Cryptocurrencies

[Fly]

On 1/22/2024 at 3:51 PM, SharperDingaan said:

 

The story goes that some folks went for an evening cruise on the Baltic. Supposedly the very early stage miners, BTC mining for them had just been the cool 'new' thing at the time; but they were now all moving on, and their wallets contained thousands of BTC. The US was closing down the silk road, was one of the largest holders of BTC, and there was a need for a graceful way 'out'. The various digital keys got put on USB sticks, and to the clink of champagne glasses, all the sticks were dropped into the sea; salt water ensuring non recovery of the keys, no matter the temptation.

 

SD

Hence the “boating accident” meme in the community

[gfp]

4 minutes ago, Fly said:

Hence the “boating accident” meme in the community

 

I thought that was a riff on the old line gun owners used?

[SharperDingaan]

44 minutes ago, Fly said:

Hence the “boating accident” meme in the community

 

The original paper was published October 2008, and the Estonia Ministry of Justice was using it in 2012; have to think the authors went home, and that this "boating accident" was around 2012/2013. Now adults, with first kids arriving, it is entirely in keeping with it being a last nod to the cypherpunk ethos that created them. 

 

As it should be: unless you were there, or know those who were, there is no way of knowing whether it actually occurred or not. If it did, grand-pa has a hell of a story to tell the grand-kids. If it did not, it still remains a great story. I'd prefer to give it to grand-pa.

 

SD

Edited January 24 by SharperDingaan

[wachtwoord]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:47 PM, rkbabang said:

 

It could be.  I've always assumed Finney, because he is dead and that explains why Satashi disappeared so completely and has never touched his holdings.   I just can't imagine a living Satashi overcoming the temptation to access that wealth and take credit for his invention.   If it is Szabo he is an amazing human being.

 

Couldnt you see yourself do it? If you do it, you do it right.

 

And with NONE of the first year mining proceeds and simply buying 1 or even2 years after that you can still be very wealthy without the fame.

 

Read up on Szabo. I like Finney (nice guy, good morals, willing to put in work, reasonably intelligent) but Szabo is in a league of his own imo.

[rkbabang]

3 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Couldnt you see yourself do it? If you do it, you do it right.

 

And with NONE of the first year mining proceeds and simply buying 1 or even2 years after that you can still be very wealthy without the fame.

 

Read up on Szabo. I like Finney (nice guy, good morals, willing to put in work, reasonably intelligent) but Szabo is in a league of his own imo.

 

 

That is true.  I would much prefer wealth without fame to even more wealth but with fame.

 

[ValueArb]

8 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

 

Couldnt you see yourself do it? If you do it, you do it right.

 

And with NONE of the first year mining proceeds and simply buying 1 or even2 years after that you can still be very wealthy without the fame.

 

Read up on Szabo. I like Finney (nice guy, good morals, willing to put in work, reasonably intelligent) but Szabo is in a league of his own imo.

 

It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin. Once you have world wide computer networks, open source software and cheap hosting it became a pretty obvious idea. That said there are a lot of really smart decisions that were made in its design, but again it didn't take a genius, it took someone dedicated to working on it full time and solving problems step by step. 

[ValueArb]

Quote

According to the complaint filed by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, investigators from the Colorado Division of Securities found that from June 2022 to April 2023, INDXcoin raised nearly $3.2 million from more than 300 individuals. The complaint alleges that Regalado targeted Christian communities in Denver and claimed that God told him directly that investors would become wealthy if they put money into INDXcoin. ...

The Regalados allegedly continued to promote the INDXcoin as a low risk, high profit investment.

The complaint alleges that in reality, the INDXcoin was illiquid and practically worthless; investors lost millions; and Defendants dissipated investor funds to support their lavish lifestyle.

Again, the appeal to a trusted third-party authority (God). Plus some bizarre claims about the mechanics of the crypto thing; from the complaint:

The “INDXcoin, as described by Defendants in the Whitepaper, is purportedly an “index-based cryptocurrency that tracks and indexes the value of the top one hundred cryptocurrencies (ranked by market cap) through an AI-based data procurement mechanism sourced from multiple data points to ensure accuracy.”

Nooo.[1]

Defendants persuaded investors that the INDXcoin was uniquely situated to provide its holders with big returns. Defendants explained that INDXcoin was designed to be “a less volatile and risky coin to hold...with less exposure to the risks associated with single coin offerings.” Defendants said INDXcoin was “immune to investors ‘pumping and dumping’ cryptocurrency through a coordinated liquidation event,” as the value of the INDXcoin was pegged to “the overall momentum of the crypto market.” Defendants’ future plans would only provide more assurance to coin holders, acting to “solidify INDXcoin’s global value, acting as the first line of defense against exchange-specific price volatility if a large portfolio holding INDXcoin is liquidated on an exchange.”

Whatever. But for some reason they decided to go to a crypto auditing firm called Hacken, whose website tells me that they have done smart contract audits for crypto things including Binance. “Defendants touted the safety of INDXcoin and the KWE by telling investors that the coin and the exchange had undergone a rigorous audit.” How’d the audit go?

The auditor, Hacken, told Defendants their products’ “security score” was zero out of ten. Additionally, wrote Hacken, “[c]onsidering all metrics, the total score of the report is 0 out of 10.” …

According to the Hacken report, “[w]hen proof-of-stake mining is enabled, value of reward in coinbase is not validated which allows to generate any number of new coins...In practice, it allows to generate an infinite number of new coins.” ...

To the extent that Hacken could evaluate Defendants’ code, Hacken highlighted that the code submitted by Defendants contained changes that “did not align with the standards upheld by Bitcoin Core,” and contained transcription errors that lead to “numerous critical issues.”

Seems bad! And yet also good marketing:

However, upon receiving the Hacken Report, Defendants posted in the KWE Community Forum the “BREAKING NEWS” that “INDXcoin has been proofed by Hacken! The toughest, most legit crypto audit in the world! And before we launch! We are so far ahead of 90% of the cryptos that have existed for years!”

Nowhere in the post did Defendants disclose that the results of the Hacken Report reflected that Defendants’ products were catastrophically technologically deficient.

Anyway I have been quoting the Colorado complaint, these are just allegations, etc., but Coindesk reports on Eli Regalado’s magnificent response to the charges:

The pastor – who had worked in digital marketing – responded in a video message posted on the project's website, sharing a sentiment that's unusual from a crypto founder cornered by government authorities: "Those charges are true."

"We sold a cryptocurrency with no clear exit," he said, explaining that God told him to build it and give investors ten times the money they put in. "We did. We took God at his word."

"The Lord told us to walk away from our parking company. ... He took us into this cryptocurrency ... well, that cryptocurrency turned out to be a scam.... And I said Lord ... you told me to do this," he said in the video.

The couple also took about $1.3 million from more than $3 million raised for the project. Regalado said about $500,000 went to the Internal Revenue Service, and a "few hundred thousand" was devoted to a home remodeling project that "the Lord told us to do."

 

 

[rkbabang]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:03 PM, Sweet said:

On 1/20/2024 at 9:47 AM, rkbabang said:

I was simply stating a fact that there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that the U.S. both still exists and has 50 states 15-20 years from now.

That’s not a fact, that’s a prediction.  I’d take the opposite side of that bet

And…. Today.

 

[Sweet]

8 hours ago, rkbabang said:

And…. Today.

 

 

I don't think this means that the US is going to break up.  I don't think it would be allowed to happen either.

[ValueArb]

12 hours ago, rkbabang said:

And…. Today.

 

 

There are a huge number of liberals in Texas and a huge number of conservatives in California. I doubt there is any chance of states ever seceding again because there aren't any economic/religious interests as strong as slavery was in tying together the vast majority of the population of any single state or group of states. 

 

Also add in laws passed after the Civil War to make insurrections and secessions more difficult (14th amendment for one). 

[Vish_ram]

Things will change when we have a credit default event or hyperinflation due to debt crisis. 

[wachtwoord]

23 hours ago, ValueArb said:

 

It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin. Once you have world wide computer networks, open source software and cheap hosting it became a pretty obvious idea. That said there are a lot of really smart decisions that were made in its design, but again it didn't take a genius, it took someone dedicated to working on it full time and solving problems step by step. 

This post conclusively shows you have no clue.

 

Solving the Byzantine generals problem was a fundamental breakthrough he made and the solution is very creative. On top of that he managed to implement and operationaluze it sufficiently in a system that incentivises the right actions by the rights actors.

 

In fact, even saying it's obvious after the fact seems wrong. I mean it's obvious to me and many others, but at the same time many more think proof of stake is a good idea, many more think the energy is wasted, many more think fast/cheap transactions are part of the core value proposition, many more think functionality outside of it being a secure, censor-proof, decentralized settlement network warrants risking those things. Many more seem to have no clue or sense whatsoever.

[Sweet]

6 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

This post conclusively shows you have no clue.

Oh do shut up wachtwoord.  Arrogance overload.

 

Edited January 25 by Sweet

[wachtwoord]

10 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Oh do shut up wachtwoord.  Arrogance overload.

 

I guess neither do you. Even after reading my post you stick to "It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin."?

 

It's not me that is suffering from "arrogance overload" here. What's next: all of Galileo's discoveries are child's play?

[ValueArb]

19 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

This post conclusively shows you have no clue.

 

Solving the Byzantine generals problem was a fundamental breakthrough he made and the solution is very creative. On top of that he managed to implement and operationaluze it sufficiently in a system that incentivises the right actions by the rights actors.

 

In fact, even saying it's obvious after the fact seems wrong. I mean it's obvious to me and many others, but at the same time many more think proof of stake is a good idea, many more think the energy is wasted, many more think fast/cheap transactions are part of the core value proposition, many more think functionality outside of it being a secure, censor-proof, decentralized settlement network warrants risking those things. Many more seem to have no clue or sense whatsoever.

 

You've convinced me. The Byzantine Generals problem is the dividing line between Szabo and Finney's intellect, clearly Finney could not solve that problem because uh, you said so. Which makes you smarter than Finney and as smart as Szabo I guess. 

[RichardGibbons]

The Byzantine Generals problem was first described in a paper in 1982, and was certainly discussed in undergrad level computer science classes during the early 1990s. So, it seems pretty odd to say that it's "a pretty obvious idea" when you have hundreds of thousands of computer scientists exposed to the idea and thinking about it over the course of decades, yet nobody implemented a practical solution for over 25 years.

As a broad question, would one categorize ValueArb's cognitive error as hindsight bias, retrospective determinism, or something else?

I've certainly made that error before (believed something was "obvious" when the evidence conclusively indicates it wasn't). And I've made it surprisingly often. So I'm curious where that cognitive error fits in.

[Castanza]

There is a lot of amazing inventions that were obvious in hindsight. The idea of the steam engine existed since antiquity but was never applied commercially until the Industrial Revolution. Bread existed for 14,000 years, yet nobody sliced it and sold it until 1928. Pockets didn’t exist in clothes until the 13th century. Gunpowder took awhile before it was used for weaponry. The cotton gin…people picked it by hand for thousands of years…. 
 

Point being, BTC absolutely was a genius invention; no ifs,  ands or buts about it. 

[Sweet]

8 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

I guess neither do you. Even after reading my post you stick to "It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin."?

 

It's not me that is suffering from "arrogance overload" here. What's next: all of Galileo's discoveries are child's play?

No wachtwoord, it’s your arrogant attitude and the manner you disagree with others.

[rkbabang]

15 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

It didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin.

 

15 hours ago, Sweet said:

15 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

This post conclusively shows you have no clue.

Oh do shut up wachtwoord.  Arrogance overload.

 

 

Saying "it didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin" isn't arrogant, but pointing out that it is a clueless statement is.   From the guy who thinks online gamblers invented it.   Sometimes this thread is just too much.  LOL

[Longnose]

41 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

 

 Sometimes this thread is just too much.  LOL

 

Im a crypto fan, but i had to check out from this thread. 

 

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

 

Saying "it didn't take a genius to come up with Bitcoin" isn't arrogant, but pointing out that it is a clueless statement is.   From the guy who thinks online gamblers invented it.   Sometimes this thread is just too much.  LOL

I have more of an issue with the ‘anyone who disagrees with me is clueless’ type of attitude, than the comment from valuearb.

 

Whether someone is a genius is subjective, and I’d think you’d agree with me that there are other computer applications more complex than Bitcoin.

 

In the investing / trading sphere I find it unique to the crypto world that whenever an adherent of Bitcoin finds someone they disagree with the ‘you don’t understand’ trope is more often and more quickly wheeled out.

 

Edited January 26 by Sweet

[SharperDingaan]

16 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

The Byzantine Generals problem was first described in a paper in 1982, and was certainly discussed in undergrad level computer science classes during the early 1990s. 

 

I've certainly made that error before (believed something was "obvious" when the evidence conclusively indicates it wasn't). And I've made it surprisingly often. So I'm curious where that cognitive error fits in.

 

The 'generals' problem goes way back, and was the same problem whether you were a Byzantine or a Mongol; it was just 're-branded' by computer science and the 'solution' integrated into a programmable algorithm. Prior to that, the solution had essentially been one of becoming a 'master' at playing chess (ie: a human algorithm).

 

The reality of course is that we see the 'obvious' every day, and may even recognise the logical outcome; but don't accept the conclusion. If others don't also see it (acceptance), we must be wrong, therefore move on; a well known anomaly than many a propagandist has exploited. 

 

Look through the Jan-Mar business newspaper in your community from 2 years ago. Pick a few of the negative articles (ie: Blackberry), and assume you had done the opposite of the spin being sold. Compare the price today (2yr), and the price a year ago (1yr), to what the price was when the article came out. Repeat the test on various other dates, going further back in time, and plot the results. You have essentially quantified how much this bias is costing you  

 

SD

Edited January 26 by SharperDingaan

[rkbabang]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

I have more of an issue with the ‘anyone who disagrees with me is clueless’ type of attitude, than the comment from valuearb.

 

Whether someone is a genius is subjective, and I’d think you’d agree with me that there are other computer applications more complex than Bitcoin.

 

In the investing / trading sphere I find it unique to the crypto world that whenever an adherent of Bitcoin finds someone they disagree with the ‘you don’t understand’ trope is more often and more quickly wheeled out.

 

Sorry, but "it didn't take a genius to create bitcoin" is one of the most clueless statements I've heard in a long time.  Calling that out is not arrogance.  Someone needs to look in the mirror before calling others arrogant, I think.

 

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, rkbabang said:

Sorry, but "it didn't take a genius to create bitcoin" is one of the most clueless statements I've heard in a long time.  Calling that out is not arrogance.  Someone needs to look in the mirror before calling others arrogant, I think.

 

Valuearb didn’t call him arrogant.  I did.  And I didn’t say that statement… so.

[rkbabang]

35 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Valuearb didn’t call him arrogant.  I did.  And I didn’t say that statement… so.

I know.  Nothing I said relies on me not knowing who said what to whom.