What is Bitcoin Mining - The Most Basic Guide For Beginners

Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 1\3 questioning freedom of will (in Macro-society)

This item began as a simple idea to investigate "social construct" theory, a trendy theme in academia and identity politics. It turned into a staggeringly complex constellation of ideas, with surprises galore.
The idea occurs to me: validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty. If not, then sense of beauty is innate (source is not one's society, but genetic or other episocial influences).
Natural Tendency towards Beauty in Humans: Evidence from Binocular Rivalry 2016 | plos (technical study)
Reading in Contemporary Aesthetics "Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured", by Ossi Naukkarinen, because beauty is a personal determination, and a metaphor of favor, but how is it determined? Example: which of these women looks beautiful to you? note: only descriptor for the AI search is "beautiful woman", AI learns about beauty by sifting mega-data; how effective is it? (achieves given goal?) AI results are socially constructed in the most explicit way possible! Beauty may not be measurable, but it can be selected (parsed) from non-beauty. Measurement is a comparison of some phenomenon to an abstract dimension. Selection is a go, no-go choice.
What is Nudge theory? This item straddles the fence between Macro and Micro societies, paradigmatic Nudges come from Macro sources, but include an option to choose without pressure to conform. Micro sources are always more direct; which side of the fence are you on, friend?. (Greener side, of course.)
What about searching for "good", images? note how often the WORD good is pictured. Good is a language construct that must be interpreted from the individual's perspective.
Ok, now search for "favor" images note that AI mostly interprets favor as a small gift, not as a preference (which is difficult to represent by image)
Well then, search for "preference", images note that the word preference happens to be used by a line of hair care products from L'Oreal, which dominates the returns... commerce rules!
social construct (def, search result)
validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty
Is Socialism a social construct? (LoL) Socialism Defined (EVERY Country is Socialist!) 2.2k views Sep 29, 2019 Rokn'MrE
To (social) Construct, or Not to (social) Construct, is there a choice? (note most results are about gender)
Parsing gender
Discussion of gender is not my direction of choice in this part 1 investigation. I want to seek how an actor (esp. me) makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will. Perhaps come back to gender in a future item.
person makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will (selections available)
Exemplar Hyp (Harry) Frankfurt’s compatibilist theory of free will 2009 5pg.pdf
I notice my choice of article was partly determined, partly free, but parsing out those factors would be too much divergence from the goal here. But Truth (a two side coin) is my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
(previous link, compatibilism):
3 It explains our intuition that human beings, but not lower animals, have free will. Lower animals lack free will because they lack the second-order volitions which are constitutive of free will. (This item is unnecessary and probably not true; how do we know animals have no "second-order volitions"? Having no other language than "body", we can only surmise (guess) what their volitions are. Volitions come before actions, we cannot see them or interpret them in any way. Brain conditions might be interpreted with MRI scanning, but to put a subject in a scanning device is to prevent any other actions. Such measuring ruins the connection between mental state and volition being measured, except we can safely assume that every measurement of animals must default to the volition to escape the measuring device.)
That's the first-order, highlighted deviation from compatibility theory. Clarification of "second-order volition": a path from choice to action has an intermediate "middle-way" tunneling mode, contracting (taking on) a desire to make a choice, prior to making the choice. In order to prove freedom, one must establish the mental preference for an imagined outcome in order to prove that preference did come from within the person and was not forced by other external deciding factors (genetic factors are pre-determined).
incompatibilism Note: the approach is wrong by the universal assumption, IOW that the intersection of determined and free is zero. It's a supremacy position, or superposition principle (LoL), the error is in over-simplification. The Logic Argument (p.5) is not representative of reality, which is more nuanced. Therefore, Frankfurt's thesis is good (denial of incompatibilism), but not due to the case presented (superposition).
Take Frankfurt's case (p.4) of Black vs Jones4 to be analogy for State vs Individual. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (other sources exist, search for yourself)
The (myusername) determinism/free-will duality hypothesis (denial of incompatibilism due to non-zero intersection):
Most choices, including the choice of desires, are determined by contingencies of which one is the natural desire of the actor to optimize his/her outcomes ("best wishes"). Is a person always compelled to have best wishes? What is best depends on a person's mental state, which is usually determined by external factors, but those can vary in cogency (impact on behavior). Consider the choice to commit suicide, certainly not a trivial choice. (The Chosen means of execution (puns intended) is somewhat more trivial, but again, partly determined by external conditions.)
Some choices, nearly all trivial, are free because no interfering contingencies are apparent during the choosing interlude. It may happen in hindsight, that a past choice is observed to be a mistake, usually because some contingency was overlooked or unknown during the choosing. This observation should be remembered so as to avoid repeating a future choice like that mistake. Choices always have risks, including the choice to do nothing.
Different day, slightly different approach... parsing choice. 1 important choices that have many deep effects later, for instances a marriage partner, a new job, a new residence; 2 trivial choices which have minor effects, risks or physical involvement, for instances a choice of toothpaste at the market, to like or not a web-link or museum exhibit.
According to (myusername)'s determined/free paradigm, type 1 choices are nearly all determined by pre-existing conditions (not free). Type 2 choice is the arena of freedom. I suppose a person's low risk-aversion parameter could expand the envelope of freedom, but that's a characteristic that develops during maturation, one's history of choices and ensuing responses. Successful responses lead to more freedom, failures to less. So even when freedom exists, it accumulates a history (habits) which become a determinant.
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder (it's contagious) Take 1:
How does an actor (person in question who comes to an internal state, or inner-construct) interact with a community or society? Must it be IRL, or can virtual interaction suffice to construct internal states? And more to my point, must the interaction be two-way (containing feedback), or simply via broadcast medium? (broadcast includes published books, articles, records, radio, TV or Internet A/V shows, etc.)
Interaction with broadcast media can be summarized by: a choice, a degree of attention and focus (time spent on and attention given to item), a like/dislike or more complex reaction to item, having future behavior influenced by item, to continue a stream of behaviors (especially sequential item choices) as consequence of influence of item, to develop a complex of attitudes built upon stream of items (eg. just mentioned 'risk aversion parameter and habit).
Before going on, I notice that broadcast media is like Sunshine, Rain, and Grace. It is made available by participation in a community, and falls without curse or blessing, it's all there for the choosing (or ignoring), depending on the contingencies.
Mind control theory? (because mind is the inner source of volition... behavior, control the mind (easy), hence control the behaviors (difficult otherwise))
Mind control courtesy Tavistock Inst.
Construction of Favor (or any knowledge) upon Familiarity
What is Social Construction? (cntrlZ)
"For instance, trees are only differentiated from other plants by virtue of the fact that we have all learned to see them as "trees."
But we don't all know about trees to an equal degree. I know rather much about trees from my interaction with them: living among them, planting them, sawing them, moving them, burning them, etc., not from reading or talking about them. No doubt, there are many persons all over the world who have very little experience of trees, and cannot 'construct' treeness as well as me. Direct experience is more realistic and developed than social constructs.
Favor and Familiarity are interwoven by choice
I chose to live alone with trees and not alone with sea, or desert (for examples), because it was easier to go with trees. Was the choice free? I could have chosen city or suburb with even more ease than forest, so ease of choice was not the deciding factor, it was my preference of lonely forest over crowded urb that decided me. So maybe it wasn't really about trees, it was about independence or something else like that. When we choose, we may not understand the contingencies, but our decision (choice) may be due to habits or patterns that have developed in the maturity process. Habits are strong determinants, and they develop, according to Ian Plowman, 4 ways.
The cntrlZ article makes the case for 'Strong Social Construction' based on that 'knowing' which is all about language, certainly a social construct.
Within the social construction of language is the game. Outside the social construction is reality, the real world. (a list of social constructs follows)
That makes it clear. Experiences (direct ones) without resort to language are NOT social constructs. That observation makes another distinction clear: gender may be a social construct, as it's a language issue, but sex is not a social construct, it is a direct experience issue that develops in the maturation process: birth, infant, child, puberty, sexy adolescent, sexy adult, old (unsexy) adult, death. Prior to puberty, sex is incipient in its development, but comes to life, (like a flower blooms) after a decade or so. Knowing about sex as a child is by observation from outside (thru the looking glass), after puberty, it's direct experience, and much later, it's a fading memory.
Regarding Looking-glass self theory the notion of socially constructed identity (defining the self by differences/ affinities to others),
... the outcome of "taking the role of the other", the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity of our own as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others... Therefore, the concept of self-identity may be considered an example of a social construction.
... makes a spurious expansion of identity formation to include everyone (a unity), or nearly so. According to Reisman's Lonely Crowd, there is a triality of social nature, expounded by parsing people into tradition, inner, and other directed personalities. This theme was a scholar's response to the US trend toward consumerism and conformity to "norms", (local traditions, eg. "keeping up with the Joneses") mid-20th century. The social construct crowd would be Reisman's Other directed personality, which may truly be the majority, in USA certainly. However, the tradition-following and inner-directed personalities are a significant minority. Let's not ignore them (I'm in there.)
What is “Mob Mentality?”
Herd mentality | wkpd
Are All Personality Descriptions Social Constructions? Sep.2019 | psytdy
... that objective reality does not directly reveal itself to us, is true beyond a doubt.
The preceding statement author, JA Johnson, is way off (and his article is full of falseness). Objective reality IS direct experience, no more revealing modality exists. Denial of this obvious fact (just lied about above) is a redefinition of the term (a social construct). Experience is beyond language, thus beyond 'description'. However the following is a true reveal about (((Yews))) (the like of whom Dr. Johnson seems):
It is true that when we describe someone with socially undesirable traits... we are constructing for them a social reputation that might decrease their chance of success in life. This is precisely one of the concerns of (((social constructivists, like Dr. Johnson))), that certain categorizations (eg. a separate race) reduce power and status.
Proof that Truth is not a social construct (relative to culture, like morality absolutely is)... What do you believe in? Cultural Relativism
Conformity is a social construct (should be obvious, it's a social source of choices). What causes conformity? Social interactions, which traditionally occurred (Macro-version) in newspapers, magazines, cinema and radio programs. As culture changed the popular media to radio, TV and then to Internet, and church attendance fell out of vogue, the advertising industry became more powerful in defining social constructs. That's why Internet censorship is so important.
Who are the 'influencers' in society? (They used to be parents, teachers, peers... now it seems to be YouTubers, like PewDiePie. But an intentionally underplayed contingent of influencers is the predominantly Left-Leaning academia, who collectively promote Marxist preferences and political activism toward Socialist positions. Academia is pushing social construction because it provides an intellectual framework that denies the old (social injustice), and says ok to their preferred ideology, Cultural Marxism (new social "just us"; socially constructed ideas can be anything you want, their cogency depends on efficacy of publication).
Micro-Social Constructs are most cogent (due to conformity being human nature), discussed in part 2.
Bottom Line (part 1)
If you like freedom, and are serious about it, you must distance yourself from society, because it tries to reconstruct you according to the norm... conform!
Before you go, think about what is a hermit?, which should not be confused with Hermetic, name derived from Greek god Hermes. 7 Great Hermetic Principles – The Teachings of Thoth (illustrated)... same topic 2016
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 2\3, Micro-Societies
Social Circles; Mates, Kin, Friends
note on Mates: school-, (prison) in-, marriage-, ship-, etc. note on my link choices, page rank has a strong influence
Social group (aka circle)
Is Conformity Human Nature? Don't blow this list off, if you want to understand social constructs. At least look at first item.
What is Social Proof?
Are Micro-societies any less 'constructing' than Macros? Or do some constructs exist for all realms, macro and micro? I think they are more constructing, because micros carry feedback, whereas macro is all absorption, individuals have negligible effects on society at large. They act in a statistical sense, with a few exceptions.
Concept vs Percept (concepts are stable mental recordings, and physical manifestations of them; percepts are changing sensations and reflexes which depend strongly on the situation, memories of which are variable too)
Favor, Good, and Beauty are words that belong in the same 'conceptual basket' (ward), they are alike, all refer to action 'like', as an affective (and affirmative) perception. Conversely for the word's opposites.
Perceptions are non-language reactions to stimuli, therefore not social constructs. They may be evoked into a social arena via language (or other virtual records), but these are only shadows of the perception, so what is evoked is drawn up from the receiver's own memories of perceptions.
Division of Labor (and role models) are Social Constructs
Sex is the most basic divider of labor, for all societies, especially the most primitive. As societies develop towards more technical, sex falls away from the divider, as natural talent and innate interest gain influence, until the basic operations of reproduction remain, the core division. What about rankings in the division?
natural tendency for dominance?
Are males naturally dominant in nature? | qra
(arguments opposing) Male Dominance (theory) with (bogus) "Explanations", by 2 feminist authors using Marxist ideology 2017 | verso While this blog seems to have obvious (to me) flaws, it does raise interesting ideas and references.
what attributes help males gain social status? Basic: status is competitive. It takes talent and effort to win.
To Raise Male Status (18 Rules) | @rctvmn (not because age 18 is best)
Dominance vs Prestige 2010 | psytdy Note: blatant bias toward Prestige via argument parsing Pride. (author is Jewish, maligns DJ Trump (nationalist), lauds John Lennon (globalist))
modes of thought: socially-controlled vs spontaneous
Major Component of Social-Construction: Public Education 3 Modes of Thought Jan.2019
Kaufman again: How Renaissance People Think 2011 | psytdy Note: We discussed concept vs percept, here Kaufman refers to fellow-Jew Seymour Epstein's dual modish rational vs experiential theory, same idea set.
polymath (short for Renaissance Man)
Favor-Goodness-Beauty paradigm
Favor is not favored in prior art, Truth takes Favor's place in the Transcendental Spectrum: Transcendentals 5pg.pdf
We have already seen the idea in part 1 that Truth is a disputed transcendental in the social-constructionism academic universe. Academics use the "universal fallacy" that their favored item is part of an incompatible pair, which by logic excludes everything not in their favor. They want to ignore the nuances in order to push an ideology toward a supremacy of thinking, just like in a totalitarian state.
Whereas the (myusername) principle of Truth, it has a dual nature, 1 relative to a society (democratic consensus); and 2 absolute to reality (math/science/technology). So 'Favor' is a better term because objective proof (no contest) is not required (except the meaning of objective that says 'objection!', meaning 'contest'). 'Favor' implies bias which is the subjective reaction that matches Goodness and Beauty better than 'Truth'.
Apply Truth-Goodness-Beauty paradigm to social construction
it is unconcerned with ontological issues...
because the aim of constructionists is to justify a collective "truth" of their own construction. A social construct is not absolute, it's anything a society wants it to be ("social proof"). That's a good description of tyranny... The Empowered Female Parasite 2014 (that's a surprising result, here is one not-surprising.)
Social Proof: established by culture media (mind control, a monopoly 2012 (scroll down long graphic), of the Juice 2015), go back to part 1, macrosocial constructs.
Does Appreciation of Beauty have any innate sources? (otherwise it's all a social construct) Neuroscience of Beauty; How does the brain appreciate art? 2011 | sciam (in brain)
Onward (Dis)-Favor Readers...
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 3\3, House of Not-Friends
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 2
Living outside the 'Normitory" (away from Dreamland (everybody's asleep), to where Nessun Dorma (nobody sleeps))
It so happens that an ethnic group which originated in eastern Mediterranean Middle-East evolved to specialize in intelligence, commerce, morally corrupt enterprises, and crime. Essential to their success was eugenic traditions that applied artificial selection to just those same specialties, which makes this ethnic group a formidable enemy. They have developed a very strong sense of in-groupness, and a vested interest in social construct studies. A unified collective is a more effective competitor than an inchoate population of diverse individuals.
This group has as ethnic traits: global dispersion (aka Diaspora), preference for urban environments (aka Cosmopolitan, or Globalist), covert inter-group rivalry (aka InfoWar), and deception (aka MOSSAD). This cosmopolitan group must operate covertly and deceptively, because those are effective tactics, and they are a small minority (2% of USA), therefore weak in the democratic sense.
Immoral Social Constructs enforced by 5th column subversives
wethefifth (political audio series)
serendipity: freethink
Another construct search, without gender reference
Is morality a social construct? If so, how can concepts such as 'good' exist? (note especially the links in top comment, to reddit posts)
"Good" can be understood as a variation of "Favor" as a direct experience (perception) of "like", rather than some idealized notion of an obvious social construct such as "greater good" (a theoretical derivation by interventionist actors-with-agendas trying to impose their own preferences upon others, IOW ideology hegemony pushers, for instance viz da wiz)
Cultural hegemony is the Chosen's mitzvah, that we all must go to Emerald City, land of Oz, where YHWH (impostor) rules.
Cultural hegemony
Concepts of Ideology, Hegemony, and Organic Intellectuals in Gramsci’s Marxism 1982
There is no universal morality. Morality is much like Beauty, in the mind of beholder (actor who holds to a specific moral code). Morality is a social construct, and varies between societies. (I think a fair definition of morality is a code of ethics which is community-specific.) For a society to sustain, it needs to be isolate from conflicting societies. If different societies, with different moralities must coexist, the natural tendency for actors in the same niche toward dominance will destroy or remake the subordinate societies, which reduces the conflicts.
Status Hierarchies: Do We Need Them? blog 2012 | psytd
a need for 'virtue signaling'? It's natural, and likely unavoidable, evidence pride displays.
Status Assignments: by birth (heredity) or merit (talent)?
Let's assume your morality values social effectiveness. The best path to that is to have talented persons dominant (meritocracy). Next we happen to know that talent is hereditary, but not perfectly so. Therefore birth (kinship, aka kingship) is only an indicator of talent, which is infrequent among low status groups, much higher among high status kinship groups. Thus we must conclude that awarding status by pedigree and family privilege is not the best way to effectiveness, but it often does work. What works best then, must be? a competitive system of merit-proving, with special attention to high-status families. (Helps if the natural tendency for snobbish repression is circumvented, for examples Han-style Civil Service Exams, and the Roman military promotion avenue, which occasionally led to top gun.)
Sustainable Competitive Advantages (aka moats): Network Effects 2019 | sEknα
Our Brain's Negative Bias 2003 | psytdA
Fear: it's the greatest (motivator) 2009 Owen Benjamin made a video about Fear over TIME 16 min.
Dominance Hierarchy employs FEAR to dominate
Dominance hierarchy | wkpd Social dominance theory | wkpd
scaring children is not ok, Sydney Watson blog 11 min
tools for social mobility and dominance (list)
9 Important Factors That Influence Social Mobility Social dominance orientation | wkpd SDO should theoretically be highly important to Jews, as their ethos tends strongly to emulate it among themselves and denigrate it towards outgroups (Goyim). Thus we should expect to see this field of study monopolized by Jewish scholars. Studying the Gentile: Fanciful Pseudoscience in the Service of Pathologizing the Covington Boys | OO
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 3
Different day from Take 2. Re-consider interactions with a community or society: traditionally occurred locally, on Sunday meetings at church, parties, having a beer after work, town hall or children's group meetings, (eg. PTA, scouts) etc.
Re-consider "contracting". Original idea was meant to acquire, like a disease, not by design (choice), but determined by contingency (unlucky chance). Today, "contracting" means getting smaller, shrinking, like a cooling branding iron, or melting ice. Iron has several crystalline phases, the cooler, the more compact (more atomic order). Ice is contrary to most materials, as its crystalline structure is larger than its liquid phase, so as it melts (entropy always increases, going to less ordered) its atoms become more fluid. In both cases, the natural mode of change is toward ambient temperature. This trend (recursion to the mean) is maybe the most unbroken law of all physics.
Re-considering "Disorder"; original idea was meant as a mental disease, like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder), IOW anomalous condition, out-of-order, (order being assumed normal) in the human behavior dimension. Today it means individuals out-of-line, like discontinuities in a crystal. (Discontinuities are what make metal harder.)
When all the atoms of a metal are aligned (continuous), the state is called "annealed". This is the softest condition. When the metal has been "work hardened" by hammering, or forging, it acquires discontinuities (crystalline order becomes mucked up). This is a harder state. Hardness is measured by forcing a small ball into a test material and measuring the resulting depression (dent). Discontinuities resist dents and every other kind of deforming force (decreased plasticity (weakness) means increased elasticity and maximum yield (resilience, see Young's Modulus, Indentation hardness, Impact Toughness and Moh's Hardness)).
Now make analogy of metal with society. Non-conformist individuals (like followers of Marginotions) make society (if he-he-heeded) more resistant to outside forces (like George Soros, or seekers of Tikkun Olam) trying to make a dent in the established order (tradition, Protestant Ethic).
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 4
Different day Re-consider "contracting" again. Today, it means make-a-deal, as in commercial contract. This kind of contract is in flux nowadays, as the advent of bitcoin has introduced a mathematical means of authorizing legal agreements (aka contracts) in a distributed ledger that makes such agreements social in a very direct sense. The social part of "social construct" is present in a world wide network of participating computer operators, while the construct part is present in a software package (app) that is now called "smart", meaning has built-in security and ongoing timely operations, like confirmation checking. In this contract-paradigm, the "disorder" part is due to it being outside of previous power-holding elites who are chagrined by the prospect of losing some of their powers to the Internetwork, which is out of their control. IOW disorder for elites, and made-to-order for independents. (note on that quote)
Social Contract per britannica (briefly) per wkpd
explicit vs implicit contracts Differences Between Implicit & Explicit Agreements (law) 2017 more specific, social contracts Social Contract Theory UT (includes videos, glossary)
to be continued: fairness is a social construct (contrast with deterministic fate)
study notes (all 3 parts, this series)
Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review 2015 pdf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Owen+Benjamin+made+video+about+Fear&atb=v81-4__&ia=videos
why is 'social construct' a popular theme?
https://www.success.com/8-daily-habits-to-build-your-mental-strength/
Pareto principle implications for marital harmony, a very brief summary of research by J Cacioppo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_society
https://thejewishwars.blogspot.com/2019/03/aipac-traitor-jews-having-successfully.html
https://theevilofzionismexposedbyjews.weebly.com/14-what-zionist-and-anti-zionist-jews-have-said-about-education.html
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

Is Karatbit and Karatbars a scam?

On Tuesday 16th July, just a few weeks ago I was invited to attend a Karatbit, Karatbars/Karatbank presentation. The presentation was touting everything including a blockchain mobile phone. Someone had approached me over the weekend to investigate an investment, they had made with Karatbit/Karatbars. I attended the presentation with some research which, to be honest, was not that favourable to the company but nevertheless still went with an open mind.
KaratBank, a Singapore-based financial organization, has propelled another digital currency that it claims is bound to real physical gold. Is this a progressive thought – or a trick?
KaratBank, an organization located in Singapore, has quite recently declared the dispatch of KaratBank Coins (KBC), another digital currency it said is attached to gold. Be that as it may, not just the cost of gold, as different monetary forms — to real bits of gold: they're embedded in plastic cards or banknotes. In any event, that is the way it appears upon first sight.
KaratBank is a sister company of KaratBars International, located in Germany. KaratBars really sells gold in exceptionally small quantities (like 0.1g to 1g bullions), inserted into plastic cards (Karatbars) or money like notes (CashGold). The notes are famously overpriced: back when 1 gram of gold was $40, the 1g CashGold note cost $65.
As per KaratBank whitepaper, 10,000 KBC can be traded for 0.1g CashGold notes.
The initial coin offering kicked off earlier this year and proceeded until March 21, with the ICO starting March 22 (1 KBC = $0.05), Coin Telegraph reports.
Be that as it may, KaratBars International as an organization is emphatically connected with scams. A basic search for KaratBars on Google returns three connections with the word "scam" in them on the first page. KaratBars was prohibited in Canada in 2014 over an Autorité des marchés agents (AMF) with a Scam warning.
The Canadian government found that KaratBars executes some kind of multi-layered marketing (MLM), or "pyramid" scheme organisation that urged individuals to get new recruits and profit from their sales, promising a return of $15,000 to $136,000 every month.
In any case, Is KaratBank is a different story? All things considered, yes and no. Upon a more intensive look at the organization's whitepaper, one finds the following:
"United States of America citizens, residents (tax or otherwise) or green card holders, as well as residents of Canada, the People's Republic of China or the Republic of Singapore, are not qualified to partake in the KaratBank ICO."
As indicated by the Behind MLM site, the explanation behind this may lie in the way that those nations have actualized strict regulation on ICOs, and KaratBank does not have any desire to have anything to do with them.
"ICOs are not unlawful in the US or Canada. In the US, however, ICOs are ordinarily viewed as securities and require registration with the [Securities and Exchange Commission]," the site reads. "Singapore hasn't prohibited ICOs however it is one of the nations KaratBars International works in through the shell companies KaratPay and KaratBars Singapore. Singapore regulators closing those organizations down would cripple KaratBars International. The board most likely figure it's best not to take any risks."
To work lawfully in any purview, KaratBars International would need to register itself with the proper securities regulator in that jurisdiction, which the organization appears to need to abstain from, raising doubts.
From one's point of view what is disheartening is that blockchain is a great new technology and companies like this seem to mix their existing business with cryptocurrencies. Knowing full well that the general public does not really understand cryptocurrencies, let alone blockchain or Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). As a blockchain consultant, one feels obligated to pose some questions anyone thinking of getting involved should be asking.
At the presentation, I heard the presenters say “ Karatbars is giving its members the opportunity to buy gold in small quantities. They also encourage you to save in gold instead of paper money. This can easily be done by buying as little as 0.1 gram of gold or 1 gram - 2.5 gram or 5 grams.”
They said members can keep their gold in Karatbars' vault or ask them to send it to you. Cash gold is the most popular form of buying gold as the gold is embedded in a banknote. 24kt gold 99.9% pure makes it easier for anyone to accumulate wealth.
Karatbars is also involved in cryptocurrency and got their own coins, namely KBC and KCB coins. I'm going to get very deep into this, but the main thing to remember is that they say, “these coins are increasing in value and that it is backed by gold”. whereas and another Cryptocurrency is backed by nothing.
As a self-proclaimed proponent of blockchain and a graduate of Digital Forensics, I feel obligated to say a few words about this presentation on Karatbit or at least as a conscious citizen of this global world of technology users. Blockchain is a magnificent emerging technology that can be harnessed to do so many things. But most importantly it is a technology that provides one single source of truth. If groups are using this single source of truth technology to spread untruths, someone concerned must come out to say something. Blockchain is a technology that can put everyone on an even playing field but it seems very few understand it. The individuals with even the fleeting basic understanding can influence the general public perception of cryptocurrencies. This leads me to ask a great quote from a book called Richest Man in Babylon …. “if you want advice on investing in expensive jewels, why would you go to a butcher?”
The following is what the masses are being manipulated to attach their hopes and dreams. It is that “a further drop in the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has recently left investors nursing heavy losses. Many proponents are holding out for a new breakout “if their digital assets can go mainstream.”
The most important part of that statement is “if their digital assets can go mainstream”. This made me ask some questions about Karatbit and this is what I came up with.
Something is fishy!! Can someone clarify the following?
Claim 1: Gold mine worth $900 million provides security.
Can’t find any official source as proof.
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKQIckXyIU
Claim 2: Backed by a gold mine in Africa
Can’t find any official source as proof.
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Q3ZvR4b04
Claim 3: Audit report by MM Revisors for a gold mine in Madagascar
Can’t find proof that MM Revisors exists. Not sure if this report was published by Karatbars Int (can’t find it on their official website), but this is being circulated by some investors as if it were.
Reference: https://karatbars-me.webnode.es/\_files/200000070-01d6002d18/audit.pdf
Claim 4: Karatcoin Bank is a fully licensed crypto bank and is situated in Miami
Can’t find proof that they are registered as a licensed financial institute in Miami, Florida.
Can’t find Karatcoin Bank as a registered corporation, but found Karat Coin Corp.
Reference: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResults?inquiryType=EntityName&searchNameOrder=KARATBANK&searchTerm=Karatbank
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXip2Fizz5U&t=152s
Claim 5: Not a pyramid scheme
Karatbit describes this as an affiliate program but clearly is a pyramid scheme at best, see links below;
Canada: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/karatbars-quebec-activities-covered-by-prohibition-orders-514201571.html
Namibia: https://economist.com.na/43874/extra/karatbars-international-is-a-scamsays-central-bank/
Netherlands: https://www.afm.nl/en/nieuws/2014/mei/waarschuwing-karatbars
Claim 6: 100KBC = 1g of Gold at $40 per gram (1 KBC = $0.40) (guaranteed)
Total supply = 12,000,000,000 KBC (can’t find figures of circulating, so using supply instead)
Total gold needed to cover buy back of all coins:
12,000,000,000 / 100 = 120 000 000g = 120 tons (South Africa as a whole produced 139.9 tons of Gold in 2017).
Total money needed to buy back all the coins:
120 000 000g x $40 = $4.8 Billion
Can’t find proof that they have 120 tons of gold in storage (or backed up by the mines as claimed) or that they are at least worth $4.8 Billion to buy the gold?
Taking a more conservative approach:
According to icobench.com, they raised $100 000 000 with their ICO from 60% of the total supply.
Let’s assume the 60% of 12,000,000,000 is in circulation. This equals to 7,200,000,000 KBC.
Total gold needed for the buyback of 7,200,000,000 KBC:
7,200,000,000 / 100 = 72 000 000g = 72 tons
Total money needed to buy back all coins:
72 000 000g x $40 = $2.88 Billion
Loss for buying back the KBC that were sold during the ICO:
$100,000,000 - $2,880,000,000 = - $2,780,000,000
A potential loss of $2,78 Billion!!! Or am I taking crazy pills?
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgeHjhlMfn0
Reference: https://icobench.com/ico/karatgold-coin
Claim 7: This Forbes.com article gives credibility to the KBC coin
This article was written by a Contributor.
Reference: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joresablount/2019/05/31/10-blockchain-companies-to-watch-in-2019/#308b507e543f
There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said.
Reference: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/
“Blogging for Forbes requires being what is commonly referred to as a "self-starter."
So far, nobody has said, "Um, you can't do that," or, "Oh, my God, no!"
Reference: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2011/04/06/how-to-become-a-forbes-blogge#231bb9972862
“Warning over 'scammers paradise' as watchdog reveals victims lost £27m to bitcoin, cryptocurrency and forex frauds last year”
• Some 1,850 cases were reported to Action Fraud, a 250% increase on 2017-18
• Victims lost an average of £14,600 - with fewer than 1 in 20 getting money back
• Investors are often initially told they've made a profit
• They are then encouraged to put in more money - at which point the fraudsters run off with their cash
Potential victims have been warned over bogus online 'get rich quick' schemes as it emerged people lost more than £27million to cryptocurrency and foreign exchange scams last year.
Fraudsters promise high returns to those who invest, according to Action Fraud and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Victims lost an average of £14,600 in 2018-19 and stand little chance of getting their money back.
Reports of cryptocurrency and forex investment scams increased by nearly 250 per cent in 2017-18, from 530 to nearly 1,850.
The scams work by criminals promoting get-rich-quick online trading platforms through social media. Posts often use fake celebrity endorsements and images of luxury items like expensive watches and cars.
Beat the scammers:
These then link to professional-looking websites where consumers are persuaded to invest.
Often investors are led to believe their first investment has successfully returned a profit, and are then enticed to invest more money or introduce friends in return for greater profits.
But the returns stop, the customer account is closed, and the scammer disappears with no further contact.
'Anyone handing over their hard-earned cash should make sure they understand what they're getting into, they've checked it's a legitimate investment, and not rely on hype and excitement from friends or social media.
'Investing isn't a get-rich-quick scheme - and anything that uses fear of missing out or requires you to invest before thinking is best to be avoided.'
Those considering an investment to check the following for tips on how to avoid investment fraud at www.fca.org.uk/scamsmart.
Scammers can be very convincing so always do your own research into any firm you are considering investing with, to make sure that they are the real deal.
'It's vital that people carry out the necessary checks to ensure that an investment they're considering is legitimate.
UK consumers are being increasingly targeted by crypto asset-related investment scams.
Certain crypto assets, like Bitcoin and Ether (also known as cryptocurrencies), are not regulated in the UK. This means that buying, selling or transferring these crypto-assets falls outside FCA remit. The same is true for the operation of a cryptocurrency exchange.
However, some types of crypto-asset products may be or may involve regulated investments depending on their nature and how they are structured. For example, firms that sell regulated investments with an underlying crypto asset element may need to be authorised by the FCA to do so.
In recent months, the FCA claims it has received an increasing number of reports about crypto-asset investment scams. Some of them may involve regulated activities, others don’t, but all use similar tactics.
How crypto-asset investment scams work
Cryptoasset fraudsters tend to advertise on social media – often using the images of celebrities or well-known individuals to promote cryptocurrency investments. In this case, laughably they said KaratBit was endorsed by Barak Obama’s sister. Who is she and what does she know about cryptocurrencies and blockchain? The ads then link to professional-looking websites. Consumers are then persuaded to make investments with the firm using cryptocurrencies or traditional currencies.
The firms operating the scams are usually based outside the UK but will claim to have a UK presence, often a prestigious City of London address.
Scam firms can manipulate software to distort prices and investment returns. They may scam people into buying the non-existent crypto asset. They are also known to suddenly close consumers’ online accounts and refuse to transfer the funds to them or ask for more money before the funds can be transferred.
Action Fraud has also issued a warning on cryptocurrency scams.
How to protect yourself
Be wary of adverts online and on social media promising high returns on investments in a crypto asset or crypto asset-related products.
Most firms advertising and selling investments in crypto-assets are not authorised by the FCA. This means that if you invest in certain crypto assets you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong.
The FCA doesn’t regulate crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether which are vastly the most recognized cryptocurrencies, let alone KBC, they do regulate certain crypto-asset derivatives (such as futures contracts, CFDs and options), as well as those crypto assets I would consider securities. A firm must be authorised by FCA to advertise or sell these products in the UK – check FCA Register to make sure the firm is authorised. You can also check the FCA Warning List of firms to avoid.
You should do further research on the product you are considering and the firm you are considering investing with. Check with Companies House to see if the firm is registered as a UK company and for directors' names. To see if others have posted any concerns, search online for the firm's name, directors' names and the product you are considering.
If you’ve already decided you want to invest in gold, this might not be a bad company to side with. But if you’re just looking for an opportunity to earn a sustainable income and become financially independent, there are better options out there.
submitted by fourfingaz to u/fourfingaz [link] [comments]

Craig S. Wright FACTS

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts:
[1] - This link may be relevant.
[2] - Why would Satoshi do this?
[3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh?
[4] - I urge you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s whitepaper
Now, before the deluge of comments about how ”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”, I’d like to say:
Is it of absolutely no relevance at all if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve only ever considered technical arguments.
That said, I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying (other than random clear lies). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence):
submitted by Contrarian__ to btc [link] [comments]

An Anarchist Case Against Markets

I originally posted this to DebateAnarchism but thought it would be good for discussion here as well
This post was inspired by a debate I had on this sub with a Market Anarchist, which stopped advancing beyond a certain point due to several impasses that we could never get beyond. It became frustrating for both of us after a while because we kept talking past each other.
I wanted to make this post in an effort to clearly explain the following: 1) What I mean when I say that I am "against markets", 2) Why I am against markets, 3) What mechanisms I think can serve as effective replacements for markets, and 4) Responses to common criticisms.
(Disclaimer: I am only pointing out problems with markets pertinent to the target audience of this sub that supports them - Market Anarchists. There is no need to make criticisms of market features that Market Anarchists do not endorse in the first place. This post is not intended to be a general or all-inclusive criticism of markets, because Market Anarchists are anti-capitalists anyway.)
"Against Markets"
I don't seek to "ban" markets in an anarchist social context (obviously, because I'm an Anarchist), but I seek to make them obsolete. This is what I mean when I say that I am "against markets".
The Problems with Markets (as they pertain to Market Anarchism) (in no particular order)
The authors investigate how worker-owned and capitalist enterprises differ with respect to wages, employment, and capital in Italy, the market economy with the greatest incidence of worker-owned and worker-managed firms. Estimates calculated using a matched employer-worker panel data set for the years 1982–94 largely corroborate the implications of orthodox behavioral models of the two types of enterprise. Co-ops had 14% lower wages than capitalist enterprises, on average; more volatile wages; and less volatile employment. Given the quality of the data set analyzed, the authors argue, these results can be regarded as having broad generality
(Note: Regarding the point about "less volatile employment" in favor of coops...this study was done comparing between capitalist firms and worker coops. The wages were largely reflective of wages for union members because the wages in capitalist firms regardless of whether the workers were union members or not were based on regional collective bargaining by the unions. However, (unlike with the wages) the job security is not reflective of job security for union members. While we can see that union wages are higher than income for workers working in cooperatives, we cannot make a meaningful comparison based on this study between union job security and coop job security.)
If you want an efficient market system for coordinating production and distribution, you need a flexible labor market. Unfortunately, a more flexible ("freer") labor market leads to reduced labor share of income even under worker ownership (Self-Exploitation). On the other hand, workers forming cartels (monopolizing/oligopolizing access the labor in their field) that restrict labor markets is the only way to halt the trend of decreasing labor share of income - this is essentially what the function of labor unions is. So you need labor cartels to prevent Labor self-Exploitation (in the Marxist sense), while these labor cartels will themselves either be impossible to enforce in the absence of authority (because of the equivalent of Scabs) OR even if they can be enforced without authority they will undermine the efficiency of the markets in your society (because cartels screw up the function of prices in a market).
Alternatives
Based on what is written below regarding ECP and HKP, there is no longer a reason (with regard to rational economic calculation or information) to think that decentralized planning and gift economy dynamics would be unable to entirely replace the role of markets.
Answers to Common Criticisms/Objections
I've been told this recently in an argument with a Market Anarchist. However, he never was able to explain specifically how and why these differences would manifest and on what basis one could claim that it would alter my calculus and conclusions above.
In that case you've massively restricted the potential scale and scope in which markets can have a role in the functioning of your economy. I suppose that's fine, but in that case I would ask the question: Why retain them at all? Why not seek to replace them entirely?
To put it simply, ECP just says that you need a mechanism that allows you to compare multiple possible allocation pathways for resources in order to know which allocation pathway is the most efficient use of resources. And HKP basically says that those who do a particular kind of activity in the economy learn the information relevant to that activity as they perform it. Furthermore, this information is disparate and best able to be extracted by lots of people individually doing particular activities that they focus on.
There's nothing inherent about a large firm that prevents this from happening more so than an aggregate of small firms playing the same role in aggregate as the large firm does by itself. Large firms that are run bottom-up and allow their members autonomy (as was the case of with each of the collectives/syndicates in Catalonia, in contrast to large firms in capitalism) can discover and disseminate this information at least as well as an aggregate of small firms playing the same role as the large firm by itself. As support for my claim, I reference The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff - a book that contains multiple empirical examples showing that collectivization of multiple separate firms (which had been engaging in exchange transactions with one another to form a supply chain prior to the Anarchist revolution in Spain) into singular firms of operation from start to finish across the entire supply chain, actually improved productivity, innovation within the production process, and distribution of end products. This actually addresses both HKP and ECP. As per Hume's Razor, we can therefore conclude that a reduction in the scope, role, and presence of intermediary exchange transactions/prices between steps in the supply chain neither results in reduced ability to acquire & disseminate information nor results in reduced economic efficiency. Furthermore (as per Hume's Razor), we can conclude that it is not the scope, role, or presence of prices/exchange transactions that enable either rational economic calculation or the acquisition & dissemination of knowledge. This is because (as per Hume's Razor) if it were true that prices/markets are necessary or superior to all other methods for efficient information discovery & dissemination as well as for rational economic calculation, it would not have been the case that we could have seen improvements in productivity, innovation, and distribution of end products in the aforementioned examples after substantially reducing (via collectivization/integration of various intermediary and competing firms) the role, scope, and presence of prices/markets within the economy.
The alternative explanation (one that is more credible after the application of Hume's Razor and keeping the aforementioned empirical examples in mind) is that optimally efficient information discovery & dissemination as well as rational economic calculation, are both possible in a non-market framework when individuals have autonomy and can freely associate/dissociate with others in the pursuit of their goals.
What's written above should be sufficient to address this objection as well. If it is not the scope, role, and presence of prices/exchange transactions that enable either rational economic calculation or the acquisition & dissemination of knowledge...then there is no basis upon which to argue there will necessarily be (from an information or rational economic calculation standpoint) more bureaucracy in aggregate in a society that has replaced markets, than there would be in a society that retains them.
However, there remains the objection that bureaucracy would exist to a larger extent due to the lack of competitive pressures against inefficiency. My response is to point out that empirical evidence from revolutionary Anarchist societies indicate strongly to the contrary. The role and presence of competition was greatly reduced while there was a simultaneous improvement in efficiency. As per Hume's Razor, we can therefore reject the notion that it is competition specifically that inherently prevents bureaucratic buildup in individual firms. It seems, from these empirical examples, that the best way to prevent bureaucracy is not through market competition between several small firms but through Anarchist praxis involving a lack of hierarchy and authority within large firms (recall that I often use the term "firm" to refer to collectives, syndicates, etc. for the purposes of this post), such that there is no ossified system of rank within the large firm. The absence of an ossified system of rank within firms is the true key to preventing the accumulation of bureaucracy within firms.
Note the three types of efficiency in the linked video - Allocative Efficiency, Productive Efficiency, and Dynamic Efficiency.
The evidence from Anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War (which I discussed above) indicates that Productive Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency was improved in various industries and communities where Anarchist collectivization took place. This trend only reversed and ended as the State undermined the Anarchists through various measures, such as cutting them off of currency that was needed to acquire resources from outside the Anarchist-controlled regions, using that leverage over currency to take over control of various industries away from the Anarchists, etc... Thus far, the market anarchists I have discussed this issue with have agreed on this point.
Where I have faced disagreement from market anarchists is on the issue of Dynamic Efficiency aka "Innovative Efficiency". Those whom I have discussed this with argue that markets optimize dynamic efficiency better than any other alternative.
My response is as follows... Evidence indeed does not support the commonly held view that (within a market economy) larger firms have greater dynamic efficiency. However, it does show that investment into R&D (especially by small firms) in market settings is substantially impacted by whether or not there are Intellectual Property Rights.
For me, this raises a natural question: In an Anarchist social context where there are no intellectual property rights, would a framework of cooperation/collectivization into larger firms be more dynamically efficient than competition between smaller firms? Let's look at the following...
(1) Evidence shows that, in general, Intellectual Property Rights have a substantial net negative impact on innovative efficiency:
To summarize, although only tentative conclusions can be drawn given the small number of empirical studies, the body of available empirical evidence suggests that patents may substantively hinder both subsequent scientific research and subsequent product development. Across a relatively heterogeneous set of technologies within the life sciences, and examining various forms of intellectual property rights, the available empirical evidence suggests that property rights hinder cumulative innovation—with declines on the order of 30 percent. Clearly much more work is needed in order to examine the extent to which these patterns generalize to other technologies and other forms of intellectual property, but the best available evidence suggests that mechanisms that reward innovation in a way that places the technologies in the public domain—such as patent buyouts—may have substantial benefits in terms of encouraging cumulative innovation, at least in some contexts.
(2) Evidence shows that firms - in the context of a market economy - invest less in R&D without the presence of Intellectual Property Rights of some form.
So to summarize, IP generally has a substantial net negative impact on dynamic efficiency but in the context of a market economy IP is necessary to incentivize firms to invest adequately into R&D.
Based on this we can argue that in an Anarchist social context, a non-market framework (involving decentralized planning and gift economy dynamics) of cooperation/collectivization into larger firms is likely to be more dynamically efficient than a market framework of competition between multiple smaller firms. This means that replacing markets with cooperative/collectivized dynamics will likely improve dynamic efficiency - the opposite of what the market anarchists I have discussed this issue with claim.
I have had a discussion with a market anarchist who argued that certain kinds of tasks will not be adequately completed without monetary incentive - particularly tasks that are unpleasant or those which people do not enjoy.
However, this ignores the historical and contemporary evidence of Anarchists accomplishing these tasks without monetary incentive - see below:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc53
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives#toc57
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc24
(A) First, here is the simplified logic behind why I find Marx's Law of Value Compelling as compared to Subjective Value Theory:
(i) The function of markets is to optimize supply and demand so that resources are allocated efficiently. An efficient allocation of resources enables future reproduction and growth of an economy. When the market suddenly undoes the very allocation of supply to fulfill demand that it had previously built up such that the economy subsequently shrinks, the previous build up can be thought of as a market failure. Hence the process by which prices plummet (along with all the subsequent effects) until the market can reorient to start growing the economy again, can be accurately called "correction". Given that prices can be incorrect such that they require "correction", price and value cannot be the same thing.
(ii) A bubble bursts in the economy when previously inflated prices are corrected. (Note that "correction" is not my own term, but a term frequently used to describe such phenomena in economics.)
(iii) The only way to make sense of this is that prices originally (prior to the bubble bursting) deviated from values too much.
(iv) If it is the case that prices can deviate too much from values while prices are derived from the interplay of various actors' marginal utilities, value cannot be subjective. There must be an objective substance of value around which prices can deviate (to an extent).
(v) Therefore, STV is invalid as a theory of value.
(vi) Having accepted this logic, it follows that we require an objective theory of value as opposed to a subjective theory of value. Now the question becomes: What should this objective theory of value be?
(vii) An objective theory of value must express value as being comprised of some definable substance(s).
(viii) Given that we have established value as something objective rather than subjective, it must be possible for commodities to be exchanged in such a way that there is equal Value on both sides of an exchange.
(ix) In order for things to have equal value, the substance of value must be some characteristic that all commodities share but also separates them from non-commodities.
(x) The only such characteristic is that they can all be produced by simple/"unskilled" human labor.
(xi) Therefore, expressing the value of a commodity must be done in units of simple/"unskilled" human labor.
(B) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some market anarchists find Marx's Law of Value uncompelling as a result of the Transformation Problem. My response is to look into TSSI, which has made it clear that the Transformation Problem is a non-issue.
The reason this is important is that if you agree with Marx's Law of Value, then you necessarily would find worker cooperatives and market socialism of any variety (including market anarchism) highly problematic due to Self-Exploitation.
submitted by PerfectSociety to CapitalismVSocialism [link] [comments]

An extensive guide for cashing out bitcoin and cryptocurrencies into private banks

Hey guys.
Merry Xmas !
I am coming back to you with a follow up post, as I have helped many people cash out this year and I have streamlined the process. After my original post, I received many requests to be more specific and provide more details. I thought that after the amazing rally we have been attending over the last few months, and the volatility of the last few days, it would be interesting to revisit more extensively.
The attitude of banks around crypto is changing slowly, but it is still a tough stance. For the first partial cash out I operated around a year ago for a client, it took me months to find a bank. They wouldn’t want to even consider the case and we had to knock at each and every door. Despite all my contacts it was very difficult back in the days. This has changed now, and banks have started to open their doors, but there is a process, a set of best practices and codes one has to follow.
I often get requests from crypto guys who are very privacy-oriented, and it takes me months to have them understand that I am bound by Swiss law on banking secrecy, and I am their ally in this onboarding process. It’s funny how I have to convince people that banks are legit, while on the other side, banks ask me to show that crypto millionaires are legit. I have a solid background in both banking and in crypto so I manage to make the bridge, but yeah sometimes it is tough to reconcile the two worlds. I am a crypto enthusiast myself and I can say that after years of work in the banking industry I have grown disillusioned towards banks as well, like many of you. Still an account in a Private bank is convenient and powerful. So let’s get started.
There are two different aspects to your onboarding in a Swiss Private bank, compliance-wise.
*The origin of your crypto wealth
*Your background (residence, citizenship and probity)
These two aspects must be documented in-depth.
How to document your crypto wealth. Each new crypto millionaire has a different story. I may detail a few fun stories later in this post, but at the end of the day, most of crypto rich I have met can be categorized within the following profiles: the miner, the early adopter, the trader, the corporate entity, the black market, the libertarian/OTC buyer. The real question is how you prove your wealth is legit.
1. Context around the original amount/investment Generally speaking, your first crypto purchase may not be documented. But the context around this acquisition can be. I have had many cases where the original amount was bought through Mtgox, and no proof of purchase could be provided, nor could be documented any Mtgox claim. That’s perfectly fine. At some point Mtgox amounted 70% of the bitcoin transactions globally, and people who bought there and managed to withdraw and keep hold of their bitcoins do not have any Mtgox claim. This is absolutely fine. However, if you can show me the record of a wire from your bank to Tisbane (Mtgox's parent company) it's a great way to start.
Otherwise, what I am trying to document here is the following: I need context. If you made your first purchase by saving from summer jobs, show me a payroll. Even if it was USD 2k. If you acquired your first bitcoins from mining, show me the bills of your mining equipment from 2012 or if it was through a pool mine, give me your slushpool account ref for instance. If you were given bitcoin against a service you charged, show me an invoice.
2. Tracking your wealth until today and making sense of it. What I have been doing over the last few months was basically educating compliance officers. Thanks God, the blockchain is a global digital ledger! I have been telling my auditors and compliance officers they have the best tool at their disposal to lead a proper investigation. Whether you like it or not, your wealth can be tracked, from address to address. You may have thought all along this was a bad feature, but I am telling you, if you want to cash out, in the context of Private Banking onboarding, tracking your wealth through the block explorer is a boon. We can see the inflows, outflows. We can see the age behind an address. An early adopter who bought 1000 BTC in 2010, and let his bitcoin behind one address and held thus far is legit, whether or not he has a proof of purchase to show. That’s just common sense. My job is to explain that to the banks in a language they understand.
Let’s have a look at a few examples and how to document the few profiles I mentioned earlier.
The trader. I love traders. These are easy cases. I have a ton of respect for them. Being a trader myself in investment banks for a decade earlier in my career has taught me that controlling one’s emotions and having the discipline to impose oneself some proper risk management system is really really hard. Further, being able to avoid the exchange bankruptcy and hacks throughout crypto history is outstanding. It shows real survival instinct, or just plain blissed ignorance. In any cases traders at exchange are easy cases to corroborate since their whole track record is potentially available. Some traders I have met have automated their trading and have shown me more than 500k trades done over the span of 4 years. Obviously in this kind of scenario I don’t show everything to the bank to avoid information overload, and prefer to do some snacking here and there. My strategy is to show the early trades, the most profitable ones, explain the trading strategy and (partially expose) the situation as of now with id pages of the exchanges and current balance. Many traders have become insensitive to the risk of parking their crypto at exchange as they want to be able to trade or to grasp an occasion any minute, so they generally do not secure a substantial portion on the blockchain which tends to make me very nervous.
The early adopter. Provided that he has not mixed his coin, the early adopter or “hodler” is not a difficult case either. Who cares how you bought your first 10k btc if you bought them below 3$ ? Even if you do not have a purchase proof, I would generally manage to find ways. We just have to corroborate the original 30’000 USD investment in this case. I mainly focus on three things here:
*proof of early adoption I have managed to educate some banks on a few evidences specifically related to crypto markets. For instance with me, an old bitcointalk account can serve as a proof of early adoption. Even an old reddit post from a few years ago where you say how much you despise this Ripple premined scam can prove to be a treasure readily available to show you were early.
*story telling Compliance officers like to know when, why and how. They are human being looking for simple answers to simple questions and they don’t want like to be played fool. Telling the truth, even without a proof can do wonders, and even though bluffing might still work because banks don’t fully understand bitcoin yet, it is a risky strategy that is less and less likely to pay off as they are getting more sophisticated by the day.
*micro transaction from an old address you control This is the killer feature. Send a $20 worth transaction from an old address to my company wallet and to one of my partner bank’s wallet and you are all set ! This is gold and considered a very solid piece of evidence. You can also do a microtransaction to your own wallet, but banks generally prefer transfer to their own wallet. Patience with them please. they are still learning.
*signature message Why do a micro transaction when you can sign a message and avoid potentially tainting your coins ?
*ICO millionaire Some clients made their wealth participating in ETH crowdsale or IOTA ICO. They were very easy to deal with obviously and the account opening was very smooth since we could evidence the GENESIS TxHash flow.
The miner Not so easy to proof the wealth is legit in that case. Most early miners never took screenshot of the blocks on bitcoin core, nor did they note down the block number of each block they mined. Until the the Slashdot article from August 2010 anyone could mine on his laptop, let his computer run overnight and wake up to a freshly minted block containing 50 bitcoins back in the days. Not many people were structured enough to store and secure these coins, avoid malwares while syncing the blockchain continuously, let alone document the mined blocks in the process. What was 50 BTC worth really for the early miners ? dust of dollars, games and magic cards… Even miners post 2010 are generally difficult to deal with in terms of compliance onboarding. Many pool mining are long dead. Deepbit is down for instance and the founders are MIA. So my strategy to proof mining activity is as follow:
*Focusing on IT background whenever possible. An IT background does help a lot to bring some substance to the fact you had the technical ability to operate a mining rig.
*Showing mining equipment receipts. If you mined on your own you must have bought the hardware to do so. For instance mining equipment receipts from butterfly lab from 2012-2013 could help document your case. Similarly, high electricity bill from your household on a consistent basis back in the day could help. I have already unlocked a tricky case in the past with such documents when the bank was doubtful.
*Wallet.dat files with block mining transactions from 2011 thereafter This obviously is a fantastic piece of evidence for both you and me if you have an old wallet and if you control an address that received original mined blocks, (even if the wallet is now empty). I will make sure compliance officers understand what it means, and as for the early adopter, you can prove your control over these wallet through a microtransaction. With these kind of addresses, I can show on the block explorer the mined block rewards hitting at regular time interval, and I can even spot when difficulty level increased or when halvening process happened.
*Poolmining account. Here again I have educated my partner bank to understand that a slush account opened in 2013 or an OnionTip presence was enough to corroborate mining activity. The block explorer then helps me to do the bridge with your current wallet.
*Describing your set up and putting it in context In the history of mining we had CPU, GPU, FPG and ASICs mining. I will describe your technical set up and explain why and how your set up was competitive at that time.
The corporate entity Remember 2012 when we were all convinced bitcoin would take over the world, and soon everyone would pay his coffee in bitcoin? How naïve we were to think transaction fees would remain low forever. I don’t blame bitcoin cash supporters; I once shared this dream as well. Remember when we thought global adoption was right around the corner and some brick and mortar would soon accept bitcoin transaction as a common mean of payment? Well, some shop actually did accept payment and held. I had a few cases as such of shops holders, who made it to the multi million mark holding and had invoices or receipts to proof the transactions. If you are organized enough to keep a record for these trades and are willing to cooperate for the documentation, you are making your life easy. The digital advertising business is also a big market for the bitcoin industry, and affiliates partner compensated in btc are common. It is good to show an invoice, it is better to show a contract. If you do not have a contract (which is common since all advertising deals are about ticking a check box on the website to accept terms and conditions), there are ways around that. If you are in that case, pm me.
The black market Sorry guys, I can’t do much for you officially. Not that I am judging you. I am a libertarian myself. It’s just already very difficult to onboard legit btc adopters, so the black market is a market I cannot afford to consider. My company is regulated so KYC and compliance are key for me if I want to stay in business. Behind each case I push forward I am risking the credibility and reputation I have built over the years. So I am sorry guys I am not risking it to make an extra buck. Your best hope is that crypto will eventually take over the world and you won’t need to cash out anyway. Or go find a Lithuanian bank that is light on compliance and cooperative.
The OTC buyer and the libertarian. Generally a very difficult case. If you bought your stack during your journey in Japan 5 years ago to a guy you never met again; or if you accumulated on https://localbitcoins.com/ and kept no record or lost your account, it is going to be difficult. Not impossible but difficult. We will try to build a case with everything else we have, and I may be able to onboard you. However I am risking a lot here so I need to be 100% confident you are legit, before I defend you. Come & see me in Geneva, and we will talk. I will run forensic services like elliptic, chainalysis, or scorechain on an extract of your wallet. If this scan does not raise too many red flags, then maybe we can work together ! If you mixed your coins all along your crypto history, and shredded your seeds because you were paranoid, or if you made your wealth mining professionally monero over the last 3 years but never opened an account at an exchange. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I am not a magician and don’t get me wrong, I love monero, it’s not the point.
Cashing out ICOs Private companies or foundations who have ran an ICO generally have a very hard time opening a bank account. The few banks that accept such projects would generally look at 4 criteria:
*Seriousness of the project Extensive study of the whitepaper to limit the reputation risk
*AML of the onboarding process ICOs 1.0 have no chance basically if a background check of the investors has not been conducted
*Structure of the moral entity List of signatories, certificate of incumbency, work contract, premises...
*Fiscal conformity Did the company informed the authorities and seek a fiscal ruling.
For the record, I am not into the tax avoidance business, so people come to me with a set up and I see if I can make it work within the legal framework imposed to me.
First, stop thinking Switzerland is a “offshore heaven” Swiss banks have made deals with many governments for the exchange of fiscal information. If you are a French citizen, resident in France and want to open an account in a Private Bank in Switzerland to cash out your bitcoins, you will get slaughtered (>60%). There are ways around that, and I could refer you to good tax specialists for fiscal optimization, but I cannot organize it myself. It would be illegal for me. Swiss private banks makes it easy for you to keep a good your relation with your retail bank and continue paying your bills without headaches. They are integrated to SEPA, provide ebanking and credit cards.
For information, these are the kind of set up some of my clients came up with. It’s all legal; obviously I do not onboard clients that are not tax compliant. Further disclaimer: I did not contribute myself to these set up. Do not ask me to organize it for you. I won’t.
EU tricks
Swiss lump sum taxation Foreign nationals resident in Switzerland can be taxed on a lump-sum basis if they are not gainfully employed in our country. Under the lump-sum tax regime, foreign nationals taking residence in Switzerland may choose to pay an expense-based tax instead of ordinary income and wealth tax. Attractive cantons for the lump sum taxation are Zug, Vaud, Valais, Grisons, Lucerne and Berne. To make it short, you will be paying somewhere between 200 and 400k a year and all expenses will be deductible.
Switzerland has adopted a very friendly attitude towards crypto currency in general. There is a whole crypto valley in Zug now. 30% of ICOs are operated in Switzerland. The reason is that Switzerland has thrived for centuries on banking secrecy, and today with FATCA and exchange of fiscal info with EU, banking secrecy is dead. Regulators in Switzerland have understood that digital ledger technologies were a way to roll over this competitive advantage for the generations to come. Switzerland does not tax capital gains on crypto profits. The Finma has a very pragmatic approach. They have issued guidance- updated guidelines here. They let the business get organized and operate their analysis on a case per case basis. Only after getting a deep understanding of the market will they issue a global fintech license in 2019. This approach is much more realistic than legislations which try to regulate everything beforehand.
Italy new tax exemption. It’s a brand new fiscal exemption. Go to Aoste, get residency and you could be taxed a 100k/year for 10years. Yes, really.
Portugal What’s crazy in Europe is the lack of fiscal harmonization. Even if no one in Brussels dares admit it, every other country is doing fiscal dumping. Portugal is such a country and has proved very friendly fiscally speaking. I personally have a hard time trusting Europe. I have witnessed what happened in Greece over the last few years. Some of our ultra high net worth clients got stuck with capital controls. I mean no way you got out of crypto to have your funds confiscated at the next financial crisis! Anyway. FYI
Malta Generally speaking, if you get a residence somewhere you have to live there for a certain period of time. Being stuck in Italy is no big deal with Schengen Agreement, but in Malta it is a different story. In Malta, the ordinary residence scheme is more attractive than the HNWI residence scheme. Being an individual, you can hold a residence permit under this scheme and pay zero income tax in Malta in a completely legal way.
Monaco Not suitable for French citizens, but for other Ultra High Net worth individual, Monaco is worth considering. You need an account at a local bank as a proof of fortune, and this account generally has to be seeded with at least EUR500k. You also need a proof of residence. I do mean UHNI because if you don’t cash out minimum 30m it’s not interesting. Everything is expensive in Monaco. Real Estate is EUR 50k per square meter. A breakfast at Monte Carlo Bay hotel is 70 EUR. Monaco is sunny but sometimes it feels like a golden jail. Do you really want that for your kids?
Dubaï
  1. Set up a company in Dubaï, get your resident card.
  2. Spend one day every 6 month there
  3. ???
  4. Be tax free
US tricks Some Private banks in Geneva do have the license to manage the assets of US persons and U.S citizens. However, do not think it is a way to avoid paying taxes in the US. Opening an account at an authorized Swiss Private banks is literally the same tax-wise as opening an account at Fidelity or at Bank of America in the US. The only difference is that you will avoid all the horror stories. Horror stories are all real by the way. In Switzerland, if you build a decent case and answer all the questions and corroborate your case in depth, you will manage to convince compliance officers beforehand. When the money eventually hits your account, it is actually available and not frozen.
The IRS and FATCA require to file FBAR if an offshore account is open. However FBAR is a reporting requirement and does not have taxes related to holding an account outside the US. The taxes would be the same if the account was in the US. However penalties for non compliance with FBAR are very large. The tax liability management is actually performed through the management of the assets ( for exemple by maximizing long term capital gains and minimizing short term gains).
The case for Porto Rico. Full disclaimer here. I am not encouraging this. Have not collaborated on such tax avoidance schemes. if you are interested I strongly encourage you to seek a tax advisor and get a legal opinion. I am not responsible for anything written below. I am not going to say much because I am so afraid of uncle Sam that I prefer to humbly pass the hot potato to pwc From here all it takes is a good advisor and some creativity to be tax free on your crypto wealth if you are a US person apparently. Please, please please don’t ask me more. And read the disclaimer again.
Trust tricks Generally speaking I do not accept fringe fiscal situation because it puts me in a difficult situation to the banks I work with, and it is already difficult enough to defend a legit crypto case. Trust might be a way to optimize your fiscal situation. Belize. Bahamas. Seychelles. Panama, You name it. At the end of the day, what matters for Swiss Banks are the beneficial owner and the settlor. Get a legal opinion, get it done, and when you eventually knock at a private bank’s door, don’t say it was for fiscal avoidance you stupid ! You will get the door smashed upon you. Be smarter. It will work. My advice is just to have it done by a great tax specialist lawyer, even if it costs you some money, as the entity itself needs to be structured in a professional way. Remember that with trust you are dispossessing yourself off your wealth. Not something to be taken lightly.
“Anonymous” cash out. Right. I think I am not going into this topic, neither expose the ways to get it done. Pm me for details. I already feel a bit uncomfortable with all the info I have provided. I am just going to mention many people fear that crypto exchange might become reporting entities soon, and rightly so. This might happen anyday. You have been warned. FYI, this only works for non-US and large cash out.
The difference between traders an investors. Danmark, Holland and Germany all make a huge difference if you are a passive investor or if you are a trader. ICO is considered investing for instance and is not taxed, while trading might be considered as income and charged aggressively. I would try my best to protect you and put a focus on your investor profile whenever possible, so you don't have to pay 52% tax if you do not have to :D
Full cash out or partial cash out? People who have been sitting on crypto for long have grown an emotional and irrational link with their coins. They come to me and say, look, I have 50m in crypto but I would like to cash out 500k only. So first let me tell you that as a wealth manager my advice to you is to take some off the table. Doing a partial cash out is absolutely fine. The market is bullish. We are witnessing a redistribution of wealth at a global scale. Bitcoin is the real #occupywallstreet, and every one will discuss crypto at Xmas eve which will make the market even more supportive beginning 2018, especially with all hedge funds entering the scene. If you want to stay exposed to bitcoin and altcoins, and believe these techs will change the world, it’s just natural you want to keep some coins. In the meantime, if you have lived off pizzas over the last years, and have the means to now buy yourself an nice house and have an account at a private bank, then f***ing do it mate ! Buy physical gold with this account, buy real estate, have some cash at hands. Even though US dollar is worthless to your eyes, it’s good and convenient to have some. Also remember your wife deserves it ! And if you have no wife yet and you are socially awkward like the rest of us, then maybe cashing out partially will help your situation ;)
What the Private Banks expect. Joke aside, it is important you understand something. If you come around in Zurich to open a bank account and partially cash out, just don’t expect Private Banks will make an exception for you if you are small. You can’t ask them to facilitate your cash out, buy a 1m apartment with the proceeds of the sale, and not leave anything on your current account. It won’t work. Sadly, under 5m you are considered small in private banking. The bank is ok to let you open an account, provided that your kyc and compliance file are validated, but they will also want you to become a client and leave some money there to invest. This might me despicable, but I am just explaining you their rules. If you want to cash out, you should sell enough to be comfortable and have some left. Also expect the account opening to last at least 3-4 week if everything goes well. You can't just open an account overnight.
The cash out logistics. Cashing out 1m USD a day in bitcoin or more is not so hard.
Let me just tell you this: Even if you get a Tier 4 account with Kraken and ask Alejandro there to raise your limit over $100k per day, Even if you have a bitfinex account and you are willing to expose your wealth there, Even if you have managed to pass all the crazy due diligence at Bitstamp,
The amount should be fractioned to avoid risking your full wealth on exchange and getting slaughtered on the price by trading big quantities. Cashing out involves significant risks at all time. There is a security risk of compromising your keys, a counterparty risk, a fat finger risk. Let it be done by professionals. It is worth every single penny.
Most importantly, there is a major difference between trading on an exchange and trading OTC. Even though it’s not publicly disclosed some exchange like Kraken do have OTC desks. Trading on an exchange for a large amount will weight on the prices. Bitcoin is a thin market. In my opinion over 30% of the coins are lost in translation forever. Selling $10m on an exchange in a day can weight on the prices more than you’d think. And if you trade on a exchange, everything is shown on record, and you might wipe out the prices because on exchanges like bitstamp or kraken ultimately your counterparties are retail investors and the market depth is not huge. It is a bit better on Bitfinex. It is way better to trade OTC. Accessing the institutional OTC market is not easy, and that is also the reason why you should ask a regulated financial intermediary if we are talking about huge amounts.
Last point, always chose EUR as opposed to USD. EU correspondent banks won’t generally block institutional amounts. However we had the cases of USD funds frozen or delayed by weeks.
Most well-known OTC desks are Cumberlandmining (ask for Lucas), Genesis (ask for Martin), Bitcoin Suisse AG (ask for Niklas), circletrade, B2C2, or Altcoinomy (ask for Olivier)
Very very large whales can also set up escrow accounts for massive block trades. This world, where blocks over 30k BTC are exchanged between 2 parties would deserve a reddit thread of its own. Crazyness all around.
Your options: DIY or going through a regulated financial intermediary.
Execution trading is a job in itself. You have to be patient, be careful not to wipe out the order book and place limit orders, monitor the market intraday for spikes or opportunities. At big levels, for a large cash out that may take weeks, these kind of details will save you hundred thousands of dollars. I understand crypto holders are suspicious and may prefer to do it by themselves, but there are regulated entities who now offer the services. Besides, being a crypto millionaire is not a guarantee you will get institutional daily withdrawal limits at exchange. You might, but it will take you another round of KYC with them, and surprisingly this round might be even more aggressive that the ones at Private banks since exchange have gone under intense scrutiny by regulators lately.
The fees for cashing out through a regulated financial intermediary to help you with your cash out should be around 1-2% flat on the nominal, not more. And for this price you should get the full package: execution/monitoring of the trades AND onboarding in a private bank. If you are asked more, you are being abused.
Of course, you also have the option to do it yourself. It is a way more tedious and risky process. Compliance with the exchange, compliance with the private bank, trading BTC/fiat, monitoring the transfers…You will save some money but it will take you some time and stress. Further, if you approach a private bank directly, it will trigger a series of red flag to the banks. As I said in my previous post, they call a direct approach a “walk-in”. They will be more suspicious than if you were introduced by someone and won’t hesitate to show you high fees and load your portfolio with in-house products that earn more money to the banks than to you. Remember also most banks still do not understand crypto so you will have a lot of explanations to provide and you will have to start form scratch with them!
The paradox of crypto millionaires Most of my clients who made their wealth through crypto all took massive amount of risks to end up where they are. However, most of them want their bank account to be managed with a low volatility fixed income capital preservation risk profile. This is a paradox I have a hard time to explain and I think it is mainly due to the fact that most are distrustful towards banks and financial markets in general. Many clients who have sold their crypto also have a cash-out blues in the first few months. This is a classic situation. The emotions involved in hodling for so long, the relief that everything has eventually gone well, the life-changing dynamics, the difficulties to find a new motivation in life…All these elements may trigger a post cash-out depression. It is another paradox of the crypto rich who has every card in his hand to be happy, but often feel a bit sad and lonely. Sometimes, even though it’s not my job, I had to do some psychological support. A lot of clients have also become my friends, because we have the same age and went through the same “ordeal”. First world problem I know… Remember, cashing out is not the end. It’s actually the beginning. Don’t look back, don’t regret. Cash out partially, because it does not make sense to cash out in full, regret it and want back in. relax.
The race to cash out crypto billionaire and the concept of late exiter. The Winklevoss brothers are obviously the first of a series. There will be crypto billionaires. Many of them. At a certain level you can have a whole family office working for you to manage your assets and take care of your needs . However, let me tell you it’s is not because you made it so big that you should think you are a genius and know everything better than anyone. You should hire professionals to help you. Managing assets require some education around the investment vehicles and risk management strategies. Sorry guys but with all the respect I have for wallstreebet, AMD and YOLO stock picking, some discipline is necessary. The investors who have made money through crypto are generally early adopters. However I have started to see another profile popping up. They are not early adopters. They are late exiters. It is another way but just as efficient. Last week I met the first crypto millionaire I know who first bough bitcoin over 1000$. 55k invested at the beginning of this year. Late adopter & late exiter is a route that can lead to the million.
Last remarks. I know banks, bankers, and FIAT currencies are so last century. I know some of you despise them and would like to have them burn to the ground. With compliance officers taking over the business, I would like to start the fire myself sometimes. I hope this extensive guide has helped some of you. I am around if you need more details. I love my job despite all my frustration towards the banking industry because it makes me meet interesting people on a daily basis. I am a crypto enthusiast myself, and I do think this tech is here to stay and will change the world. Banks will have to adapt big time. Things have started to change already; they understand the threat is real. I can feel the generational gap in Geneva, with all these old bankers who don’t get what’s going on. They glaze at the bitcoin chart on CNBC in disbelief and they start to get it. This bitcoin thing is not a joke. Deep inside, as an early adopter who also intends to be a late exiter, as a libertarian myself, it makes me smile with satisfaction.
Cheers. @swisspb on telegram
submitted by Swissprivatebanker to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

u/guysir was getting downvoted in this thread for constantly asking "Can you explain why someone would have the desire for Bitcoin to die?" So I put together a couple of pointers to help him (and others like him) to wake up and smell the coffee.

TL;DR:
If you just want a 3-minute (NSFW) video which explains why certain rich assholes don't want you to have nice things, here goes:
George Carlin - The big club (NSFW!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
Reference:
u/guysir has been asking a lot of questions like this:
Can you explain why [they] would have the desire for Bitcoin to die?
Edit: I like how I'm being downvoted for simply asking a question.
~ u/guysir
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qjw0o/small_blockers_want_even_smaller_blocks_o_o/dkxz7t3/?context=2
etc etc etc...
Below are some introductory lessons to help u/guysir grow up and face the reality of how the world actually works.
Lesson 1: Money doesn't grow on trees. Nor does it get mined from the ground very much anymore, as gold and silver. (Correction because I was half-asleep when I wrote that: Gold and silver still do get mined quite a bit of course - but most people don't use them day-to-day as money.) And gold and silver prices are probably heavily manipulated (suppressed) these days anyways - in order to prevent the value of fiat currencies (such as the USD, EUR, GBP, YEN) from collapsing.
So, where does money come from, in the modern world?
Bankers print unlimited supplies of money out of thin air (which they then give to their buddies).
That may sound somewhat surprising to someone who hasn't ever sat down and examined how the world actually works - but basically, it's the reality we do live in.
Exercise 1: Put on your thinking cap now for 30 seconds and try to imagine what your life would be like if you could "print money out of thin air" (and give it to your buddies).
OK, your 30 seconds are up.
Hopefully you realized that being able to "print money out of thin air" (and give it to your buddies) would give you immense power - correct?
This was just a simple exercise, and of course the politics and economics of the world as a whole are much more complicated - but hopefully at this point you have managed to finally grasp one basic concept:
The ability to print money (and give it to your buddies) confers great power.
So, as the saying goes: "Money makes the world go around."
And some lucky people (bankers) have arrogated to themselves the right to print money (which they then give to their buddies).
These buddies of theirs constitute a kind of exclusive club of mega-rich people who control all the essentials which you need to survive: mainly housing, education, healthcare.
Notice how the prices of these essentials are always going through the roof - while your salary stays pretty much stagnant.
And notice how you never have enough cash to buy these things outright using the little bit of cash money that you actually have.
So these people also control one other thing you need in life - credit.
Credit is actually just "money that you have to buy" (at a gigantic markup, called "interest") from those same mega-rich people in that "club", who happen to be lucky enough to be buddies with the bankers who "print up money out of thin air".
It's a very exclusive club, which runs the world - and you ain't in it.
Extracurricular Activity 1: Watch this short video by George Carlin for a vivid explanation of this "club" which you ain't in:
George Carlin - The big club (NSFW!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
Lesson 2: Bitcoin is "peer-to-peer electronic cash". One of the most important aspects of it is that there will only be 21 million bitcoins (or 21 trillion "bits" - where there are a million "bits" in 1 bitcoin).
Many people believe that one of the main reasons Satoshi designed Bitcoin this way (with a cap of 21 million bitcoins) was to take away the power of the bankers and their buddies to keep running the world by printing up money.
Exercise 2: Read as much as you can of the Bitcoin whitepaper, and the Bitcoin wiki. Since this is about economics, you can skip over the technical stuff about how this whole thing was programmed in C++ - and just focus on how it works at the level of economics.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
Another good site to read about the economic aspects of Bitcoin is Nakamoto Institute:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/
Again, you can skip the articles about C++ programming - and just focus on articles dealing with the economic (and social, and political) aspects of having a form of money which an exclusive club of rich bankers and their buddies can't simply print up and use to control your life.
Extracurricular Activity 2: Read (or watch a video) about The Creature from Jekyll Island or about the Federal Reserve - which explains how the current banking system in a powerful country (the USA) really works:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=creature+jekyll+island&t=hb&ia=web
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crature+from+jekyll+island
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=federal+reserve+conspiracy
Or, alternatively, read up on topics like the petrodollar, quantitative easing, fractional reserve, ZIRP and NIRP, the Austrian school of economics - to start understanding some of the more advanced topics of how a certain exclusive club of bankers arrogate to themselves the right to print money out of thin air (which they then hand out to their buddies, who then use this power to control your access to all the expensive essentials in life).
Yes, there's a lot of tinfoil or Illuminati stuff in there which could be just delusional paranoia - but there's also a lot of cold hard facts about where money comes from. And it doesn't come from trees - or out of the ground - instead, it just comes from bankers typing in numbers on a keyboard, and then handing out this freshly-printed money to their friends - who then use this "fiat" to control you.
Lesson 3: Do a search on this subreddit for "AXA" to learn more about this one particular company.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=axa&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
You will see that AXA isn't just any old insurance company or financial firm - it actually happens to be the second-most-connected financial company in the world.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
In addition, AXA is heavily involved in derivatives - in fact, it is the insurance company most heavily involved with derivatives:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/?ref=search_posts
Lesson 4: How do debt-based fiat currencies (and derivatives) work? And how could companies that depend on such "assets" (such as AXA) be negatively affected by Bitcoin?
Derivatives are basically the total opposite of Bitcoin, when it comes to something called "counterparty risk" .
Counterparty risk is the possibility that you might not get what's owed to you - because "your money" isn't actually in your hands, it's in someone else's hands, and all you have is a "claim" on what they're holding in their hands: in other words, they have a debt to you (a promise to pay you) - and you only get "your" money if that other "counterparty" actually pays their debt to you, or makes good on their promise to pay you.
Compare that to Bitcoin - which is basically one of the only "counterparty-free" assets in the world. If you have a bitcoin (ie, if you control your own private key), then you're not dependent on anybody to pay you. You already are holding your own "cash".
You've probably seen company balance sheets, with Assets (including Receivables) and Liabilities (including Payables) and Income and Expenses and Equity. To calculate how much the company "has", you just add up all the positive stuff (Assets and Receivables), then subtract all the negative stuff (Liabilities and Payables), and the difference is what the company "has": its Equity. (The Income and Expense accounts are just temporary accounts used for incoming and outgoing cash flows.) But a lot of what the company "has" also could involve "counterparties" - other entities who (in the future) will (hopefully) come through and pay what they promised to pay.
So there is risk here. Risk of not getting paid. Risk of breach of contract. Risk of credit default. Because most of these "assets" are not "counterparty-free". Your "net worth" on paper might be just that: on paper. In reality (if the people who promised to pay you end up never paying you), then your "net worth" could actually turn out to be much less than what it says "on paper".
Derivatives are just another layer built on top of that: they're basically "bets" about whether someone is actually going to get paid or not. (In fact, one of the most important types of derivatives are Credit Default Swaps - or CDOs - which are used to place "bets" on whether someone is going to default on their debts.)
So, a company like AXA (which is heavily involved in derivativs) is technically "rich" - but only "on paper". In reality, like most major financial firms, if you just looked at what they actually have "on hand", they'd probably literally be bankrupt.
This may sound shocking, but many economic experts have stated that a majority of the major financial firms around the world (including most major banks, and most major insurance firms such as AXA) are actually bankrupt - if you just look at the reality of what they actually have "on hand" (and not the "fantasy" of what they have "on paper").
So, in addition to the ability to print money out of thin air, there is this other strange aspect to the world's current financial system: many companies (mainly finance companies) would be considered bankrupt if viewed strictly in terms of what they have "on hand" ... but they're are able to parade around acting like they're mega-rich, based on what they have "on paper" (most of which is debt-based or derivatives-based).
Bitcoin coin is a major threat to the existing power system based on debt and dervatives - which AXA is at the absolute center of
So, the people who are supposedly "powerful", who run our world - their power comes from two sources:
  • Their ability to print up money out of thin air;
  • Debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper.
Bitcoin threatens the first item above.
And the global financial crisis which started in 2008 threatens the second item above.
In fact, Bitcoin itself also probably threatens the second item above too.
This is because as Bitcoin becomes worth more and more, those debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper become worth less and less, in relative terms.
And if the current financial crisis becomes acute again (like it did when another "systemically important" insurance company / derivatives "playa" went under: AIG)...
...then a lot of those numbers on balance sheets will get wiped out, written off - because people aren't paying up
...and so companies (including companies like AXA - in fact especially companies like AXA) might go belly up
...because they don't actually have any real money "on hand" - all they have is debt-based and derivatives-based numbers on paper.
So nearly all of the world's major banks and insurance companies - especially AXA - are on a mad, mad merry-go-round of debt and derivatives.
They're like someone with no cash, living on an almost-maxxed-out credit card - desperately hoping that the banks will lend give them more money (a/k/a "credit" - a/k/a debt), and terrified that the counterparties who owe them money will actually turn out to be in the same boat that they are: ie, bankrupt, deadbeats.
It's actually less like a merry-go-round, and more like a game of musical chairs: and nearly all the major banks and financial companies are terrified of what will happen if/when the music stops, and they're not able to scramble to find a chair - especially AXA.
AXA is the "second-most-connected" financial company in the world
AXA also has more derivatives than any other insurance company in the world - which means they're basically flat-broke, totally dependent on their "counterparties" in this "web of debt".
And derivatives aren't just some minor part of the world financial system. Actually, there is currently around 1.2 quadrillion dollars in derivatives - so derivatives are by far the biggest part of the world financial system.
Here's an infographic to give you an idea:
http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/
You'll notice that Bitcoin is also included on that infographic.
Maybe you look at it and think: Well, Bitcoin is so small, why would they be worried about it?
But size isn't everything.
Remember that (unlike nearly every other asset on that infographic) - bitcoin is "counterparty-free". (Also gold and silver are "counterparty-free".)
So gold, silver and bitcoin are a lot more "independent" than all the other so-called "assets" on that infographic. In fact, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that gold, silver and bitcoin are the only totally real assets on that infographic - and the rest of those assets are to some degree fake (since they could evaporate at any minute - unlike gold, silver and bitcoin, where your ownership is totally guaranteed).
Also, due to the "law of reversion to mean", something small on that infographic basically has only one direction it can go: towards getting bigger. We say that Bitcoin has a lot of "upside" for growth.
And something gigantic on that infographic also has one direction it can go: towards getting smaller. We say that derivatives have a lot of downside - derivatives might be in a bubble, or due for a crash.
And one way that could easily happen would be for billions of dollars (or trillions of dollars) to flow into Bitcoin - while flowing out of the other asset classes on that infographic.
Of course, in order for trillions of dollars to flow into Bitcoin...
We're gonna need a bigger blocksize.
And that's actually basically all we'd probably need - the software already runs fine, and (despite the propaganda from Blockstream and r\bitcoin), the network / hardware / infrastructure / bandwidth can already handle blocksizes of 4MB-8MB - so with things like Moore's law working in tandem with Metcalfe's law, it is quite reaonable to assume that in 8-10 years (after the next two Bitcoin "halvings") it is quite possible for 1 bitcoin to be worth 1 million US Dollars.
I did some rough growth projections here showing how feasible this actually is:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
So Bitcoin (with bigger blocks - not under the control of Blockstream or AXA) could be a serious competitor - or a threat - or a safe haven - or an "inversely correlated" asset class - versus all the other asset classes on that infographic.
Bitcoin is an alternative
Bitcoin is an alternative - an option people might turn to, if they decide to abandon the other options on that infographic.
So AXA - whose wealth and power depends on heavily on the derivatives shown in that infographic - might want to either see Bitcoin fail, or suppress Bitcoin, or eliminate it as an alternative, or simply control it somehow - just to make sure it doesn't "eat their lunch".
Remember that one of the tactics used by oppressors is to spread propaganda to brainwash you into giving up hope and believing that "There Is No Alternative".
Bitcoin is an alternative to the current messed-up financial system (which helps prop up bankrupt companies like AXA) - so for that reason alone it's enough for a company like AXA to want to eliminate or suppress or at least control Bitcoin. Not just by buying up some bitcoins - but by paying the devs who write the code that determines the blocksize which ultimately affects the price.
"Bitcoin users unaffected."
If/when the music stops in the game of debt- and derivatives-backed musical chairs that makes the world go 'round, some of the "systemically important" financial firms will be exposed as being bankrupt - and it is very, very likely that one of those firms could be AXA (just like AIG in 2008).
In all honesty, I have to admit that it's still not totally clear to me (or maybe to anyone) precisely how Bitcoin will ultimately impact this whole "web of debt". After all, this is the first time the world has ever had a digital, counterparty-free asset like Bitcoin. (Gold and silver are also counterparty-free - but they're not digital, so it's harder to store them and move them around.)
But one basic fact is certain: Bitcoin is really not a part of this whole "web of debt". Bitcoin stands quite outside this whole "web of debt". Bitcoin is "inversely correlated" to this whole "web of debt".
Bitcoin is an alternative.
Voice and Exit
If you feel like you don't have a voice / vote in the system, it's good to know that you can exit the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Balaji Srinivasan (founder of 21.co) on Voice and Exit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
Can we ever really know what AXA might be up to with Bitcoin?
Probably not - because it is unlikely that they would ever tell us.
But, we can make some rational guesses.
On some level, a lot of people whose wealth and power come from this whole "web of debt" are probably just reasoning as follows:
  • If/when this whole "web of debt" goes down, Bitcoin goes up. (This is already pretty much an established fact: money flees to "safe havens" like gold, silver and bitcoin when "traditional" investments go down.)
  • If/when Bitcoin goes up, then the importance and power (and credibility) of this whole "web of debt" goes down. (This makes sense: being counterparty-free, bitcoin is obviously a safer investment - and so it's worth more - and so all those other debt-based and derivatives-based investments become worth less, as bitcoin becomes worth more.)
  • If Bitcoin goes down (or totally goes away), then this whole "web of debt" will probably be able to hang on for a while longer. (This also be more of just just a conjecture - but it seems quite reasonable.)
Maybe they just want to keep you trapped in their system - by destroying (or suppressing) the alternative (Bitcoin) which gives you a chance to exit their system.
Some more posts about AXA and what they might be up to:
Anyways, there's a bunch of articles on btc about AXA and what they might be up to with Bitcoin:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=axa&restrict_sr=on
Finally, if you need some extra help dispelling the quaint notion that the people who run the world are honest and transparent and helpful, then the following two (admittedly highly conjectural) posts might help spell things out a bit more explicitly for you:
Blockstream may be just another Embrace-Extend-Extinguish strategy.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y8o9c/is_the_real_power_behind_blockstream_straussian/
The owners of Blockstream are spending $75 million to do a "controlled demolition" of Bitcoin by manipulating the Core devs & the Chinese miners. This is cheap compared to the $ trillions spent on the wars on Iraq & Libya - who also defied the Fed / PetroDollar / BIS private central banking cartel.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48vhn0/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_75_million/
Sorry I don't have any more time right now to "school" you further on this subject.
Ideally, learning should be a self-driven process anyways - once someone helps you get started.
Some advice
Finally, if I may give you some parting advice.
If you want to be truly respected on these forums, you're probably going to have to stop going around acting like such a doe-eyed innocent little pollyanna.
It is assumed that most people here already pretty much know the harsh reality of how the world works, and are trying to use Bitcoin as a way to not get screwed over by this harsh reality.
So some of the more informed people around here might not have much patience with you (or trust in you) if you don't even understand the basic principles outlined above, namely:
  1. Our planet is being run by an exclusive club of rich assholes who have immense power, because we "allow" them to print out money (which they then hand out to their buddies, not to us - basically enslaving us).
  2. Bitcoin was designed (many believe) to help fix this dire situation.
  3. The ancien régime (those people who up till now who have been running the world, due to their ability to print money) might not like Bitcoin for this reason, and might try to do something to stop it - and they might not tell you why they're doing it - and they might not even tell you that they are doing it in the first place!
Sorry to be such a curmudgeon, but pollyannas like you tend to get on my nerves after a while - not least because it seems to me that one of the factors which allows those rich assholes to continue to stay in power and run the world is because so many uninformed credulous people like you either can't or won't just wake up and open your goddamn eyes and see how you're getting fucked over by this whole "web of debt" based around that exclusive "club" of rich assholes who get free money which the bankers are simply printing up out of thin air.
So, 99% of people in the world are living lives of quiet desperation and oppression, becoming poorer and poorer - while the rich keep getting richer and richer (with all that money they keep printing out of thin air - which by the way, if you do the math, ends up making your money worth less) - and now there are finally some serious attempts at revolution or change afoot, to try to fix some of this mess - and you've just wandered in to a meeting where some of these people struggling for change are making plans, and you basically keep going around asking "What are you guys so worked up about?"
Maybe if you also realized that you are saying the exact same thing that the oppressors are always saying (basically some variation of "Nothing to see here, move on!") - then maybe that will provide another hint to you as to why some people have been less-than-totally-welcoming of your non-stop naïve-sounding questions.
Every subreddit has a topic - plus certain assumptions
For comparison: Would you wander around on a subreddit about fitness or weightlifting constantly asking: "Why do you want to get in shape?"? (Or maybe here's an even better comparison: Would you wander around on a subreddit for some oppressed group, and keep asking "Why would anyone be oppressing you?"?)
There are certain "givens" which are assumed on a subreddit - and one of the "givens" for a lot of people on this subreddit is that the current monetary regime running the world is not working for most people (or: it is oppressing most people), and so we need something better. (Also another one of the "givens" is that r\bitcoin is censoring everyone's posts - and that Blockstream is damaging Bitcoin.)
Nobody is forcing you to get into fitness or weightlifting - and nobody is forcing you to get into Bitcoin. Maybe you think your physique is already fine the way it is, so you don't see the point of fitness or bodybuilding - and maybe you think that VISA and PayPal and JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo and the Fed and the ECB or whatever are fine for you, so you don't see the point of Bitcoin. (Or maybe you were born a millionaire so you don't feel financially oppressed.) You're free to get involved or not get involved. Most people who are here are involved for some particular reason. And whatever that reason may be, it usually tends to involve using Bitcoin as it was designed in the whitepaper - in order to improve their lives. And part of this also means actually using Bitcoin as it was designed in the whitepaper - free of any interference from companies like Blockstream - or their financial backers AXA - who might not really want us to be able to use Bitcoin the way it was designed in the whitepaper.
In particular, it has been quite obvious for years to people on btc that the actions of r\bitcoin and Blockstream have been damaging to Bitcoin (whatever their actual motives may be - which we may ultimately never even be able to find out since they're probably never going to actually tell us) - but meanwhile we've had to fight tooth and nail to get a vast brainwashed army of pollyannas - a lot of whom quite frankly sound a lot like you - to understand that Satoshi did not design Bitcoin to work like this:
Every Core supporter wants to run their own node. Apparently to help banks settle transactions, instead of their own transactions.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qgy7s/every_core_supporter_wants_to_run_their_own_node/
Satoshi designed Bitcoin to work like this:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
We all have our own reasons for being here.
So hopefully that gives you some background regarding why many people are here on this subreddit in the first place, and what some of our goals and desires are.
We want to use Bitcoin - and we don't want the bankers funding Blockstream or the censors silencing r\bitcoin to get in our way.
We understand that Bitcoin is a disruptive technology which could be liberating and empowering for many of us in various ways.
We are realistic about the fact (ie, we take it as a "given") that certain powerful individuals or institutions might not want us to be empowered and liberated like this (maybe because their power depends on our enslavement).
And so we allow for the possibility that certain powerful individuals or institutions might be trying to stop us - and that they might not even have the courtesy to inform us that they are trying to stop us.
I should of course clarify that these are ultimately really only my reasons for being on this forum.
Other people may have their own reasons - some the same as me, and some different from me - and so I can only speak for myself.
It is important for all of us - me, you and everyone else - to have a clear understanding of why we are here.
In particular, if you - u/guysir - ever felt like giving people a brief explanation of why you are here - then that might help people understand why you keep asking the kind of questions you keep asking.
Why people are rejecting Blockstream's heavily modified version of Bitcoin - and sticking with Satoshi's original version of Bitcoin (now called Bitcoin Cash or BCC)
The above reasons are why many of us will not use AXA-owned Blockstream's Bitcoin.
We want to continue using Satoshi's original Bitcoin, now being renamed Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) - because we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of:
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Pied Piper coin was stupid, ICOs are mostly stupid, if Hendricks hadnt skipped the best parts of my Bitcoin presentation he'd know this. Monero (XMR) is the only way forward.

What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Pied Piper. It may label me “amoral” or even “depraved”. I realize and accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I do hope that Pied Piper will read everything I have to say before labeling me. I can think of no better place to start than by noting that Pied Piper has written more than its fair share of lengthy, overworded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances it conveniently overlooks the fact that for those of us who make our living trying to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad, it is important to consider that if Pied Piper truly believes that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
When we first began down the path of creating Piedpiper coin I presented Richard with an explanation of what Bitcoin was and why it was important. (http://www.piedpiper.com/app/themes/pied-pipedist/images/Gilfoyle_s_Crypto_PowerPoint_-_Digital_Edition.pdf) Richard Hendricks assumed he understood the basics and had me skip through the parts of my presentation that explained the goals of cryptocurrency as well as Aristotle's definition of "Sound Money" or the "Good Money". This is when we began down the dark path we find ourselves on today. Sound money is supposed to be fungible its value is "intrinsic to itself" This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself. So when we began issuing a utility coin backed by the contributions of our users to a peer to peer network Pied Piper already began the process of bastardizing cryptocurrency for our profit. Instead of creating sound money whose value was intrisic to itself we created and sold a compute token backed the contributions of users . This was fundamentally wrong we would get the money, we would keep to profit, we would keep the equity and the users would provide the ressoucres for it all. It was in effect a bastardization of the fair, durable, decentralized and self contained model in Bitcoin to the benefit of a centralized group of insiders piggybacking on the resources of others. When I examine the ramifications of letting Pied Piper siphon off scarce international capital intended for a fair durable crypto revolution, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it has announced its intentions to waste resources. While doing so may earn Pied Piper a gold star from the mush-for-brains fascism crowd, I cannot abide it. The Pied Piper network functioned perfectly well before we introduced a coin, we never needed a Pied Piper Coin. The nature of the Peer to Peer nature of the network meant we never really needed any middle men between users.
Now I find myself surrounded by people who's aligned self interest allows them to shamelessly shill overpriced computations to unsuspecting investors who dont know better. It allows them to move us further and further from the sound money Aristotle once described and closer to a distopian future. The problem as I see it is not a question of who the pronks of this society are but rather that if we are to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the abysmal and psychotic ideologies that Pied Piper promotes. Admittedly, Pied Piper's sense of intellectual superiority did drop off a bit once people started realizing that Pied Piper's behavior is marked by covetousness, ingratitude, selfishness, and cruelty. Unfortunately, its overconfidence and companion disdain for rational thinking have come back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in ill-natured beliefs, unenlightened denunciations, and deluded obiter dicta. Pied Piper has developed a toolkit, brand, and library of imagery and slogans to be used and adapted to the specific needs and agenda of any group that shares a desire to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this revolution of ours. It is much to be lamented that so few people are willing to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to move as expeditiously as possible to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on.
I have been a long time miner and now I find the only coins I can mine fairly without having to buy ASICs from Jian-Yang are those whose Algos are resistant to ASIC mining. These coins ( namely Monero) are fair and allows me to mine on the same servers I use for my other projects. It allows me to re-purpose my servers, used GPUs and smart fridge network to creating cryptocurrency in a way that is fully fair, it meets the criteria that allow it to be uncensored, durable, decentralized and above all fungible. The coins in Monero are all distributed fairly to the miners, no ICO, presale or premine that gives all the power to a select few like in all these ICOs. The crypto revolution lies with Monero not Pied Piper. I will therefore shortly release the source code for a fully decentralized and free to use version of Pied Piper under the name Peer Piper not attached to any coin. Sorry Pied Piper coin hodlers but I started this and now I have to end it.
submitted by GilfoyleXMR to Monero [link] [comments]

An Anarchist Case Against Markets

This post was inspired by a debate I had on this sub with a Market Anarchist, which stopped advancing beyond a certain point due to several impasses that we could never get beyond. It became frustrating for both of us after a while because we kept talking past each other.
I wanted to make this post in an effort to clearly explain the following: 1) What I mean when I say that I am "against markets", 2) Why I am against markets, 3) What mechanisms I think can serve as effective replacements for markets, and 4) Responses to common criticisms.
(Disclaimer: I am only pointing out problems with markets pertinent to the target audience of this sub that supports them - Market Anarchists. There is no need to make criticisms of market features that Market Anarchists do not endorse in the first place. This post is not intended to be a general or all-inclusive criticism of markets, because Market Anarchists are anti-capitalists anyway.)
"Against Markets"
I don't seek to "ban" markets in an anarchist social context (obviously, because I'm an Anarchist), but I seek to make them obsolete. This is what I mean when I say that I am "against markets".
The Problems with Markets (as they pertain to Market Anarchism) (in no particular order)
The authors investigate how worker-owned and capitalist enterprises differ with respect to wages, employment, and capital in Italy, the market economy with the greatest incidence of worker-owned and worker-managed firms. Estimates calculated using a matched employer-worker panel data set for the years 1982–94 largely corroborate the implications of orthodox behavioral models of the two types of enterprise. Co-ops had 14% lower wages than capitalist enterprises, on average; more volatile wages; and less volatile employment. Given the quality of the data set analyzed, the authors argue, these results can be regarded as having broad generality
(Note: Regarding the point about "less volatile employment" in favor of coops...this study was done comparing between capitalist firms and worker coops. The wages were largely reflective of wages for union members because the wages in capitalist firms regardless of whether the workers were union members or not were based on regional collective bargaining by the unions. However, (unlike with the wages) the job security is not reflective of job security for union members. While we can see that union wages are higher than income for workers working in cooperatives, we cannot make a meaningful comparison based on this study between union job security and coop job security.)
If you want an efficient market system for coordinating production and distribution, you need a flexible labor market. Unfortunately, a more flexible ("freer") labor market leads to reduced labor share of income even under worker ownership (Self-Exploitation). On the other hand, workers forming cartels (monopolizing/oligopolizing access the labor in their field) that restrict labor markets is the only way to halt the trend of decreasing labor share of income - this is essentially what the function of labor unions is. So you need labor cartels to prevent Labor self-Exploitation (in the Marxist sense), while these labor cartels will themselves either be impossible to enforce in the absence of authority (because of the equivalent of Scabs) OR even if they can be enforced without authority they will undermine the efficiency of the markets in your society (because cartels screw up the function of prices in a market).
Alternatives
Based on what is written below regarding ECP and HKP, there is no longer a reason (with regard to rational economic calculation or information) to think that decentralized planning and gift economy dynamics would be unable to entirely replace the role of markets.
Answers to Common Criticisms/Objections
I've been told this recently in an argument with a Market Anarchist. However, he never was able to explain specifically how and why these differences would manifest and on what basis one could claim that it would alter my calculus and conclusions above.
In that case you've massively restricted the potential scale and scope in which markets can have a role in the functioning of your economy. I suppose that's fine, but in that case I would ask the question: Why retain them at all? Why not seek to replace them entirely?
To put it simply, ECP just says that you need a mechanism that allows you to compare multiple possible allocation pathways for resources in order to know which allocation pathway is the most efficient use of resources. And HKP basically says that those who do a particular kind of activity in the economy learn the information relevant to that activity as they perform it. Furthermore, this information is disparate and best able to be extracted by lots of people individually doing particular activities that they focus on.
There's nothing inherent about a large firm that prevents this from happening more so than an aggregate of small firms playing the same role in aggregate as the large firm does by itself. Large firms that are run bottom-up and allow their members autonomy (as was the case of with each of the collectives/syndicates in Catalonia, in contrast to large firms in capitalism) can discover and disseminate this information at least as well as an aggregate of small firms playing the same role as the large firm by itself. As support for my claim, I reference The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff - a book that contains multiple empirical examples showing that collectivization of multiple separate firms (which had been engaging in exchange transactions with one another to form a supply chain prior to the Anarchist revolution in Spain) into singular firms of operation from start to finish across the entire supply chain, actually improved productivity, innovation within the production process, and distribution of end products. This actually addresses both HKP and ECP. As per Hume's Razor, we can therefore conclude that a reduction in the scope, role, and presence of intermediary exchange transactions/prices between steps in the supply chain neither results in reduced ability to acquire & disseminate information nor results in reduced economic efficiency. Furthermore (as per Hume's Razor), we can conclude that it is not the scope, role, or presence of prices/exchange transactions that enable either rational economic calculation or the acquisition & dissemination of knowledge. This is because (as per Hume's Razor) if it were true that prices/markets are necessary or superior to all other methods for efficient information discovery & dissemination as well as for rational economic calculation, it would not have been the case that we could have seen improvements in productivity, innovation, and distribution of end products in the aforementioned examples after substantially reducing (via collectivization/integration of various intermediary and competing firms) the role, scope, and presence of prices/markets within the economy.
The alternative explanation (one that is more credible after the application of Hume's Razor and keeping the aforementioned empirical examples in mind) is that optimally efficient information discovery & dissemination as well as rational economic calculation, are both possible in a non-market framework when individuals have autonomy and can freely associate/dissociate with others in the pursuit of their goals.
What's written above should be sufficient to address this objection as well. If it is not the scope, role, and presence of prices/exchange transactions that enable either rational economic calculation or the acquisition & dissemination of knowledge...then there is no basis upon which to argue there will necessarily be (from an information or rational economic calculation standpoint) more bureaucracy in aggregate in a society that has replaced markets, than there would be in a society that retains them.
However, there remains the objection that bureaucracy would exist to a larger extent due to the lack of competitive pressures against inefficiency. My response is to point out that empirical evidence from revolutionary Anarchist societies indicate strongly to the contrary. The role and presence of competition was greatly reduced while there was a simultaneous improvement in efficiency. As per Hume's Razor, we can therefore reject the notion that it is competition specifically that inherently prevents bureaucratic buildup in individual firms. It seems, from these empirical examples, that the best way to prevent bureaucracy is not through market competition between several small firms but through Anarchist praxis involving a lack of hierarchy and authority within large firms (recall that I often use the term "firm" to refer to collectives, syndicates, etc. for the purposes of this post), such that there is no ossified system of rank within the large firm. The absence of an ossified system of rank within firms is the true key to preventing the accumulation of bureaucracy within firms.
Note the three types of efficiency in the linked video - Allocative Efficiency, Productive Efficiency, and Dynamic Efficiency.
The evidence from Anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War (which I discussed above) indicates that Productive Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency was improved in various industries and communities where Anarchist collectivization took place. This trend only reversed and ended as the State undermined the Anarchists through various measures, such as cutting them off of currency that was needed to acquire resources from outside the Anarchist-controlled regions, using that leverage over currency to take over control of various industries away from the Anarchists, etc... Thus far, the market anarchists I have discussed this issue with have agreed on this point.
Where I have faced disagreement from market anarchists is on the issue of Dynamic Efficiency aka "Innovative Efficiency". Those whom I have discussed this with argue that markets optimize dynamic efficiency better than any other alternative.
My response is as follows... Evidence indeed does not support the commonly held view that (within a market economy) larger firms have greater dynamic efficiency. However, it does show that investment into R&D (especially by small firms) in market settings is substantially impacted by whether or not there are Intellectual Property Rights.
For me, this raises a natural question: In an Anarchist social context where there are no intellectual property rights, would a framework of cooperation/collectivization into larger firms be more dynamically efficient than competition between smaller firms? Let's look at the following...
(1) Evidence shows that, in general, Intellectual Property Rights have a substantial net negative impact on innovative efficiency:
To summarize, although only tentative conclusions can be drawn given the small number of empirical studies, the body of available empirical evidence suggests that patents may substantively hinder both subsequent scientific research and subsequent product development. Across a relatively heterogeneous set of technologies within the life sciences, and examining various forms of intellectual property rights, the available empirical evidence suggests that property rights hinder cumulative innovation—with declines on the order of 30 percent. Clearly much more work is needed in order to examine the extent to which these patterns generalize to other technologies and other forms of intellectual property, but the best available evidence suggests that mechanisms that reward innovation in a way that places the technologies in the public domain—such as patent buyouts—may have substantial benefits in terms of encouraging cumulative innovation, at least in some contexts.
(2) Evidence shows that firms - in the context of a market economy - invest less in R&D without the presence of Intellectual Property Rights of some form.
So to summarize, IP generally has a substantial net negative impact on dynamic efficiency but in the context of a market economy IP is necessary to incentivize firms to invest adequately into R&D.
Based on this we can argue that in an Anarchist social context, a non-market framework (involving decentralized planning and gift economy dynamics) of cooperation/collectivization into larger firms is likely to be more dynamically efficient than a market framework of competition between multiple smaller firms. This means that replacing markets with cooperative/collectivized dynamics will likely improve dynamic efficiency - the opposite of what the market anarchists I have discussed this issue with claim.
I have had a discussion with a market anarchist who argued that certain kinds of tasks will not be adequately completed without monetary incentive - particularly tasks that are unpleasant or those which people do not enjoy.
However, this ignores the historical and contemporary evidence of Anarchists accomplishing these tasks without monetary incentive - see below:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc53
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives#toc57
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc24
(A) First, here is the simplified logic behind why I find Marx's Law of Value Compelling as compared to Subjective Value Theory:
(i) The function of markets is to optimize supply and demand so that resources are allocated efficiently. An efficient allocation of resources enables future reproduction and growth of an economy. When the market suddenly undoes the very allocation of supply to fulfill demand that it had previously built up such that the economy subsequently shrinks, the previous build up can be thought of as a market failure. Hence the process by which prices plummet (along with all the subsequent effects) until the market can reorient to start growing the economy again, can be accurately called "correction". Given that prices can be incorrect such that they require "correction", price and value cannot be the same thing.
(ii) A bubble bursts in the economy when previously inflated prices are corrected. (Note that "correction" is not my own term, but a term frequently used to describe such phenomena in economics.)
(iii) The only way to make sense of this is that prices originally (prior to the bubble bursting) deviated from values too much.
(iv) If it is the case that prices can deviate too much from values while prices are derived from the interplay of various actors' marginal utilities, value cannot be subjective. There must be an objective substance of value around which prices can deviate (to an extent).
(v) Therefore, STV is invalid as a theory of value.
(vi) Having accepted this logic, it follows that we require an objective theory of value as opposed to a subjective theory of value. Now the question becomes: What should this objective theory of value be?
(vii) An objective theory of value must express value as being comprised of some definable substance(s).
(viii) Given that we have established value as something objective rather than subjective, it must be possible for commodities to be exchanged in such a way that there is equal Value on both sides of an exchange.
(ix) In order for things to have equal value, the substance of value must be some characteristic that all commodities share but also separates them from non-commodities.
(x) The only such characteristic is that they can all be produced by simple/"unskilled" human labor.
(xi) Therefore, expressing the value of a commodity must be done in units of simple/"unskilled" human labor.
(B) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some market anarchists find Marx's Law of Value uncompelling as a result of the Transformation Problem. My response is to look into TSSI, which has made it clear that the Transformation Problem is a non-issue.
The reason this is important is that if you agree with Marx's Law of Value, then you necessarily would find worker cooperatives and market socialism of any variety (including market anarchism) highly problematic due to Self-Exploitation.
submitted by PerfectSociety to DebateAnarchism [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Basics (Part 1) - What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ... My7Network BitCoins Explained Bitcoin Trading for Beginners (A Guide in Plain English ... Bitcoin Basics: Blockchain 101 (How It Works)

What is Bitcoin Summary. Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are documented on a virtual ledger called the blockchain, which is accessible for everyone to see.Bitcoin gives you complete control over your money, unlike other assets you own which are regulated by banks and governments. Bitcoin Trading Guide for Beginners. By: Ofir Beigel Last updated: 10/23/20 This post covers the basics of Bitcoin trading. It will help you get familiar with basic terms, understand different ways to “read” the market and its trend, make a trading plan, and learn how to execute that plan on Bitcoin exchanges.. Don’t Like to Read? Before diving into Bitcoin mining I would like to explain a few terms to help you relate to what I am talking about. Bitcoin Hash Function; Bitcoin uses the SHA-256, a mathematical function that takes an input of any size and produces a fixed-length output every time. The generated output is referred to as a hash or Bitcoin Hash. Bitcoin is one of those things that in the past several years has created a lot of buzz around the globe. Be it Brexit, or Donald Trump as the new US president, or India demonetizing their currency, dramatic economic events can be viewed in terms of Bitcoin.. In this beginner’s guide to Bitcoin, you will learn all of the basic, yet essential stuff related to Bitcoin. PDF Cryptocurrency, an encrypted, peer-to-peer network for facilitating digital barter, is a technology developed eight years ago. Bitcoin, the first... Find, read and cite all the research ...

[index] [39677] [10283] [24051] [33618] [4880] [32918] [43158] [31462] [39640] [26300]

Bitcoin Basics (Part 1) - "Explained For Beginners" - YouTube

http://www.seowebgeek.com/my7 Here is a clearer explanation of earning bitcoins through the My7 Network. Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... Get our free Bitcoin course here - https://chrisdunn.com/free-bitcoin-course This Bitcoin basics video series will explain Bitcoin for beginners. You'll lear... "Bitcoin Basics: Blockchain 101 (How It Works)" This is the start of a mini-series called "The Basics of Bitcoin", that will continue over the next few days! I hope you get alot of value out of ... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin trading is the act of buying low and selling high. Unlike investing, which means...

#