anymore, we are trying to get an ETF off the ground and become recognized. This is essential.

1

mongkeboy 1 day ago

Where do you think the hashpower would come from?

1

mokahless 1 day ago

Apparently he believes it would all come from NiceHash.

2

[deleted] 1 day ago

[removed]

1

s45rzq redditor for 4 days 1 day ago

Are you kidding? Nano and ALL POS coins are truly POS. The fundamental problem with Nano and POS is most exchanges hold a ton and give them far too much sway in the network. Hell if you want a reorg in Nano, just bribe the largest exchanges. Binance itself could probably take down Nano if they wanted.

4

[deleted] 1 day ago

[removed]

0

s45rzq redditor for 4 days 1 day ago

So you see what I'm talking about. Nano also has two other problems. It is essentially just instant DPOS--every single transaction is voted on as soon as it occurs. This sounds great until you try to run a full node and realize it kills your hard drive and network. Try it. I have. I used to hold a lot until I realized the shortcomings. The other problem is there is little incentive to run a full node. I'm not getting paid, why should I run a full node and those with a lot of nano are just looking to sell so they aren't too keen on it either. Nano is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. There's a reason they can't get it to run on many exchanges. No one wants the trouble. Every time there is an issue, the devs just point the blame at the exchanges. It shouldn't be that hard to verify a double spend isn't occurring.

4

ureindanger 1 day ago

Are you saying that is possible to double spend on NANO?

1

Leif_Erickson23 1 day ago

Can everybody stake NANO?

1

Bluecoregamming 2 days ago

Someone should try it them. I'm surprised no one has yet. Or if they have, it wasn't successful. Think of all those ICOs that raised millions of dollars claiming to be the better bitcoin. If they wanted Bitcoin out of the picture, a 51% attack would have done it. Yet, nothing.

10

BUY___BITCOIN redditor for 3 weeks 1 day ago

Agreed. I am ready to bet $500k that $500k can't reorg Bitcoin. Anyone interested?

5

Bluecoregamming 1 day ago

I'll match your $500k with another $500k.

5

BUY___BITCOIN redditor for 3 weeks 1 day ago

Shitcoin trolls, anyone of you want to be a millionaire? Here's your chance

4

101-KvSR 1 day ago

Create a bounty escrow with your matched bets to an independent and see if anyone would be willing to take the $1m reward for doing a Bitcoin reorg, just make sure it’s payable in Sfr. in case the network takes a nose-dive, since I’m confident that a party willing to do so wouldn’t care about the long term and network/price recovery and would have to pay additional parties for compute power. Put your money where you mouth is. Theatricals vs. Practicality.

3

1 7

Cass Lin - @thulynnn

RT @BitwiseInvest: New research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to the SEC today. Read it here: https://t.co/8rNxypwPSj It's a 104-page white paper expanding on our March 2019 presentation. It examines 83 exchanges for fake volume, the tight relationship of CME futures & spot, and rapid arbitrage. https://t.co/bS0nBKClpc

261 590

Christopher Wheeler - @Stocktrader

RT @nategeraci: “As a digital commodity, bitcoin’s spot trading mrkt should be among most orderly & efficient in world. Once you clear away noise, the data suggest that is simply true." Mind-boggling amount of work/research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to SEC today... https://t.co/umGsygfUwt https://t.co/FtxV45H8qr

3 9

Pierre Rochard - @pierre_rochard

RT @MattWalshInBos: Another outstanding analysis from the @BitwiseInvest team. This type of work is critically important for the education of regulators and is also playing a big role in making bitcoin and other cryptoassets less opaque to institutional investors. https://t.co/uvHIv1X7SE

8 28

nic carter - @nic__carter

RT @BitwiseInvest: New research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to the SEC today. Read it here: https://t.co/8rNxypwPSj It's a 104-page white paper expanding on our March 2019 presentation. It examines 83 exchanges for fake volume, the tight relationship of CME futures & spot, and rapid arbitrage. https://t.co/bS0nBKClpc

42 101

Pomp - @APompliano

RT @BitwiseInvest: New research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to the SEC today. Read it here: https://t.co/8rNxypwPSj It's a 104-page white paper expanding on our March 2019 presentation. It examines 83 exchanges for fake volume, the tight relationship of CME futures & spot, and rapid arbitrage. https://t.co/bS0nBKClpc

27 68

Spencer Bogart - @CremeDeLaCrypto

RT @BitwiseInvest: New research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to the SEC today. Read it here: https://t.co/8rNxypwPSj It's a 104-page white paper expanding on our March 2019 presentation. It examines 83 exchanges for fake volume, the tight relationship of CME futures & spot, and rapid arbitrage. https://t.co/bS0nBKClpc

16 34

Hunter Horsley - @HHorsley

RT @BitwiseInvest: New research from @BitwiseInvest submitted to the SEC today. Read it here: https://t.co/8rNxypwPSj It's a 104-page white paper expanding on our March 2019 presentation. It examines 83 exchanges for fake volume, the tight relationship of CME futures & spot, and rapid arbitrage. https://t.co/bS0nBKClpc

5 13

8