Bitcoin Is Good Idea, Almost All Bitcoiners Are Idiots ...

The White Dragon : A Canadian Dragon Portfolio

Alright guys, Ive been working on this for a while and a post on here by a guy describing his portfolio here was the final kick in the ass for me to put this together. I started writing this to summarize what Im doing for my friends who are beginners, and also for me to make some sense of it for myself
Hopefully parts of it are useful to you, and also ideally you guys can point out errors or have a suggestion or two. I'm posting this here as opposed to investing or canadianinvestor (blech) because they're just gonna tell me to buy an index fund.
This first section is a preamble describing the Canadian tax situation and why Im doing things the way that I am. Feel free to skip it if you dont care about that. Also, there might be mistake regarding what the laws are here so dont take my word for it and verify it for yourself please.
So here in Canada we have two types of registered accounts (theres actually more but whatver). There is the TFSA "Tax Free Savings Account", and RRSP "Registered Retirement Savings Account"
For the sake of simplicity, from the time you turn 18 you are allowed to deposit 5k (it changes year to year based on inflation etc)in each of them. That "room" accumulates retroactively, so if you haventdone anything and are starting today and you are 30 you have around 60k you can put in each of them. The prevailing wisdom is that you should max out the TFSA first and you'll see why in a minute.

TFSA is post tax deposits, with no capital gains or other taxes applied to selling your securities, dividends or anything else. You can withdraw your gains at any time, and the amount that you withdraw is added to the "room" you have for the next year. So lets say I maxed out my TFSA contributions and I take out 20k today, on January of next year I can put back in 20k plus the 5 or whatever they allow for that year. You can see how powerful this is. Theres a few limitations on what is eligable to be held in the TFSA such as bitcoin/bitcoin ETFs, overseas stocks that arent listed on NYSE, TSX, london and a few others. You can Buy to Open and Sell to Close call and put options as well as write Covered Calls.

The RRSP is pre-tax deposits and is a tax deferred scheme. You deposit to lower your income tax burden (and hopefully drop below a bracket) but once you retire you will be taxed on anything you pull out. Withdrawing early has huge penalties and isnt recommended. You are however allowed to borrow against it for a down payment as a first time home buyer. The strategy with these is that a youngperson entering the workforce is likely to be in a fairly low tax bracket and (hopefully) earns more money as they get older and more skilled so the RRSP has more value the greater your pre-taxincome is. You can also do this Self Directed. Its not relevant to this strategy but I included it for the sake of context.
Non registered accounts ( or any other situation, such as selling commercial real estate etc) is subject to a capital gains tax. In so far as I understand it, you add all your gains and losses up at the end of the year. If its a positive number, you cut that number IN HALF and add it to your regular pre-tax income. So if I made 60k from the dayjob and 20k on my margin account that adds up to 70k that I get taxed on. if its a loss, you carry that forward into the next year. Theres no distinction between long term and short term. Also physical PMs are treated differently and I'll fill that part in later once I have the details down.
The reason why all that babble is important is that my broker Questrade, which isnt as good as IB (the only real other option up here as far as Im aware) has one amazing feature that no other broker has: "Margin Power"
If you have a TFSA and a Margin account with them, you can link them together and have your securities in the TFSA collateralise your Margin account. Essentially, when it comes to the Maintenance Excess of the Margin Account QT doesnt care if its in the TFSA *or* the Margin!
You can see how powerful this is.
So as you can tell by the title, a lot of this is heavily inspired by Chris Cole's paper "The Allegory of the Hawk and the Serpent". You can read it here:
Between it, his interviews and my mediocre options skills at the time my mind was blown. Unfortunately I didnt know how to do the Long Volatility part until after the crash in March but I've since then had nothing but time to scour the internet and learn as much as I could.
The way I interpret this isnt necessarily "what you should have right now", but what abstracted model they were able to backtest that gave them the best performance over the 90 years. Also, a lot of my portfolio I already had before I started trying to build this.
As such my allocations dont match the proportions he gave. Not saying my allocations are better, just showing where they are at this time.
I'm going to describe how I do Long Volatility at the end rather than the beginning since the way *I* do it wont make sense until you see the rest of the portflio.

Physical PMs 22%
I'm not sure wether he intended this to be straight up physical gold or include miners and royalty streaming companies so I will just keep this as physical.
I consider Silver to be a non-expiring call option on gold, so that can live here too. I am actually *very* overweight silver and my strategy is to convert a large portion of it to gold (mostly my bars) to gold as the ratio tightens up.
If youre into crypto, you can arguably say that has a place in this section.
If an ETF makes sense for part of your portfolio, I suggest the Sprott ones such as PHYS. Sprott is an honest business and they actually have the metal they say they have. If you have enough, you can redeem your shares from the Royal Canadian Mint. The only downside is that they dont have an options chain, so you cant sell covered calls etc. Simple enough I suppose.
One thing to bear in mind, there is a double edged sword with this class of assets. They're out of the system, theyre nobody's business but your own and theres no counter party. That unfortunately means that you cant lever against it for margin or sell covered calls etc. You can still buy puts though (more on that later)

Commodity Trend (CTA) 10%
Patrick Ceresna gave a good presentation on what this strategy is. Until I watched this video I just thought it meant "buy commodities". A real CTA does this with futures also so aside from the way he showed, there are two other ETFs that are worth looking at.
COM - This is an explicit trend following ETF that follows a LONG/FLAT strategy instead of LONG/SHORT on a pile of commodity futures. So if they get a "sell" signal for oil or soybeans they sell what they have and go to cash.
COMT- Holds an assortment of different month futures in different commodities, as well as a *lot* of various related shares in producers. Its almost a one stop shop commodities portfolio. Pays a respectable dividend in December
If you want to break the "rules" of CTA, and include equities theres a few others that are also worth looking at
KOL- This is a coal ETF. The problems with it are that a lot of the holdings dont have much to do with coal. One of them is a tractor company. A lot of the companies are Chinese so theres a bit of a red flag.
Obviously Thermal Coal, the kind used for heating and powerplants isnt in vogue and wont be moving forward...but coking coal is used for steel manufacturing and that ain't going anywhere. The dividend is huge, pays out in December. A very very small position might be worth the risk.
Uranium- I'm in URA because thats the only way for me to get exposure to Kazatoprom (#1 producer), which is 20% of the holdings. The other 20% is Cameco (#2 producer)and then its random stuff.
Other than that I have shares in Denison which seems like its a good business with some interesting projects underway. I'm still studying the uranium space so I dont really have much to say about it of any value.
RSX- Russia large caps. If you dont want to pick between the myriad of undervalued, high dividend paying commodity companies that Russia has then just grab this. It only pays in December but it has a liquid options chain so you can do Covered Calls in the meantime if you want.
NTR- Nutrien, canadian company that was formed when two others merged. They are now the worlds largest potash producer. Pretty good dividend. They have some financial difficulties and the stocks been in a downtrend forever. I feel its a good candidate to watch or sell some puts on.
I'm trying to come up with a way to play agriculture since this new phase we're going to be entering is likely to cause huge food shortages.

EURN and NAT- I got in fairly early on the Tanker hype before it was even hype as a way to short oil but I got greedy and lost a lot of my gains. I pared down my position and I'm staying for the dividend.
If you get an oil sell signal, this might be a way to play that still.

Fixed Income/Bonds 10%

Now, I am not a bond expert but unless youre doing some wacky spreads with futures or whatever... I dont see much reason to buy government debt any more. If you are, youre basically betting that they take rates negative. Raoul Pal of Real Vision is pretty firm in his conviction that this will happen. I know better than to argue with him but I dont see risk/reward as being of much value.
HOWEVER, I found two interesting ETFs that seem to bring something to this portfolio
IVOL- This is run by Nancy Davis, and is comprised of TIPS bonds which are nominally inflation protected (doubt its real inflation but whatever) overlayed with some OTC options that are designed to pay off big if the Fed loses control of the long end of the yield curve, which is what might happen during a real inflation situation. Pays out a decent yield monthly
TAIL- This is a simpler portfolio of 10yr treasuries with ladder of puts on the SPX. Pays quarterly.

Equities 58% (shared with options/volatility below)
This is where it gets interesting, obviously most of this is in mining shares but before I get to those I found some interesting stuff that I'm intending to build up as I pare down my miners when the time comes to start doing that.
VIRT- I cant remember where I saw this, but people were talking about this as a volatility play. Its not perfect, but look at the chart compared to SPY. Its a HFT/market making operation, the wackier things get the more pennies they can scalp. A 4% dividend isnt shabby either.
FUND- This is an interesting closed end fund run by Whitney George, one of the principals at Sprott. He took it with him when he joined the company. Ive read his reports and interviews and I really like his approach to value and investing. He's kind of like if Warren Buffett was a gold bug. Theres 120 holdings in there, mostly small caps and very diverse...chicken factories, ball bearings all kinds of boring ass shit that nobody knows exists. Whats crucial is that most of it "needs to exist". Between him, his family and other people at Sprott they control 40% or so of the shares, so they definitely have skin in the game. Generous dividend.
ZIG- This is a "deep value" strategy fund, run by Tobias Carlisle. He has a fairly simple valuation formula called the Acquirer's Multiple that when he backtested it, is supposed to perform very well. He did an interview with Chris Cole on real Vision where he discusses how Value and Deep Value havent done well recently, but over the last 100 years have proven to be very viable strategies. If we feel that theres a new cycle brewing, then this strategy may work again moving forward.

I want to pause and point out something here, Chris Cole, Nassim Taleb and the guys at Mutiny Fund spend a lot of effort explaining that building a portfolio is a lot like putting together a good basketall team. They need to work together, and pick up each others slack
A lot of the ETFs I'm listing here are in many ways portfolios in and of themselves and are *actively managed*. I specifically chose them because they follow a methodology that I respect but I can't do myself because I dont have the skill, temperament or access to.
The next one is a hidden gem and ties into this. I'm not sure how much more upside there is in this one but man was I surprised.
SII- Sprott Inc. I *never* see people listing this stock in their PMs portfolios. A newsletter I'm subscribed to described this stock as the safest way to play junior miners. Their industry presence, intellectual capital and connections means that they get *the best* private placement deals in the best opportunities. I cant compete with a staff like theirs and I'm not going to try. I bought this at 2.50, and I liked the dividend. Since then they did a reverse split to get on the NYSE and like the day after the stock soared.
When it comes to mining ETFS I like GOAU and SILJ the best. None of their major holdings are dead weight companies that are only there because of market cap. I dont want Barrick in my portfolio etc.
SGDJ is a neat version of GDXJ.
Aside from that my individual miners/royalty companies are (no particular order)
RIO- Rio2 on the tsx, not rio tinto
Options/Volatility: varies
So this is where we get to the part about options, Volatility and how I do it. I started out in the options space with The Wheel strategy and the Tastytrade approach of selling premium. The spreads and puts I sell, are on shares listed above, in fact some of those I dont hold anymore.
Theres tons of stuff on this in thetagang and options so I wont go into a whole bunch (and you shouldnt be learning the mechanics from me anyway) but theres one thing I want to go over before it gets wild.
If I sell a Cash Secured Put, from a risk management perspective its identical to just buying 100 shares of the underlying security. You are equally "Short Vol" as well, it just that with options
its a little more explicit with the Greeks and everything. But if I use my margin that I was talking about earlier, then I can still collect the premium and the interest doesnt kick in unless Im actually assigned the shares.
But if I sell too many puts on KL or AG, and something happens where the miners get cut down (and lets be real, they all move together) my margin goes down and then I get assigned and account gets blown up
So what I need to do, is balance out the huge Short Vol situation in my portfolio, be net Long Vol and directly hedge my positions. Since the overwhelming majority of my equities are all tied to bullion this is actually a very easy thing to do.


So I set this up so the vast majority of my margin is tied up in these 1-2 or even 1-3 ratio put spreads that *I actually put on for a small credit*, and roll them every once in a while. I run them on SLV, and GDX.
I keep enough room on my margin so I can withstand a 10% drawdown before it sets off the long end of the spreads and then I can ride it out until it turns around and we keep the PM bull market going.
Theres another cool spread I've been using, which is a modified Jade Lizard; if already hold shares, I'll sell a put, sell a covered call, and use some of the premium to buy a longer dated call. Ive been running this on AG mostly.
I have a few more spreads I can show you but Im tired now so it'll have to wait for later.
As I said multiple times, I do intend to trim these miners later but now isnt the time for that IMO. I'm also monitoring this almost full time since I have an injury and have nothing better to do until I heal :p
submitted by ChudBuntsman to pmstocks [link] [comments]

White Swan came, Black Swan's a comin'

Like many here, I'm trying to come up with an investment thesis and a strategy for these uncertain times. I'm currently Bearish - have gone largely to cash, but want to invest in defensive plays because I see much more uncertainty ahead. So this long and rambling post is going to try to play with some ideas I've been having about the future. For the record, I've been investing for 8 years, was primarily an ETF buy and hold investor, and am Canadian, with a background in Political Science. ( I mean, I've got an undergraduate degree and a long-time interest, I'm no expert or nothing.)
I've read Nassim Taleb's Incerto series and have been mainly convinced, I think, and am surprised at the number of people who are calling this a Black Swan (BS) event; there's a post from today where a guy points out that it's not, and that Taleb himself says it's not and he got downvoted to hell. So first off: the Covid-19 pandemic was not a Black Swan. The Covid-19 pandemic, or one like it, has been predicted by damn near everybody for decades. The Obama administration even used a similar pandemic as a war game to get the Trump administration up to speed during the transition, Bill Gates called this years ago, we had a similar outbreak in SARS and H1N1, etc. Even if that wasn't the case, C19 would only be a BS for China - as a bunch of media sources have pointed out, there were US intelligence reports as far back as December saying this would be a huge deal, which were ignored by the administration. So all the suggestions that this is a BS event are really just pointing out how bad many governments, markets, and corporations are at predicting the future - they're unable to predict or prepare, or respond appropriately for a predictable event and only capable of reacting (with the exception of some countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany...)
Now with the market rallying the bulls are all saying "it's priced in, you can't fight the Fed, etc," and I'm thinking:
1) The emperor has no clothes; the US government is clearly incompetent. It couldn't even listen to it's own experts about the likely extent of the pandemic, had no plan or even seemingly the ability to be at all proactive. For example, an aircraft carrier had a port call in Vietnam, during the middle of a pandemic that started in Asia. Then, completely predictably, it had an outbreak of C19 and it's capabilities were badly damaged and the administration couldn't even properly help it's own ship, nor manage the public relations fallout that resulted. I mean, do you have any idea how insane it is that that ship was allowed to dock during a pandemic? One of the most powerful military devices that ever existed got taken off line cause the administration couldn't understand it's own intelligence.
This incompetence isn't limited to the US of course - the UK handled their initial response badly and had to switch horses mid-race, Canada lagged badly responding as well, Italy and Spain mismanaged their response - but I'd argue that the US, given their advantages in intelligence collection, should have been best positioned to deal with this crisis so I focus on them.
2) Because of this, I think the odds of a real Black Swan event have gone up considerably, and if one does occur, it will occur when the US is historically divided and weakened and where it's economic system is out of ammunition to deal with a second crisis. I'll explain:
We have been living at at time when major geopolitical disruptions have been absent - while proxy wars and minor terrorist attacks still occur, there's been no wars between great powers for some time, and I think many have come to see this as natural; that the unipolar world will continue. But Russia is resurgent, China has a 50 year plan to grow its economy and eventually take a place as a hegemon, which may be entering end-game, and much of the Western international community has grown uncomfortable with US leadership, given the American tendency to elect incompetent Republicans. So we're likely entering an era of uncertainty and increased instability as the contenders vie for status in the new international order.
This doesn't mean war or open combat - it's become a cliche that the new wars of the 21st century are economic ones, and, given nuclear proliferation that's likely to continue. And I think we're more likely to see significant economic combat in the next 6 months than at almost any time during the last decade, because: 1) Trump is incompetent (and here I should stop just shitting on Republicans... the Dems have picked a 77 year old half senile fool to go up against him. I mean, looking at the two guys contending for the leadership of the most powerful country that has ever existed, it's hard to come away thinking that this is the sign of a healthy political system.)
2)America is weak (relatively speaking obviously, they're still the undisputed big swinging dick) and divided.
3)Because of C19 hits to economy, Trump may not be re-elected. I suspect that if it looked likely that he's re-elected, China at least would be content to sit quiet and wait for 4 more years of dumbasserry to take its toll on US hegemony - similarly with Russia. But if it looks like he'll lose come November, they'll take advantage.
What would that economic war look like? Lots of options that I see, and I'm curious if you guys see other ones. I mean, what would it look like if China dumped treasuries over the next 7 months? Or what would happen if China and Russia, or even OPEC+ decided to trade oil in non-US dollars? Or what if China leverages foreign aid to African and Asian countries hard-hit by C19 for long term trade deals designed to damage US interests? Iran and North Korea are additionally wild cards, and if either one is hard hit by C19 could go down flailing with unpredictable results. Any others I'm missing? Curious to hear other's ideas.
Now, note I'm not saying that odds of economic war with China or any other US adversary are likely; I'm saying if the odds of a geopolitical Black Swan were usually 5% in any given year of the last twenty, I suspect the odds of a major BS have gone up 4 or 5 fold - so like 20-30%. And I'm wondering, given unlimited QE, zero interest rates almost everywhere, central banks everywhere supporting stock and currency markets, etc -- what a defensive portfolio, preferably one that's still exposed to positive black swans like a sudden cure, would look like. Is it gold or silver? Cash? Bitcoin? I've already got enough guns and bullets and a bunker... just kidding about the bunker.
But seriously, I'm thinking something like 10-20% PMs and miners, 20% cash, 20% bonds and the rest equity ETFs of some countries likely to benefit from a stronger and more dominant China, like South Korea and Australia. Given Chinese dishonesty and the opacity of the financial system, investing directly in Chinese companies makes me nervous, though I've been considering a stake in BABA. Canada, it seems to me, is too joined at the hip with the USA to do anything other than follow where it goes.
Anyways, if you stuck with me through all that, thanks and I'd love to hear other's thoughts. I'm absolutely not a prepper nor prone to panic -- I just think we're living in real interesting times and the times are likely to get interestinger in the near future.
submitted by Davidallencoen to investing [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Classic hard fork causes chaos on /r/Bitcoin! Luke-Jr complains about "blatant lies from a new altcoin calling itself Bitcoin Classic", reveals his ignorance on 2 basic aspects of Bitcoin governance! Theymos deletes top post by E Vorhees, mod StarMaged undeletes it, Theymos fires StarMaged!

TL;DR: There's so much chaos going on right now over at /Bitcoin that it's hard to keep up. All because the new repo Bitcoin Classic got announced and people liked it. (And a couple of days ago CoinBase announced they were testing another repo, XT.)
Here's a a quick summary of the drama at /Bitcoin regarding Bitcoin Classic, with some links:
Gavin Andresen and industry leaders join together under Bitcoin Classic client - Hard Fork to 2MB
This is just sad, luke-jr already calling Bitcoin Classic an altcoin
Censored: front page thread about Bitcoin Classic
StarMaged no longer a mod on /bitcoin
Here's some further analysis of the whole mess:
Luke-Jr stamping his feet and revealing his ignorance about two basic concepts of Bitcoin governance
Luke-Jr apparently seems to believe that if devs want to fork away from Core, they must first:
How clueless can Luke-Jr be?
He can't seem to grasp the fact that the Bitcoin Classic devs disagree with the Core devs - which is why they're forking a new, independent repo,away from Core. To give users a choice among Bitcoin clients.
Devs who want to work on Bitcoin Classic obviously don't need permission from Core. They're totally separate repos. "Decentralized development" and all.
But poor Luke-Jr, living in his bubble, with his centralized, top-down, authoritarian worldview, just can't seem to wrap his head around these simple and obvious facts:
As a new Bitcoin dev team, Bitcoin Classic can have its own series of BIPs ("BCLIPs"?).
And Bitcoin Classic can get consensus among its own devs - and also, among its users - an area where Core / Blockstream devs have been doing a horrible job, because:
By the way, Peter Todd evidently knows way more about Bitcoin governance than Luke-Jr
Peter Todd actually understands these basic concepts about Bitcoin governance. Maybe he could give Luke-Jr some remedial coaching to get him up to speed on this complicated stuff?
Peter Todd: If consensus among devs can't be reached, it's certainly more productive if the devs who disagree present themselves as a separate team with different goals; trying to reach consensus within the same team is silly given that the goals of the people involved are so different.
Bitcoin Classic gets off to a strong start; /Bitcoin descends into chaos
The new repo Bitcoin Classic has gotten off to a strong start, because it gives miners what they want.
Meanwhile, /Bitcoin is starting to descend into chaos over the whole thing.
The problem for /Bitcoin is that a repo has finally come along which actually provides some simple, popular and robust short-term and long-term scaling solutions that most stakeholders are in agreement about.
Bitcoin Classic didn't stumble upon this by accident. Their team already includes two key members:
  • jtoomim, a minecoder who's been testing sofware and talking to users on both sides of the Great Firewall of China for several months now, so he can be sure he's giving them what they actually want.
  • gavinandresen, a highly respected coder who Satoshi originally handed control of the first Bitcoin repo over to (before Blockstream hijacked it). Gavin is well-known for his firm belief that users (not devs) should have control. He has already confirmed that he's going to work on Bitcoin Classic. And he's also stated that his "new favorite max-blocksize scaling propsal" is BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit (instead of BIP 101).
BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit
BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit seems to be the first blocksize proposal with good chances for achieving consensus among users, because offers the following advantages:
(1) It's simple and easy to understand;
(2) It starts off with a tiny bump to 2 MB, which miners are already in consensus about;
(2) "It makes it clear that miners are in control, not devs";
(4) It has a robust, responsive roadmap for scaling long-term, with "max blocksize" based on the median of previous actual block sizes (or possibly some other algorithm which the community might decide upon).
The key feature of Bitcoin Classic is that it puts users in control - not devs
So Bitcoin Classic has gotten off to a great start right out of the gate, due to the involvement of JToomim and Gavin who have been writing code and running tests and - perhaps most importantly - listening to users, to make sure this repo gives them what they want.
A lot of what Bitcoin Classic is about isn't so much this or that specific spec. First and foremost, it's about "making it clear that miners are in control, not devs".
As you might imagine, this kind of democratic approach is driving /Bitcoin crazy.
/Bitcoin doesn't know what to do about Bitcoin Classic
After living in their faraway bubble of censorship for the past year, ruled by a tyrant and surrounded by yes-men and trolls, twisting themselves into contortions trying to redefine "altcoins" and "forks" and "consensus", the guys over at /Bitcoin now find themselves totally unable to figure out what to do, now that the Bitcoin user community is finally getting excited about a new repo offering simple and popular scaling solutions.
The guys over at /Bitcoin simply have no idea how to handle this, now that "consensus" looks like it might be starting to form around a repo which they don't control.
Well, what did they expect? How could consensus ever form on their forum when they don't allow anyone to debate anything over there? Did they think it was just going to magically to drop out of the sky engraved on stone tablets or something?
Anyways, here's a summary of some of the chaos happening over at /Bitcoin this past week - first due to Coinbase daring to test the Bitcoin XT repo, and second due to the Bitcoin Classic repo getting announced:
/Bitcoin goes into meltdown over CoinBase testing XT
  • CoinBase states in their blog that they were testing the Bitcoin XT repo (which competes with Core), so that they would be able to continue serving their customers without interruption in case of a fork;
  • Theymos throws a fit and removes Coinbase from;
  • A thread on Core's GitHub repo goes up and get 95% ACKs saying that CoinBase should be un-removed;
  • Theymos forces Charlie Lee to go through one of those Communist-style "rehabilitations" where he has to sign one of those public "confessions" you used to see political prisoners in dictatorships forced into;
  • Theymos un-removes Coinbase from - spewing his usual nonsense and getting massively downvoted as usual;
  • Finally, a pull-request goes up up on Core's Github repo where they say they're officially distancing themselves from (and will probably getting their own site).
So over the course of a couple days Theymos has managed to alienate one of the largest licensed Bitcoin financial institutions in the USA, and seems to have caused some kind of split to start forming between Core and /Bitcoin.
/Bitcoin goes into meltdown over Bitcoin Classic forking away from Core
  • SatoshisCat makes a post in /Bitcoin about Bitcoin Classic, it gets hundreds of upvotes, goes to 1st or 2nd place [Note: Title of this OP incorrectly says that "E Vorhees" made that post; the title of this OP should have said that SatoshisCat made that post. Sorry - too late to change the title of this OP now.];
  • Theymos removes the post because it's "spam" or an "altcoin" or something;
  • E Vorhees complains in another post, calling it "censhorship";
  • Luke-Jr weighs in and says they don't "censor", they only "moderate" - and gets massively downvoted;
  • One of the other mods (StarMaged) at /Bitcoin un-removes the post by E Vorhees that had been previously removed;
  • Theymos removes StarMaged's moderator privileges;
  • Theymos decides to leave the post back up - and digs himself deeper into a hole spewing his usual nonsense and getting massive downvotes and criticisms.
At this point, I'm just laughing out loud.
How do Luke-Jr and his censor-buddy Theymos always manage to get everything so totally wrong??
We know part of the answer:
  • They're well-meaning, but very young and inexperienced;
  • They're smart about some things - but this gives them big egos and a big blind spot, so they're unaware that they're not so smart about everything;
  • They no longer know what people are thinking and talking about in the real world, because they've isolated themselves in a bubble of censorship and yes-men for the past years (plus lots of trolls who love to frolic at /Bitcoin, knowing they're safe there);
  • They don't know one of the eternal facts about human psychology and politics: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Did they really think they were going to be an exception?
  • Evidently they didn't get the memo that most people who are into Bitcoin aren't into bowing down to central authorities.
Maybe someday these kids will grow up and learn about things like politics and economics and history - or things like Nassim Taleb's concept anti-fragility.
For the moment, they apparently have no clue about their tyranny has left them fragile and vulnerable, now that they've silenced anyone around them who might open their eyes and challenge their ideas.
More about Bitcoin Classic
If you want to read more about Bitcoin Classic, here's some posts that might be interesting:
We are hard forking bitcoin to a 2 MB blocksize limit. Please join us.
The data shows consensus amongst miners for an immediate 2 MB increase, and demand amongst users for 8 MB or more. We are writing the software that miners and users say they want. We will make sure that it solves their needs, help them deploy it, and gracefully upgrade the bitcoin network’s capacity together.
We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB.
In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.
I'm working on a project called Bitcoin Classic to bring democracy and Satoshi's original vision back to Bitcoin development.
Bitcoin Classic "We are hard forking bitcoin to a 2 MB blocksize limit. Please join us."
Bitcoin Classic is coming
BitPay's Adaptive Block Size Limit is my favorite proposal. It's easy to explain, makes it easy for the miners to see that they have ultimate control over the size (as they always have), and takes control away from the developers. – Gavin Andresen
Warning: I wrote the following post which most people said was waaay too long, but some people managed to slog through it and actually said they liked it. It's long - but conversational, focusing more on governance than on technology. =)
"Eppur, se muove." | It's not even about the specifics of the specs. It's about the fact that (for the first time since Blockstream hijacked the "One True Repo"), we can now actually once again specify those specs. It's about Bitcoin Classic.
Hope you enjoy the drama!
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Fun facts about ViaBTC: Founded by expert in distributed, highly concurrent networking from "China's Google". Inspired by Viaweb (first online store, from LISP guru / YCombinator founder Paul Graham). Uses a customized Bitcoin client on high-speed network of clusters in US, Japan, Europe, Hong Kong.

He Quit Tencent ("China's Google") and Started the World’s Sixth Mining Pool: ViaBTC
The founder of ViaBTC has a wealth of experience in the development of distributed, highly concurrent network servers.
He almost ran out of his two years' savings to buy Bitcoins in May 2014. [1]
All the data of ViaBTC is transparent so users can check the historical curves of each mining machine on the website, which provides better user experience.
In terms of fees, ViaBTC is different from other mining pools, the transaction fee is also distributed to the miners.
ViaBTC is a self-built high speed network of Bitcoin blocks, featuring a lowered orphan block ratio.
After the launch of the mining pool, a lot of optimizations were done, and the speed in discovering new block is promoted to be the highest in the industry, which also means that the main "key performance indicator" - orphan block ratio of the mining pool - will be the lowest in the industry.
Based on the self-built high speed Bitcoin block network, ViaBTC can discover and broadcast new blocks of Bitcoin rapidly and efficiently, so as to effectively reduce the orphan block ratio.
The so-called high speed Bitcoin block network is actually the Bitcoin client developed by ViaBTC, and has many clusters deployed all over the world including the U.S., Japan, Europe and Hong Kong.
ViaBTC was inspired by Viaweb [which went on to become the first on-line multi-tenancy shop Yahoo!-store, originally developed by LISP guru Paul Graham, godfather of Silicon Valley Start-Ups and founder of Y-Combinator], and its vision is Via Bitcoin Making the World a Better Place.
[1] I like this. It means he's "hungry" - he has "skin in the game". He wants - he needs - the price to go up - and (unlike the incompetent corrupt CTO of Blockstream, u/nullc Greg Maxwell), the head of ViaBTC clearly understands that higher price and higher volume go together.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF) would have been safer than 2-flag RBF (with no FSS-RBF). RBF-with-no-FSS has already been user-tested - and rejected in favor of FSS-RBF. So, why did Peter Todd give us 2-flag RBF with no FSS-RBF? Another case of Core ignoring user requirements and testing?

Here are your Artificially Limited!TM "options" under Peter Todd's "Opt-In Full RBF":
0 - Original / "classic" version of Bitcoin (where the transaction is not replaceable).
1 - FSS-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by a later txn only if using the same outputs, just with a higher miner fee).
2 - Full-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
Yeah. Peter did all that work and gave us the middle finger by not giving us that simpler & safer middle option.
Once again Peter Todd / Core appears to be ignoring user requirements and testing, by giving us a more-complicated and more-dangerous feature that has already been tested and rejected (Full RBF - where the sender can arbitrarily double-spend any outputs) - and omitting a simpler and safer feature which users have favored (FSS-RBF - where the sender can only resend the same the transaction using the same outputs, now with a higher miners fee).
If Peter Todd had given us "3-flag RBF" (which includes FSS-RBF) then this would have been safer than the 2-flag RBF he actually gave us (which does not include FSS-RBF).
Feter Todd had already implemented a form of RBF which was field-tested and rejected in the first few hours due to an outcry from users (F2Pool), and replaced with the safer FSS-RBF:
Peter Todd talked F2Pool (Chun Wang) into implementing his RBF patch. A few hours later Chun realises want a terrible idea that was and switches to FSS RBF (safe version of RBF).
With Opt-In Full RBF, Core appears to be once again ignoring user requirements and testing, by giving us a more-complicated and more-dangerous feature that has already been tested and rejected by users, who clearly preferred FSS-RBF.
  • 3-flag RBF (which includes FSS-RBF) would have been the safer form of RBF (0 = no RBF, 1 = FSS-RBF, 2 = Full RBF).
  • So, why did Peter Todd give us the more-complicated and more-dangerous 2-flag form of RBF (0 = no RBF, 2 = Full RBF ... omitting the simpler & safer "FSS-RBF" option) even after the more-complicated and more-dangersous version had been field-tested and rejected (within hours) by F2Pool, which ended up going back and implementing the safer form?
RBF supporters are wrong or lying about what "problem" RBF is supposed to "solve"
RBF supporters claim they just "want to allow the sender increase the fee on a txn that's not getting mined."
They're either wrong, or outright lying, because we've already gotten two proposals for better (simpler and safer) solutions for stuck transactions:
(1) If RBF supporters had really wanted to just help solve this "stuck transaction" problem, then the simpler and safer form of RBF (which would be totally sufficient to achieve the above) would have been FSS-RBF - not (Opt-In) Full RBF.
(2) Or even "more" safer and simpler: just impose a "transaction timeout" - after say 72 hours, a stuck txn (which no miners have been mining) simply gets dropped from the mempool. More below on this proposed transaction timeout:
RBF is being sold as a lie. A true Trojan Horse. We are being told that it was created to solve the stuck transaction problem but that is a lie.
In a recent exchange with an RBF apologist he admits that there is already a clean and simple fix for stuck transactions.
Another patch by Garzik introduces a 72 hour timeout for stuck transactions. This is the correct and clean fix. If you were so boneheaded that you sent a high value transaction without a proper fee then a 72 hour penalty seems perfectly reasonable.
What is not reasonable is using stuck transactions as an excuse to Trojan horse in a fee market system that turns the bitcoin blockchain into an auction house.
The "leading" supporters / apologists for RBF (eg, nullc Gregory Maxwell) are probably smart enough to know that those other simpler & safer solutions are indeed out there - so it does make sense to assume possible bad faith on their part here, and assume that they're not merely "wrong" - they're actually lying.
From the KISS principle to Nassim Taleb, everyone agrees: Simpler is better
FSS-RBF (First-Seen-Safe RBF) is the safer and simpler form of RBF where the sender can increase the fee for only the same outputs/UTXOs.
It solves the "stuck transaction" problem without introducing any other new complexities (and potential vulnerabilities) to the system.
There was a post on the front page today from Nassim Taleb talking about this simplicity concept in general: that a solution should be at least as simple as the problem that it intends to solve.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: "Solutions need to be at least as simple as the problem they solve. (Anything else brings multiplicative unintended side effects.) #FatTails"
So... Why didn't Peter Todd give us the simpler and safer solution **FSS-RBF".
  • Why did he instead give us the more-complicated and more-dangerous (Opt-In) Full RBF?
  • Don't be fooled by the "Opt-In" part. That's just the part where he lets you turn "Full RBF" off or on for any given transaction.
  • There's already been some shadiness already as to whether this should "opt-in" or really "opt-out".
    • A few days after Peter Todd's "Opt-In RBF" got merged into the github repo, another Pull Request (PR) came up, to change it from "Opt-In" to "Opt-Out" (ie, "On-by-Default") - but Gregory Maxwell quietly closed that Pull Request (PR).
    • There are posts on-line from RBF supporters who say that the real plan is to quietly migrate from Opt-In Full RBF to On-By-Default (Opt-Out) Full RBF, eg:
opt-in RBF -> 2-4-8 -> opt-in RBF with wallets opting in by default -> LN -> full RBF
We need to learn that the only consensus that matters is among us, the users.
And the devs need to learn to listen and respond to what the users are saying, instead of ignoring us.
PS - We don't need to speak C/C++ in order to communicate our requirements to the devs. Any dev who cannot understand and intelligently respond to the following English-language user-requirements specification should GTFO:
0 - Original / "classic" version of Bitcoin (where the transaction is not replaceable).
1 - FSS-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by a later txn only if using the same outputs, just with a higher miner fee).
2 - Full-RBF (where your txn is replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
Question for petertodd
(1) Why did your first draft release of this "feature" fail to implement the above simpler and safer specification?
Bonus question for petertodd
(2) You've already implemented an RBF feature, at your suggestion, for F2Pool.
You implemented your more-complicated, more-dangerous Full RBF - and after few hours of community outcry, it was removed, and F2Pool re-implemented it the simpler safer way: with FSS RBF.
What did you learn from this experience with the users?
Inspired by:
Why don't go the safe way? RBF would allow double spending attacks. It would be much better if a transaction in mempool can only be replaced by a new one if the transaction outputs are the same as in the original transaction (FSS-RBF). So you cannot replace it by a completely different transaction and you cannot double-spend.
Maybe it would be nice to mark the initial transaction by either one of three flags:
  • Old transaction version (non replaceable).
  • FSS-RBF (replaceable by a similar transaction with higher miner fee).
  • Full-RBF (replaceable by any other double-spending transaction).
As a merchant you could safely accept 2 but not 3. I don't see any good reasons why one would favor 3 over 2.
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to btc [link] [comments]

The Lindy Effect Explained in One Minute: From Albert ... The Antifragility of Bitcoin Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin, Stocks, Portfolio and The Crash ... Nassim Nicholas Taleb vs David Birch on The Bitcoin Standard - Bitcoin News Nassim Taleb Almost All Bitcoiners Are ‘Total Idiots’

Though Nassim Taleb believes that Bitcoin is a good idea he noted that almost all Bitcoiners do not understand its nuances. Professor Nassim Taleb is well known in the financial world for his views on black swan events among other things, recently he described Bitcoiners as “idiots”. He said so in a tweet during an […] — Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) June 21, 2020. Ma Taleb ha aggiunto una frase che riguarda direttamente Bitcoin ed in particolare i bitcoiner. “Bitcoin è una buona idea, ma quasi tutti i bitcoiner sono totalmente idioti, non possono cogliere sfumature al di là dei biscotti della fortuna”. Nassim Taleb, author of “Skin in the Game”, got into a small Twitter feud in which he explained that most investors can’t understand the nuances of a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. According to a tweet posted by Nassim Taleb on June 21, Bitcoin is a good idea but “almost all bitcoiners are total idiots”. Antifragility is an idea popularized by Nassim Taleb; it describes systems or phenomena that gain strength from disorder. Antifragile, Things that Gain from Disorder – Nassim Taleb “Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure , risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon ... The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking, by bitcoin maximalist Saifedean Ammous, is set for a spring release, having managed to make news ahead by snagging philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb to write its

[index] [9562] [30108] [7195] [19364] [29269] [31357] [48038] [47822] [38219] [17811]

The Lindy Effect Explained in One Minute: From Albert ...

Nassim Nicholas Taleb vs David Birch on The Bitcoin Standard - Bitcoin News Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and worldwide payment system. It is the first decentralized digital currency, as the system ... BITCOIN and the STOCK MARKET DE-COUPLE during 10K PUSH. Will IT LAST? + IBM & Stellar XLM - Duration: 29:18. ... Nassim Taleb - "The Black Swan" - Duration: 1:06:00. Woodrow Wilson School of ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue Jason Gantt, Professional Bitcoin Miner - Duration: 43:00. Blockchain & Business 378 views. 43:00. ... What Nassim Taleb Did on Black Monday 1987 - Duration: 5:09. Bloomberg Markets and Finance ... Nassim Taleb on Bitcoin, Stocks, Portfolio and The Crash 🧠Enroll with Crypto University Courses Now: Subscribe To My Channel:h...