A simple explanation of Bitcoin “Sidechains” Richard ...
The Hard Math Behind Bitcoin's Global Warming Problem WIRED
amino acids - Confusion on polarity and hydrophobicity of ...
Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking
thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020. The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more. In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000. DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain. While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO. Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud. On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams. His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund. Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity. You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race? I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned. I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated. Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well? Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse. Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump. In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly? Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.” We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was. You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business? All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups. were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that? Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases. Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case. You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not? Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn. You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN? I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles. In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad? I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses. Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there? My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information. [Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”] What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer?[Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.] I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak? I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored. What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein? I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality? I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right? [Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.] Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy. You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean? “Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it. I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice. Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests? I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests. My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality. Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that? I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability. [Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.] You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that. Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa. I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people. You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City? I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future. You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship? No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions. What do you think the investigation will find? I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad. [Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”] But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details. [Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.] We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that? I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert? You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room. Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here. She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time? Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job. During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart? I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans. Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election? Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention. Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material? Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.” [Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.] So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser. Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is? We all are Satoshi Nakamoto. You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man? I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend. OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
For Trading September 10th Kinda Boring Day Nothing Exceptional Is TIK TOK Really a Deal? Today’s market started without a lot of market moving news, although the futures were higher as European markets shrugged off the overnight weakness that carried over to Asia and was higher. The JOLTs # came in at 6.615 million, above the 5.9 expected and there was also a slight revision higher for last month. The market actually had good reason to go lower again with the Astra Zenaca’s news on their vaccine trial, the lack of any stimulus action, and the lack of demand in airline travel. But it didn’t, and although we were higher all day, the volume was week and the A/D’s were nothing to write home about. The DJIA was +439.58 (1.6%) but was up over 700 but the last 30 minutes saw it fall back, NASDAQ +293.87 (2.7%), S&P 500 +67.12 (2%), the Russell +21.,89 (1.45%), and DJ Transports +164.11 (1.5%). The DJIA was exactly the opposite of yesterday with 26 higher and 4 down. The biggest winners were MSFT +57, HD +52, UNH +33 and AAPL +30 DPs and there were no double-digit losers. Tomorrow we have Initial and continuing claims. Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 3000 members. I also returned to my radio show today with a great live interview with the Chief Medical Officer of JANONE (JAN) and it was a great show. This is the link to the audio recording including my discussion of the market and the very exciting story of JAN’s phenomenal NON-OPIOID Pain Med! This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCFCxnijFO4 Enjoy!! TODAY’S RADIO SHOW: https://youtu.be/DK2hmC0GXFk With my guest: Dennis Marlow! Tonight’s closing comment video: https://youtu.be/bRFoE2jG1B8 SECTORS: We started off the day yesterday with GM taking a $2Billion stake in NKLA and NKLA planning to utilize the GM factories to build their “prospective” pickup truck. Both stocks were higher with NKLA gapping up to open $46.00 and trading as high as $54.56 and closing $50.05 +14.50 (40%), while GM opened $31.55, trading $33.33 and closing $32.38 +2.38 (7.93%). Today they figured out that an upstart with no experience and an old-line auto manufacturer that spend the last 3 decades doing poorly and eliminating several of their lines of business might not be all rainbows and lollipops and sent NKLA back in the opposite direction, losing a touch over half and closing $42.37 -7.68 (15.34%). GM fared better losing only a fraction. LULU posted solid earnings growth and a beat on both earnings and revenues, but it just wasn’t enough as the stock which closed $349.80 -11.61 but then fell to $324 and it was $329.50 -31.91 (8.83%). Today it fell to $315.25 and finished $323.93 -25.87 (7.4%). Slack did a little better and finished $25.24 -4.06, about $2.00 higher than it was trading in after-hours. Today’s action in TIF was not as bad as I would have expected with LVMH calling off their engagement based on some BS order from a government agency that said they should “postpone the marriage” until next year (long passed the agreed date) and essentially violating the agreement. Stay tuned for the lawyers’ statements on both sides. And the big winner was Intra-cellular Therapies, ITCI who had solid topline results for its Bi-polar drug and the stock closed yesterday $18.43 and after trading $42.99 in the pre-market it opened $31.15, traded to $33.74 and closed the day $31.86 +13.43 (72.87%). We also had news late this afternoon that there may be some room for negotiation with the powers that be, to find another way to deal with a deal that DOES NOT involve a sale of TIK TOK. So, does that mean that MSFT, WMT, CRM and any others give back the out-sized gains on the speculation that they were going to own it?? FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN was HIGHER with TSN -.33, BGS +.84, FLO +.20, CPB +.38, CAG +.87, MDLZ +1.11, KHC -.01, CALM -.12, JJSF -1.04, SAFM -.59, HRL +.42, SJM +1.60, PPC +.02, KR +.83, and PBJ $33.69 +.62 (1.88%). BIOPHARMA was HIGHER with BIIB +4.10, ABBV +1.51, REGN +9.26, ISRG +25.31, GILD +.32, MYL -.39, TEVA +.07, VRTX +4.43, BHC +.27, INCY +1.65, ICPT _+.18, LABU +2.85, and IBB $129.36 +2.48 (1.95%). CANNABIS: was HIGHER with TLRY +.06, CGC +.81, CRON +.11, GWPH +1.37, ACB +.04, NBEV +.03, CURLF +.04, KERN +.08, and MJ $11.75 +.44 (3.89%). DEFENSE: was HIGHER with LMT +6.77, GD -.76, TXT +.26, NOC +4.85, BWXT +1.09, TDY -.42, RTX +.65, and ITA $162.42 +.28 (.17%). RETAIL: was LOWER with M -.06, JWN -.72, KSS -.15, DDS -.04, WMT +2.24, TGT +3.99, TJX -.49, RL -1.55, UAA -.35, LULU -22.80 (6.52%), TPR -.30, CPRI1.41 (7.89%), and XRT $51.27 +1.09 (2.17%). FAANG and Big Cap: were HIGHER with GOOGL +29.40, AMZN +124.21, AAPL +5.69, FB +3.84, NFLX -4.27, NVDA +37.73 (7.92%), TSLA +44.73 (13.55%), BABA +4.32, BIDU +.02, CRM +11.73, BA +.42, CAT +4.87, DIS -.30, and XLK $117.33 +4.55 (4.03%). PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE PRICES ARE LATE MARKET QUOTES AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE 4:00 CLOSES. FINANCIALS were HIGHER with GS +1.02, JPM +1.33, BAC +.13, MS +1.08, C +.50, PNC -.39, AIG +.28, TRV +.92, AXP +.11, V +4.77, and XLF $24.89 +.25 (1.01%). OIL, $38.05 +1.29. Oil was higher in today’s trading and drifted all day. I am looking for about another $1.00 or so before I would consider buying it for a bounce. Nat Gas was unchanged at $2.406 and closed a gap left on the upside that occurred when we were long last month. I was looking at UNG (NG ETF) as a proxy to get long and we bought the UNG 10/16 $14 calls @ $ .57 today. GOLD $1,954.90 + 11.70, sold off early but didn’t break below the $1905 area I am using as support. It turned back and rallied and closed right near the highs. I did a short update video today: https://youtu.be/KJgk-wmVJ4U I am still a bull on the metal, and we have a September bull call spread on using NEM 65/70 calls with a cost of $1.45, which closed today @ $2.76, and we also added some October 70’s at $1.65 which closed $2.85. BITCOIN: closed $10,320 +305. After breaking out over $10,000 we have had a “running correction” pushing prices toward $12,000, reaching a recovery high of $12220 Thursday, and after a day of rest in between, we resumed the rally touching $12,635, but have sold off back to support. We had 750 shares of GBTC and sold off 250 last week at $13.93 and still have 500 with a cost of $8.45. GBTC closed $11.52 +.42 today. Tomorrow is another day. CAM
New innovation in the seltzer space (open letter to Polar)
This was an email I sent to Polar, copied here for your reading pleasure. Let's signal boost this and get some socials going - #2020bubbles #seltzersensation #12to16 - just some ideas. Attn: Polar CEO, CFO, etc. Hello all, First off, I want to make it clear that I fully bought out a CVS' backlogged inventory of your seasonal flavors after being told they were prepared to toss them into a locked dumpster. Many people call me a "deals guy" and it's true - I love deals. Some have ventured to say I'm addicted to deals. The manager did NOT want to engage until I expressed some worry that the rise/fall of the temperature this time of year would essentially turn a 12 pack of Polar into a miniature pressure cooker bomb, potentially damaging their dumpster, which I was told by an unnamed employee was brand new. The accuracy of this statement is up for debate - was this the right thing to do? We live in complex times with mixed messages running about - who can say? I do, however, know I'm on the right side of history. But right now I just want to speak on the facts of the matter and let you know I've been monitoring the seltze"sparkling water" space for 4 months. Here is what you need to know:
is injecting a non-zero amount of bubbles into their sparkling water to avoid sales tax while matching bubble levels in that of Polar, etc.
Mr. Pibb/Pibb XTRA (popular soft drink) is preparing a seltzer variant. Unsure what this means.
. Was personally told that I was on "grey turf" legally and should refrain from making this public. Do NOT print this email and make sure you use the Secure Delete plugin in Outlook after you read this.
The biggest piece of information I want to pass to you right now (PLEASE READ): contacted a friend of mine who does graphic design to create a canned 16oz variant of their product. Apparently they are gunning for the "craft seltzer" space by targeting the 25-35 demo. of non-drinkers who want to be seen carrying a can of something at a party or bar. Again, they want this in liquor stores and bars for non-drinkers who want to look like they're drinking an IPA or equivalent beer in trendy spaces where someone could potentially think they're "not cool" for being a non-drinker. Attached are previews I received from my friend of his design for . This is what they're going for style-wise. I urge you to research the possibility of retooling your supply chain to produce 16oz cans in packs of six, colloquially known as a "sixer", and rush the 25-35 demo ASAP. What will your response to this be? Many people say, "What's next for Polar?" In the past I've had an answer - now I don't. Unreleated - my Bitcoin wallet is Signed, x
I wrote the following reply to him. I've expanded on it a bit and shared it here in-case it is of value to some others.
I haven't read the full article, but the answer to just your question is: yes. BCH probably wouldn't allow you to store a transaction offline for 50 years. However: I personally have never felt comfortable with the idea of storing a tx offline anyway and I have never suggested others should do so. I think it's quite reasonable to assume the protocol may change at some point invaliding some old, offline (not committed to the chain) transactions because of things like:
a cryptographic algorithm used by Bitcoin (BCH) being broken and thus needing to be replaced. A balance being spent by an offline tx in this scenario could either become vulnerable to being spent by an attacker or could become invalidated after a grace period has passed to avoid a sudden massive surge of price inflation that occurs when a miner sweeps up a large amount of vulnerable funds which were not moved from accounts (UTXOs) which were known to be vulnerable.
a large change being made to how transactions are constructed in order to allow Bitcoin to scale better to fulfil the monetary, transaction demands of the people of the world.
Also: many of the reasons a person might want to keep a tx offline, can be solved using an on-chain transaction which makes use of advanced scripting features. BCH has actually had a new op code added called something like check-data-sig-verify, that allows you to commit a tx to the chain, but you can only spend it if you create a specially crafted transaction which contains some very specific signed data. This specific op code feature can be used to solve many of the problems previously "solved" by keeping offline transactions. CSW often speaks truth, but he delivers with it a poisoned payload. It is my personal opinion that the agenda of CSW is to destroy the Bitcoin project by going in the extreme opposite direction that the Bitcoin Core guys went. IE instead of tiny, floppy-disk style blocks, BSv is directed towards having absurdly and impractically large blocks to the point where people are literally backing up their data to the blockchain. Instead of Bitcoin Core style 'my grandma should be mining', BSv is directed towards having a small number of super nodes to do all the work. Instead of the anti-business, almost communist style attitude that many Bitcoin Core cult members have, CSW & Co appear to have positioned themselves at the extreme polar opposite of the rainbow spectrum and decided to take a pro-mega-corporation attitude where the small business owner who doesn't get involved in crony capitalism, legal domination (through patents and other aggressive legal infrastructure), and doesn't desire to conquer the world by force has little chance at competing. As with many things in life the answer lies in the green part of the rainbow spectrum; somewhere in the middle where a wise person takes the best of both sides and never leans so far to one side that they fall over. I think BCH is a little closer to the middle than either BTC or BSv. CSW also seems obsessed with arbitrary, legal compliance. "Arbitrary" because he is selecting the arbitrary rules of arbitrary governments which he wishes to help impose on "Bitcoin" users. In particular, for some reason he is very focused on gambling & money laundering. Especially strange when you consider he claims to have been involved in the gambling industry in the past (IIRC) and he has been accused by the Australian government of fraud. I'm not saying that Australian government are correct or right. It's just odd that he seems so in favour of arbitrary, government restrictions when he has been targeted by them himself. Having said all that, I wish I could simply say that BCH is the future and the one clear path to economic sovereignty! Sadly I no longer believe that. At least not for now. BCH, BTC and BSv all have one thing in common. They are kingdoms.
BTC is ruled by Bitcoin Core and ultimately has Greg Maxwell at the throne. At least: Greg is the front man.
BSv is ruled by nChain/Bitcoin SV and ultimately has CSW at the throne. At least: CSW is the front man.
BCH appears to currently be ruled by Bitcoin ABC and ultimately has deadalnix at the throne, as he is the lead developer of the project, has commit rights and is the public face of the project.
Unlike with BTC and BSv, I don't think BCH has a dark, hidden hand behind it that is attempting to direct us towards failure to achieve the original vision of Bitcoin. I think it is merely misguidedness & human ego which has led to Bitcoin ABC taking up this very vulnerable position. It's not even just their fault. The miners do not know their own sovereignty and the role they are supposed to play in order to make Bitcoin a truly permissionless, decentralized, censorship resistant, p2p electronic cash system. We (as economic users of BCH and as miners) have even been offered a path towards decentralized governance by Bitcoin Unlimited. So far it seems "we" have chosen not to take it. When the vulnerable central point of power within BCH is eventually co-opted by outside forces, the failure of the Bitcoin project will not be on Bitcoin ABC; it will be on us. If it seems like I am repeating this last point over and over, it's because I am. I see nothing more important than this issue. This issue is...
more important than how we order transactions (CTOR vs TTOR vs LORDZOR vs WOODSAW)
It's more important than exactly how Bitcoin scales (paraphrasing what Gavin Andresen said: don't let far-in-the-future, potential problems stop us from solving present day problems. Let's keep moving towards success (p2p cash) and we'll solve the real problems as we get to them or get close to them. He also said something like "don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough". That guy is a wise man).
This issue is more important than what stupid shit the Bitcoin Core cult members are repeating or who CSW is currently suing.
If Bitcoin (BCH) has a single, centralized point of officialdom, it will be attacked. Anyone who is even vaguely awake, slightly knowledgeable of how the current fiat money systems works and mildly aware of the history of BTC will know what I just said to be true. Good luck to you.
So, this may or may not have been a wise decision, but I decided to try to undertake the job of writing about the Bitcoin Cash impending chain split on November 15th in the most non-bias manner possible in order to simplify the situation for those that have not had the opportunity to follow the saga from August. I'm sure that there's information that should be included that may not be in there, but that was bound to happen due to the expansive nature of the issue. Again, I have no 'agenda', am on neither side of the issue, am not directly invested into Bitcoin Cash at the moment (conflict of interest), and am merely looking to document the information in as nonbias of a manner as possible. Here is the link to the article: https://blog.zerononcense.com/2018/11/05/explaining-the-background-behind-the-bitcoin-cash-hard-fork-2018 I'm posting this here for the edification of other users and also to get the opinions of the knowledgeable individuals that regularly peruse this forum so that I can figure out what errors that were made (if any) and amend them ASAP. Thanks for taking the time to read guys, and I look forward to reading everyone's feedback. Undoubtedly, I expect that some will not be happy with the coverage or will feel that it was not thorough enough in some areas or that I gave too much credence to a particular side, but I knew that was bound to happen when covering such a polarizing issue. Again, looking forward to your feedback!
Now a new community called, short for Quantum, thinks they have the answer. They rocketed to early ICO success, raising $15 million dollars with the idea of mashing up the flexibility of the Ethereum virtual machine and the stability of the Bitcoin blockchain. But to understand how they plan to solve the governance problem, we need to understand just how we got here in the first place. Remember that Bitcoin is decentralized. That means there are multiple people with dramatically different agendas holding the keys to the kingdom. There are also hostile actors and good ones. And in the world of Bitcoin, people have to agree to upgrade the system. Actually a lot of people have to agree. That’s an amazing achievement if it holds. It means that somehow 90% of a group of people managed to agree on something. I want you to understand just how unique that really is for human beings. Qtum, the proof-of-stake blockchain, is poised to undergo its very first hard fork. The upgrade is scheduled for tomorrow, October 17th, and it will introduce a lot of improvements, especially to the functionality of the network’s smart contracts. People can barely agree on anything, let alone anything important. Heck, put half a dozen people in a room and watch them try and pick a restaurant to eat at. Look at how polarized politics is today in the United States. In 1994, just 30% of liberals stuck to “their side” on most issues, along with 45% of conservatives. And consensus is about compromise. That’s the nature of democracy. The rating for the QTUM project is BB. Currently, the project development has entered a bottleneck stage, and is also showing signs of stagnation. It is sensitive to both Internal and external factors, and there exists a high amount of uncertainty about its future development. The Founding Fathers of the United States set a very high bar for Constitutional changes — a two-thirds majority — because they knew it was nearly impossible to get two-thirds of people to agree on anything but the most important issues. Even if Bitcoin manages to make this upgrade, other problems may never reach that required 90% agreement. It could be for any number of reasons. It might simply be because the issue is too technical and the average person can’t understand it properly. It could be political, for example a change that appears to make a cryptocurrency more centralized or less robust. It could be economic, for example a change that reduces fees. Then even if the change is valuable to the network, the miners won’t stand behind it because it takes money from their pockets. Transactions The network defines things like block size and how quickly transactions are confirmed. The network defines the consensus methodology, such as Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake. And lastly, transactions outline just what makes a transaction valid. That’s the power Tezos promises to hand its community. While in the long run this may be how an eventual world-dominating blockchain will run, it does beg the question of whether we’re ready for such power right now. There’s currently no reference model for anything like this, anywhere in today’s world. So I foresee a bumpy road ahead, even if it’s a road worth traveling. They’ve also built-in some more powerful changes that aren’t yet ready for release. This next one you’re hearing about here first, because they haven’t announced it yet, and since it’s not fully baked it’s still just dormant in the test code. The idea is to prevent spamming the network with transactions. Right now, whoever creates the block gets all the fees. So an attacker could benefit from pounding the network with those transactions if they can get a block enshrined in the chain. Mutualized PoS sets it up so fees are shared with other stakers. This makes assaults on the network a lot more expensive. After you create a block, your address is registered in the blockchain and 500 blocks later you will get 10 rewards of transaction fees and minted coins. The miner gets some of the fees, but so does a random group of other miners. So the network is incentivized to share a bit of the fees to other miners.
Lastly, QTUM does have plans for more radical upgrades, such as letting the system monitor block sizes and automatically trigger votes to increase that size when needed. All of this adds up to “a simpler is better” approach to blockchain innovation. They don’t want to their users to be the guinea pigs. Instead, they’re looking to take the best ideas from other projects when they’re fully fleshed out and working smoothly.
Qtum’s First Hard Fork The upgrade will enable third-party gas payments, a major milestone. New users will be able to start using DApps on the blockchain instantly. This will also enable developers to subsidize the cost of onboarding new users, lowering the barrier to entry. The main idea is to make sure that Qtum has a considerable advantage over other smart contract platforms which have so far struggled to keep up with high developer demand. Qtum is intended to serve as a next-generation DApp network, and the new improvements are meant to strengthen its status as a secure and versatile blockchain that can host consumer and enterprise applications.
Other Expected Updates Additional changes which are set to be incorporated as part of the upcoming hard fork include a revised difficulty adjustment algorithm. This will purportedly make Qtum’s block times more steady and allow it to support more sophisticated smart contracts.
US Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses – by Michael Hudson • 23 July 2019
https://outline.com/VM2DEM • 5,400 Words • Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control of their oil and financial sectors or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade agreements with European, Asian and other countries. This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and import quotas illegal under WTO rules on “national security” grounds, claiming that the United States can do whatever it wants as the world’s “exceptional” nation. U.S. officials explain that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after 1991. (“You didn’t get it in writing,” was the U.S. response to the verbal agreements that were made.) Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments, central bank and foreign diplomacy. The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset. In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least war-damaged and held by far most of the world’s monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity with each other. But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S. hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more dangerous military confrontation. Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial, trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists. Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances from Europe to Asia. We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other countries to “freeze in the dark” if they do not follow U.S. leadership. To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change opens up that country’s oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors. U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.” The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings, central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with which the United States is at economic or outright military war. Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how “the degeneration of the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” That is the trajectory on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank fraud crisis. Those whose job it was to forecast events … were not ready for the depth of the crisis and turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it – were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world’s largest economies. Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result, there was no avoiding a global crisis. That crisis is what is now causing today’s break in global trade and payments. Warfare on many fronts, with Dollarization being the main arena Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected. U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia and sponsored “color revolutions” from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and Israeli expansionism. The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s Arbenz regime. U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator. Claiming to promote “democracy,” U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American, and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign agriculture or industry as an “undemocratic” attack on “free markets,” meaning markets controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and banks. A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today’s wave fleeing ISIS, Al Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the United States. Dollarization as the vehicle for U.S. nationalism The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world’s central banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world’s central bank reserves to settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S. rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official foreign debt. The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold’s role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances. The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya’s Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation’s international reserves on gold. His liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries. Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S. Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S. Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens. Trump is forcing other countries to create an alternative to the Dollar Standard The fact that Donald Trump’s economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like. There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1st century BC. It stripped its provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out. The U.S. economy is similar to Rome’s: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home. What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America’s free global ride – is that Trump’s simplistic aim of lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to make U.S. exports more price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar’s exchange rate, he is demanding that China’s central bank and those of other countries stop supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far above those of other economics. Trump’s infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force, making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now, because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology. The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding, from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies. Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military production. On the industrial front, it threatens to disrupt China and other mixed economies by imposing trade and financial sanctions. The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country to be the world’s essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit. To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar, and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1 lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy. As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump’s accusation of China and other countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency’s dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency’s value rise would threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit the United States. Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar’s declining value. The U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own floating tariffs against U.S. goods. Trade dependency as an aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S. diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military force. Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. “front” institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it “win.” U.S. trade policy through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors. The financing is mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The resulting commercial and financial “interdependency” has led to a situation in which a sudden interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S. economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as “promoting growth and development.” U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This ignores the fact that solving the domestic “budget problem” by taxing local revenue still faces the “transfer problem” of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF’s “stabilization” programs actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice. IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short U.S. financial leash. U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S. aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors. chart hudson There are alternatives, on many fronts Militarily, today’s leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France’s example under Charles de Gaulle and withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly all democratic countries. (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and North Korea are exceptions.) The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new profitable production. Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S. exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control. In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United States “has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new cases.” In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks is “fair” trade. An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming “national security” exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified “freedom gas” from the United States. In the realm of development lending, China’s bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S. Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy. To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create its own monetary system. The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats. Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today’s neoliberal doctrine counts financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to “real output” (GDP), but deems public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public infrastructure and other assets in the public domain. Just as the “capacity to pay” principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today’s ability to pay debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF’s neoliberal principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other foreign creditors will impose global poverty. The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. “exceptionalist” refusal to join any international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power requires an international court and its sponsoring organization. Summary The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin America in the 1950s. Today’s ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected. The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today’s warfare is fundamentally changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today’s world can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet’s Chile), but cannot occupy. It is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East. U.S. ideologues view their nation’s coercive military expansion and political subversion and neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival. The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier class and its clients, their debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs, money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg’s recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today’s world is between socialism and barbarism. Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019. Notes  Billy Bambrough, “Bitcoin Threatens To ‘Take Power’ From The U.S. Federal Reserve,” Forbes, May 15, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/05/15/a-u-s-congressman-is-so-scared-of-bitcoin-and-crypto-he-wants-it-banned/#36b2700b6405.  Vladimir Putin, keynote address to the Economic Forum, June 5-6 2019. Putin went on to warn of “a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown.” This fragmenting of the global economic space “is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”  Address to St Petersburg International Economic Forum’s Plenary Session, St Petersburg, Kremlin.ru, June 5, 2009, from Johnson’s Russia List, June 8, 2009, #8,  https://www.rt.com/business/464013-china-russia-cryptocurrency-dollar-dethrone/ . Already in the late 1950s the Forgash Plan proposed a World Bank for Economic Acceleration. Designed by Terence McCarthy and sponsored by Florida Senator Morris Forgash, the bank would have been a more truly development-oriented institution to guide foreign development to create balanced economies self-sufficient in food and other essentials. The proposal was opposed by U.S. interests on the ground that countries pursuing land reform tended to be anti-American. More to the point, they would have avoided trade and financial dependency on U.S. suppliers and banks, and hence on U.S. trade and financial sanctions to prevent them from following policies at odds with U.S. diplomatic demands.  Don Weinland, “WTO rules against US in tariff dispute with China,” Financial Times, July 17, 2019. https://xenagoguevicene.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/u-s-economic-warfare-and-likely-foreign-defenses-by-michael-hudson-%e2%80%a2-23-july-2019/
The Statue of Liberty, Mystery Babylon, Freemasonry and The New Roman Empire / Fourth Reich
The Mother of Exiles and the Destruction of Babylon
I've always thought Mystery Babylon in Revelations was America. Lots of signs point to that. Inanna/Ishtar was known as the Whore of Babylon and Mother of Prostitutes because she supposedly started the practice of sacred prostitution. Inanna was the goddess of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, justice, and political power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
Sacred prostitution, temple prostitution, cult prostitution, and religious prostitution are general terms for a sexual rite consisting of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity performed in the context of religious worship, perhaps as a form of fertility rite or divine marriage (hieros gamos). Some scholars prefer the term sacred sex to sacred prostitution in cases where payment for services was not involved.
But some scholars believe that this practice never existed and has been misunderstood.
The practice of sacred prostitution has not been substantiated in any Ancient Near Eastern cultures, despite many popular descriptions of the habit. Through the twentieth century, scholars generally believed that a form of sacred marriage rite or hieros gamos was staged between the king of a Sumerian city-state and the High Priestess of Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of sexual love, fertility, and warfare, but no certain evidence has survived to prove that sexual intercourse was included. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers there was a temple of Eanna, meaning house of heaven dedicated to Inanna in the Eanna District of Uruk.This will be relevant in my next post about the source of Yahweh's narcissism but for now, I'm just using this to illustrate part of the reason I think America is Babylon.
The Sumerians worshipped Inanna as the goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Unlike other gods, whose roles were static and whose domains were limited, the stories of Inanna describe her as moving from conquest to conquest. She was portrayed as young and impetuous, constantly striving for more power than she had been allotted.
An asteroid will pass directly in front of Regulus, one of the brightest stars in our night sky, next Wednesday — briefly blacking out the star in what astronomers are calling a “once in a lifetime” event. Better yet, New York City falls directly within the viewing path which is literally paper-thin on the earths scale. The event is so small, and so brief, that it will only be visible over a sliver of area. And this area happens to encompass millions of people in New York City, Northeast NJ and Long Island.
On Thursday, March 20 2014, Regulus will participate in a rare celestial event when an asteroid passes directly in front of the star, as seen from Earth. The asteroid in question is 163 Erigone. Asteroid 163 Erigone is about 45 miles (72 km) wide, but its "shadow" slanting to Earth's surface will be 67 miles (108 km) wide. Erigone's shadow will move on a southeast-to-northwest trajectory and will extend from New York City as well as western and central Long Island to Oswego in New York State, and then continues northwest, the length of Ontario to the Hudson Bay shore of Manitoba. Those who are within the shadow path and watching at just the right moment with just their eyes will see an amazing sight: Regulus will seem to abruptly disappear as if a switch had been thrown, blotted out by the tiny invisible asteroid. Regulus will remain invisible for up to 14 seconds (for those situated along the center of the path); an incredible, albeit very brief occurrence.
This "once in a lifetime event" eclipsing right over New York. Where the Statue of Liberty is. Revelations 17
There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: 15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
America's colors are red, white and blue. Red+Blue = Purple. Purple apparently represents royalty as well as vanity. Scarlet represents the blood of Christ and martyrs.
The color purple is also associated with royalty in Christianity, being one of the three traditional offices of Jesus Christ, i. e. king, although such a symbolism was assumed from the earlier Roman association or at least also employed by the ancient Romans. In Europe and America, purple is the color most associated with vanity, extravagance, and individualism. Among the seven major sins, it represents vanity. It is a color which is used to attract attention
**8.Bartholdi planned for the statue to be covered in gold.**In order to make the statue visible after dark, Bartholdi proposed that Americans raise the money to gild her. However, given how daunting and arduous a task it had been to gather even enough money to place the statue in New York harbor, no one followed through on paying the enormous cost of covering the massive statue in gold.
Not to mention this little interesting fact that brings the 2nd Beasts actions that are spoken of to mind.
:The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. :**9. Thomas Edison once had plans to make the statue talk.**When Edison introduced the phonograph to the public in 1878, he told the newspapers that he was designing a “monster disc” for the interior of the Statue of Liberty that would allow the statue to deliver speeches that could be heard up to the northern part of Manhattan and across the bay. Thankfully, no one pursued that strange promise, which would have led to the odd experience of walking in New York and suddenly hearing the Statue of Liberty “talking.” precious stones and pearls.
The sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi designed the statue to be fully illuminated, a feature that’s suggested in its official name, “La Liberté Eclairant le Monde,” or “Liberty Enlightening the World.” (At first the Statue of Liberty doubled as a lighthouse, given its position in the New York Harbor, but that didn’t last: It was decommissioned as such in 1902.) Originally the lighting scheme was to be red, white, and blue—with a giant searchlight trained on the statue’s face and shoulders. Officials claimed in 19th-century newspaper accounts that they would make the statue so bright as to cast a glow on the clouds of the night sky 100 miles away. The statue’s face was to be lit by a reflector so bright that newspapers described it as “4 million candle power.” Her diadem was meant to sparkle with electric light. These were lofty goals in the dawn of the electrical age, and they carried symbolism that has lost much of its potency now that electricity is taken for granted.
She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
In the torch, the flames are covered in gold. Looks enough like a cup. Also, in Isaiah 14:12 (another prophecy detailing the fall of Babylon that I didn't bother copying and pasting all of here) it refers to Babylon (or it's king) as "Lucifer, son of the morning". Lucifer means "light bringer" (hence the torch and the statue's original name being Liberty Enlightening the World) or "morning star" which is another name for the planet Venus which is associated with Inanna/Ishtar.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority
The 10 kings + the beast = 11.
The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings.
It has 7 spikes coming out of the head. https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01_00240318.jpg?quality=85 We're a very diverse country and Lady Liberty represents us taking in people from all countries. We pretty much control the world (for now) as the 7 hills represents the 7 continents, which is literally what is said they represent. Plus she's literally sitting on an island in the water.
Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
Masonic theories abound about the Statue of Liberty’s connection to the masons. Those who do ascribe to the theory cite Bartholdi’s and Eiffel’s membership in the Freemasons, that many original plans for the statue demonstrate the link and that many elements of the statue carry symbolic meaning. In addition, the masons presided over the cornerstone laying for the Statue of Liberty, a moment commemorated in a 1984 plaque in dedication to the masons on the 100th anniversary. In 1884, the grand master William A. Brodie laid the cornerstone with grand lodge members present. Brodie is reported to have said, “Why call upon the Masonic Fraternity to lay the cornerstone of such a structure as is here to be erected? No institution has done more to promote liberty and to free men from the trammels and chains of ignorance and tyranny than has Freemasonry.”
Then there's the poem that is inside the base.
The New Colossus Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,With conquering limbs astride from land to land;Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall standA mighty woman with a torch, whose flameIs the imprisoned lightning, and her nameMOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-handGlows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes commandThe air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries sheWith silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The Mother of exiles.
Prophecies of the Destruction of Babylon / America / New York
45 “Come out of her, my people!Run for your lives!Run from the fierce anger of the Lord.46 Do not lose heart or be afraidwhen rumors are heard in the land;one rumor comes this year, another the next,rumors of violence in the landand of ruler against ruler.47 For the time will surely comewhen I will punish the idols of Babylon;her whole land will be disgraced
Welcome to General Election 2016 – The Transition The Hegelian Dialectic is the transition of things. And the Illuminati loves to use it. We have been expecting it. We have read about it. And now it is here, in front of our faces. And many are IGNORING it. Folks, we are witnessing Hegelian logic on display. How we got here is an aside, but here we are. The disease is Hillary, and the medicine is Trump. For most folks, that’s all that matters. Case closed. What most citizens do not realize is that this is all a ruse. A mirage. It is being carried by, “they.” “They” are using the illusion, because America was stationary and stubborn. “You can’t New World Order me!” Americans said, “…Because we know about you.” Did the globalists go away and cry in their beer? Nope. They knew this would happen. It was expected. Butsome of the citizens heard a few radio shows that told them, “we’re gonna win.” Hegel’s dialectic utilizes the “mirage.” And then steers the people through its house of mirrors with scary monsters. In America’s case, the monster is a short woman with a trucker’s voice named Hillary. Their task is simple. Globalism. But how do they get there? Simple: Scare them with the Thesis – Hillary / the Enemy of Freedom. And offset her with the Anti-thesis – Donald the Lion-Hearted / Champion of the People. …Next stop – the Synthesis. Ashes with a rising phoenix. It's right there in front of us. Do you see it folks?
“The Double Headed Eagle of Lagash” is the oldest Royal Crest in the World… No emblematic device of today can boast of such antiquity. Its origin has been traced to the ancient city of Lagash. It was in use a thousand years before the Exodus from Egypt and more than two thousand years before the building of “King Solomon’s Temple.” “As time rolled on, it passed from the Sumerians to the men of Akkad, from the men of Akkad to the Hittites, from the denizens of Asia Minor to the Seljukian Sultans from whom it was brought by the Crusaders to the Emperors of the East and West, whose successors were the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs.” “In recent excavations, the city-emblem of Lagash was disclosed also as a lion headed eagle sinking his claws into the bodies of two lions standing back to back. This is evidently a variant of the other eagle symbol”. “The city of Lagash is in Sumer in Southern Babylonia, between the Euphrates and the Tigris and near the modern Shatra in Iraq, Lagash had a calendar of twelve lunar months, a system of weights and measures, a banking and accounting system and was a center of art, literature, military and political power, five thousand years before Christ”. “In 102 B.C. the Roman Consul Marius decreed that the Eagle be displayed as a symbol of Imperial Rome. Later, as a world power, Rome used the Double-Headed Eagle, one head facing the East the other facing the West, symbolizing the universality and unity of the Empire. The Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire continued its use and the symbol was adopted later in Germany during the halcyon days of conquest and imperial power”. So far as is known, the Double-Headed Eagle was first used in Freemasonry in 1758 by a Masonic Body in Paris – the Emperors of the East and West. During a brief period the Masonic Emperors of the East and West controlled the advanced degrees then in use and became a precursor of the “Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite”. The Latin caption under the Double-Headed Eagle – “Spes Mea in Deo Est” translated is “My Hope Is In God”.
A part of this sounds familiar
“In recent excavations, the city-emblem of Lagash was disclosed also as a lion headed eagle sinking his claws into the bodies of two lions standing back to back. This is evidently a variant of the other eagle symbol”.
In 102 B.C. the Roman Consul Marius decreed that the Eagle be displayed as a symbol of Imperial Rome. Later, as a world power, Rome used the Double-Headed Eagle, one head facing the East the other facing the West, symbolizing the universality and unity of the Empire. The Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire continued its use and the symbol was adopted later in Germany during the halcyon days of conquest and imperial power”. So far as is known, the Double-Headed Eagle was first used in Freemasonry in 1758 by a Masonic Body in Paris – the Emperors of the East and West. During a brief period the Masonic Emperors of the East and West controlled the advanced degrees then in use and became a precursor of the “Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite”
The imperial bird with two heads simultaneously facing East and West has been Russia’s official coat of arms for centuries, with only a break during the Soviet era. The emblem, however, is far older than the country, with roots dating to ancient civilizations. An eagle on a country’s coat of arms is quite common – this bird is as popular a national symbol as the lion. “He is the king of birds; just like the lion is believed to rule all animals, and he is associated with the cult of the sun,” Georgy Vilinbakhov, head of Russia’s Heraldic Council, explains.
Title of article: Get Ready for the Phoenix THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder The new world economyThe biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile. In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment. The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world. As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power. The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
So it was a random Sunday: bed, eat, repeat until I went online and I saw a link by a new user called @limon. There was a small introduction to a YouTube video which at first glance didn’t look interesting, but what the hell? Lets read this. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...lLpi-xYDCw.png He talked about an article from The Economist, year 1988, coin, phoenix and then Zoin… wtf? Anyways, I opened the link (don’t open links from strangers) and watched the video in Youtube, (it’s in Spanish) @limon claims in the video (minute 5) that he actually found a not so well know cryptocurrency (yet) by doing some research on an article from 1988 and he is somehow convinced it’s going to be huge. Yes, @limon saw the writing and thought maybe I should check this and find out which is the coin of the future. As crazy as it seems, finding a cryptocurrency by doing research on a 1988 magazine its quite incredible. Is it a coincidence or is it a prediction? Not even @limon knows, but there’s a few things that can blow up your mind here. This is the article from 1988. It claims that there will be a currency (referred as “phoenix”) that will be used by everybody in several countries in 2018. So yes, you all might say “the coin is called the Phoenix”. There’s actually a coin called Phoenixcoin but that didn’t seem to convince @limon once he checked it out in www.coinmarketcap.com (it sucked even for @limon who wanted to believe with all his heart) But @limon didn’t give up, he thought what if its hidden? So he decided to take a closer look at the magazine cover. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...LKufsoJVug.png He noticed that he could read the letters backward (um…interesting) https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...Ir1KSVOMbw.png He got XIN3ONd NET by reading the cover letter backwards and he said well, XIN is Chinese, and found out in google translator that XIN meant NEW. Then 3ONd he looked at it and thought this is Russian… and it was. That weird word that would not mean anything to someone meant something for @limon so he decided to google translate it. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...uui5nS3hFg.png Well yeah 3ONd is Russian and means ZOI, but wait is this a coin? @Limon decided to search “ZOI” in www.coinmarketcap.com. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...LN2UCCLQwg.png WOW, Zoin existed. He ended up with the sentence NEW ZOI NET, in which Zoi was an actual currency. He starting searching now all about Zoin (DYOR) and liked everything he saw. The team, the community and development its very much updated. Got even more carried away when he saw Zoin’s logo: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...4CV6Ln5sFQ.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...y75KEGoyHQ.png And when he researched even deeper, he found out that ZOIN was left by its first developer and got taken over by its community from all over the world. Yes, Zoin emerged from the ashes. What? wait. Zoin is also a Phoenix. Anyways, @limon found all the signs of a prophecy from 1988. He couldn’t wait so he joined Zoin’s community and shared his video. By the way he bought some Zoin. After finding the last lost prophecy he had no plans on missing out. Check all about Zoin in the following links. You can reach out to the team on Discord, website address is www.zoinofficial.com and their twitter @zoinofficial You better don’t miss it. Its a prophecy. Thank you limon. @torrmara
A little thought experiment: Imagine for a moment CTOR was introduced in two steps. First step would have been an elimination of the rule that transactions must be ordered topographically. This would have been a so called "hard fork." It would not have split the chain at forking day. Rather, it would need one brave miner to mine a non-ttor-block to activate the split. He must be really brave, because if it ever happens that a TTOR-chain gets dominant, the no-ttor-chain including his blocks would dissolve. He not only need to be sure that non-ttor has hashpower dominance, but he needs to be sure that it keeps this for the foreseeable future. Such a setup perfectly enables hashpower to decide about which feature is activated. It is what we call Nakamoto Consensus. You can introduce a large variety of changes with a date based hardfork, but which of it gets really activated by being mined is up to hashpower to decide. For DSV: Would you activate DSV as long as CoinGeeks hashfleet is against it in such a scenario? No. It would be insane, as there is a high chance the DSV-chain is eliminated later. Second step: enforcing CTOR. After some time, when the no-TTOR-chain has been activated and survived it, you can do a soft fork to make CTOR a rule. Users don't need to upgrade, as their node are ok with any transaction ordering. Only miner need to upgrade. You can do it in a way Core did, demanding a certain percentage of miners to vote for it. There is no need to hurry, because everybody is already free to use CTOR, so we can do it securely and without disruption. This is what the November upgrade could have been. But there is one tiny detail that changes everything. Seeing what CTOR in November really is This thought-experiment is interesting because it tells a lot about the forking mechanism of CTOR as proposed in the November hard fork. Basically, it combines the hard fork and the soft fork. It hard forks the ttor-rule away, but immediately demands ctor. This means it becomes incompatible with the old chain in the very moment the rule is activated, independently of which transactions are mined, independently of the amount of hashpower behind. Using hard and soft forks at the same time is a sharp sword to cut chains. It is a very strong tool, and it was successfully used to free Bitcoin Cash from Bitcoin (remember the rule that a certain block must be bigger than 1mb soft fork on top of a hard fork). But using it to enforce CTOR is like throwing dynamite on flies. Worse: Combining soft and hard forks is the ultimate control tool for developers. It's much much more than what Core ever demanded to have. Core never did hard forks, but only soft forks, and these only when activated by hash power, and when hash power did refuse, they started a social media war for UASF - which everyone on the BCH side was against. "Because it's hashpower that matters". What CTOR does in terms of developer control is much much worse. Just ask yourself for a second what you would think of if Core would have done such a thing. I can't believe that Roger Ver takes part in this. It is the opposite of what we all on the side of BCH wanted. We wanted to let hashpower control the coin - and we got the perfection of developer control. This is the reason why I might appear to be hysterical, dramatizing, polarizing and freaking out about the fork.
For those of you worried about a schism and losing talented devs, or those that want bigger blocks but not the nuclear option, Core Dev Jeff Garzik's BIP 100 is the solution.
BIP 100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf I've been involved in Bitcoin since 2011 as both a significant early investor and now founder of a well-known Bitcoin company. Because of the politics and emotion behind this debate, unfortunately I must hide behind anonymity to protect my business and relationships, but the behavior I've witnessed over the past several months (and last 24hrs) has compelled me to speak out. Over the last several weeks, I have witnessed a level of vitriol and personal attacks that has surpassed anything I have seen before in our community and I am deeply concerned. I keep getting this sinking feeling that this is not what I signed up for, and after speaking to several core devs know this debate has taken a dramatic toll on their personal and intellectual health- several developers I've talked with feel depressed, unappreciated, and uncertain if the personal costs are worth continuing with the Bitcoin experiment. Non-technical Bitcoin users feel ignored, unimportant, powerless, and the blatant personal bias in which this forum has been moderated over the past few days is despicable/misguided and has now incited them to anger. We've taken an emotional topic, and escalated it like an adolescent child. Regardless of which way this debate is settled, this outcome is objectively BAD and we are reaching a point where there is no going back. Generally speaking I have remained neutral in this debate, because I know all the (very talented) coredevs and believe each side passionately believes they have Bitcoin's best interest at heart. I can respect that. Even if you lean in one direction or the other, we ALL must understand that each side has valid points and concerns. Part of the challenge is there are a lot of unknowns, and a wide variety of elements/variables in any solutions, so while different groups may agree on specific aspects they disagree on others and somehow get pushed into these polarized camps (i.e. I want bigger blocks but don't want a contentious hard-fork, or I think bitcoin as a settlement network is the only sustainable future but we need more time to develop off-chain solutions... etc). If we're going to come to consensus we need to simplify the debate by finding what we can agree on, and starting there. The contentious elements of this debate can then be resolved in isolation without forcing the largely agnostic middle ground into the extremes. This is where Jeff Garzik's BIP 100 comes in. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf It is a conservative but temporary solution that helps us clarify elements of the debate and involve all stakeholders as we move towards a permanent resolution. It is simple to implement and does not require us to build out infrastructure that isn't already deployed. It will tell us how the network will react to even minor changes to the blocksize, and it will buy us more time to build off-chain solutions if it becomes clear blocksize increases doom us to centralization. Most importantly, is keeps our community together and demonstrates that we can work together even when we adamantly disagree. I don't want to fork Bitcoin to XT and lose the development team that's gotten us where we are today. I don't want a system where a majority, lead by charismatic and talented leaders, can force contentious changes on the minority. I don't want a Bitcoin where a minority can completely ignore the concerns of the majority and hold their future hostage. I want a Bitcoin that works for everyday users. I want a Bitcoin that can demonstrate change and evolution without disenfranchising its most ardent users and supporters. Most importantly I want the Bitcoin that brought all of us here in the first place. For the sake of Bitcoin, reason, and compassion, we all need to come together and find what we can agree on. TL;DR Please support BIP100 and keep Bitcoin and this community the same place we've come to know and love. This community is big enough for all of us. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
My reply to "Manufacturing Dissent" was deleted on /r/bitcoin. Posting here instead.
The following is a reply to /bitcoin's Roger Ver - manufacturing dissent Initially, I penned this rebuttal as a reply. But it was never posted. Perhaps, it was filtered for some reason, I do not know. EDIT: It finally posted, about a half-hour later and after this thread was created and started being up-voted. First, a brief word about this “dissent” which you seem to misunderstand as something undesirable. Dissent is defined as “holding or expressing opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed”. Dissent is a suggestion—an opportunity to consider alternatives. Roger, BU, Haiyang Po, Blocke and others are indeed expressing dissent. You haven’t called them out. They have been dissenting for a while now. And, they are getting stronger because dissent, reinforced with facts and visions of a better world, appeals to other free men who have the courage to think-feely, learn from mistakes, and adjust their positions, accordingly. Now, onto the destruction of your emotive drivel.
Roger Ver and his big block agenda has managed to create a lot of noise and uncertainty in the bitcoin space the last couple of months. But what does this "movement" really consist of? Who is really supporting it, who owns the voices and opinions that are being blasted out from btc, bitcoin.com and Roger's twitter?
Since you are asking what the movement consists of—it consists of me and any other free man with the sense to choose which side of a contentious issue he wants to stand on. Who owns my voice? Me, goddamnit. Don’t forget China, the 50+ attendees of the Hard Fork Cafe, the BU developers, and the scores of free people expressing disdain for Core on Twitter and /bitco...wait, there are none here because they have been purged, you sycophantic wretch.
Well, did or did not the hashrate surge from 3% to 10% overnight? If it didn’t then call him out. If it did, then what’s your point? Also, I would like to clarify that the “propaganda” in question consists of a)ViaBTC saying “We support big blocks” and b)Mr. Ver quoting a business truism, “Don't kill or cripple version 1 in favor of an as-yet-unreleased version 2”. I cannot tell if your trolling is meant to be ironic, you are a simpleton, or your guilty conscious betrays you since the above two tweets are 1. A free man expressing his opinion and 2. A common sense business maxim applied to our beloved bitcoin.
October 8th: ViaBTC retweets Roger Ver about the "Fantastic turnout" for his meetup of "Bitcoin scaling and free speech supporters".
Yeah, were you there? It was fantastic. There were 50+ attendees total and 20-30 present at any given time. You should get out more. It’s amazing what different opinions can do for the mind of a free man.
2 days later, October 10th. ViaBTC announces they are signaling Bitcoin Unlimited with all their hash power.
After a huge gathering of miners, bitcoin enthusiasts, and BU folks, ViaBtc started to signal...Gee whiz! It’s almost like they found common ground and made plans to effect the change they want to see in the world. The horror! Free men making deals!
So, the "movement" now have Roger Ver, his communication channels btc and bitcoin.com, plus about 10% hash power. Voices are Roger ver and Haipo Yang, CEO of ViaBTC.
Don’t forget China, the 50+ attendees of the Hard Fork Cafe, the BU developers, and the scores of free people expressing disdain for Core on Twitter and /bitco...wait, there are none here because they have been purged, you sycophantic wretch.
Enter "John Blocke" who conveniently created both a twitter account, reddit account and a Medium blog account in the following days, and promptly went into overdrive producing content. He immediately becomes one of the most active and upvoted voices of the "movement", expertly packaging the censorship propaganda and unhinged technical arguements into blog posts. His post: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43#.z85vux86t is currently stickied on btc. The whole picture around this push for BU just reeks of dishonesty and hidden agendas.
The only thing that reeks is your neckbeard cheese. John Blocke created social media accounts, WITHIN HOURS OF EACH OTHER, to spread his views...astounding! Mentioning the figure, Blocke, only weakens your already facile theory that “BU is nothing other than Roger and ViaBtC”. Here we have another free citizen taking to the internet to voice his or her opinion. Blocke’s works are far-reaching, in-depth, and highly informative. You seems to praise the author’s acumen and writing ability. As with most of your kind, it seems your venom is admiration in disguise and derives from an inferiority complex rife with jealousy, and an eagerness to be in the presence of strength only to experience humiliation. Your emotive muck-racking grows weaker and weaker. You started out with a catchy title punned from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s, Manufacturing Consent. You should read it or watch it. The work introduced the “The Propaganda Model” which ironically describes the machinations of Core (e.g. censorship, bias in reporting, narrative-structuring being beholden to investors, etc) much more so than a free movement like Unlimited’s.
It is the polar opposite of an organic movement driven by honest opinions and arguments. If you remove the cross-tweeting between Ver and ViaBTC, and a couple of anonymous voices that have mysteriously popped up the last months, there is really nothing much left of this whole "movement".
What is more organic that organizing events, spreading your ideas, gathering like-minded free men and women, and signaling this to the masses? Maybe in order to be "organic" they need 76 million from multi-national banking interests? Also, don’t forget China, the 50+ attendees of the Hard Fork Cafe, the BU developers, and the scores of free people expressing disdain for Core on Twitter and /bitco...wait, there are none here because they have been purged, you sycophantic wretch.
More effort needs to go into exposing the dirty games of Roger Ver. It seems obvious to me that he has bought ViaBTC's BU support, and is funding a concentrated effort to create a sense of dissent in the community.
Finally, your circular drivel has come to an end without an upshot. You began by suggesting there was some conspiracy, I thought you were going to “prove” that Mr. Ver was, in fact, ViaBtc and John Blocke, China, and every Twitter dissenter and /Btc user at once. Alas, you did nothing but come into the room and defecate. Pee-yew! Maybe that reek you smell is more than just the neckbeard cheese after-all. Lastly, may I remind you that dissent is only possible in a free society. As a denizen of the co-opted /bitcoin, I understand that the light of reason hurts your eyes. But, I urge you and your kind to be strong, cast-off your slave chains and consider alternatives. If, after rational consideration, you disagree then voice those concerns as such. Vicious, albeit comical, diatribes such as this only serve your masters—not Bitcoin.
The Bitcoin Community as a whole and the need for mutual respect
First off, let me state that even though I may support one side more than another, I tried to write this post from a neutral point of view. At times it may not seem like it, but that was my intent. I will be posting this to both subreddits and hoping that they will both consider my thoughts and try to have a little more respect toward each other. Also, I'm sure that these issues were pointed out long ago, but it doesn't look like they're subsiding anytime soon. As 99% of you are aware of, the users at /btc and /bitcoin have very different views. These seemingly polar views have divided the community into two separate subreddits, However, are they really as different as we think they are? I like to compare these differences to the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. They're not too far apart on a political spectrum but their opinions differ vastly. You see, although they disagree on many topics such as abortion or gay rights, they would much rather live under a state controlled by the opposing political party as opposed to a regime like North Korea's or in a place with no laws. For us, this is pretty similar, as most cryptocurrencies are used as a replacement to fiat.
Right now, it's a terrible time to join the bitcoin community. Insults are being thrown from each side I may dislike it, but there is nothing I can do to stop it alone. However, change comes with individuals who are willing to accept it. Like politics, the discussion of Segwit and the blocksize has turned into a shitstorm of mudslinging. Both subreddits are guilty of these antics and are slowly turning Bitcoin into a toxic place for newcomers. A lot of members of /cryptocurrency also express their disdain toward the Bitcoin subreddits due to all the negative drama going on, and rightly so. As Bitcoiners, I feel that we should all respect each other despite our differences. We all support Bitcoin in one way or another. We're all here for a similar reason, and that is to ensure that Bitcoin stays in this world for the long term and maybe someday, it'll overtake a fiat currency. So next time, instead of name calling or insulting somebody who supports a different view than you, think about what you have in common. Think that there is another person on their computer with actual feelings. There are ways to have polite discussions or debates without resorting to insults.
Like many other situations, interactions between members of the bitcoin communities can be interpreted differently. For example, if somebody posted the wrong rollercoaster gif on /btc, they can easily be downvoted to oblivion. An example on /bitcoin would be that if somebody said they were holding on to one specific coin when in reality they support Bitcoin core and just bought into the other one as a short term investment. They may be downvoted as well with no explanation, or in severe cases their post may even be removed. Interpretation applies heavily to the new members of the Bitcoin community. They're new to the whole concept and may have been fed misinformation by whoever introduced them. They may be here because they're looking for free money. They may be here because of the Media. They may be new to this Subreddit but a seasoned veteran in the other. The point still stands that you don't know what they've went through and their whole story. Before jumping on somebody and calling them an idiot for supporting "the wrong bitcoin" or being a "paid shill", take a look through their post history. You may find that there might be more to the story.
When it comes to newcomers, there are 3 that come to mind for me.
Newcomers to Bitcoin in general
Newcomers to the other Subreddit
Newcomers to Reddit
1. Newcomers to Bitcoin
People are referred to bitcoin in a variety of ways. The news, youtube videos, family, and friends are all ways that people get into bitcoin. Some of these newcomers may think that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. That's completely fine, but it seems that too many of these newcomers get downvoted and laughed at for legitimate questions. I will delve deeper into this in the Propaganda part of my post, but these newcomers often don't get the whole story. They may be clueless and not know what a chain split is. I think that educating these newcomers completely is important, but then again, it feels that both /btc and /bitcoin are more interested in rallying support for their side.
2. Newcomers to the other Subreddit
Be sensitive when it comes to people coming from the other subreddit to check it out rather than to troll. Tread carefully and talk to them more rather than downvoting them and attacking them for their beliefs. You may find that you have more in common than you think. Differentiating between a troll and a clueless newcomer may be difficult, but take your time and be patient. For example, let's say that somebody grew up in a very conservative Christian family in a small town in Texas. Eventually they move out and encounter many gay people and despise them. They may call them derogatory terms and insult them. Maybe that person can be swayed, to change their opinion on the matter. Maybe eventually, his best friend will be a gay man, or perhaps he's gay himself but suppressed his feelings due to his parents. Or maybe that person will be stubborn and stick with the information his parents fed him. It's hard, but instead of hating them, you should try to talk to them, or relate.
3. Newcomers to Reddit
Reddit accounts are easy to create, that's undeniable. There will always be people creating multiple accounts looking to troll. However, one thing that should come to mind is benefit of the doubt. If somebody claims to own 20,000 bitcoins they bought in 2010, ask them to sign a message instead of immediately calling them a fake. This type of behavior is more prevalent in /bitcoin, due to the fact that their flair shows how long they've been a Redditor for. The majority of new accounts on /Bitcoin or /btc may be trolls, but the few that may not be are the ones that make it worth talking to.
Unfortunately, we are in what seems to be a state of war and propaganda is one of the most influential ways to convince someone to support one side over another. Misinformation is spread throughout both Subreddits by users hoping to convince newcomers to join their side. I personally don't support propaganda and would rather be able to see both sides of the arguments, but as of now it doesn't seem possible. It's like if the United States took the website 'www.government.com' and censored anything relating to communism. Meanwhile, China took 'www.gov.com' and promotes communism while disliking every post made by someone who supports democracy. Where is the middle ground? Unfortunately on Reddit, we don't have a "middle ground". Whoever snatches up the first subreddit gets it and there is nothing we can really do about it. I would love for /bitcoin to be a place where neutral people discuss their thoughts and /bitcoinsegwit and /bitcoin8mb can be for those who support different views. However, this will never happen and we have to deal with it.
Trolls / Derogatory Terms / Freedom of Speech
There are lots of trolls in the Bitcoin community. There will always be trolls on the internet whether we like it or not. Both /bitcoin and /btc have different ways of dealing with the trolls, but the fact remains that trolls exist even after other trolls are dealt with. To all you trolls out there, the ones that go into the opposing subreddit and insult others, I have a question for you. Why? You can try to justify your behavior by saying that you're trying to open the eyes of the censored individuals or that you're helping newcomers by preventing them from investing in the wrong coin that you believe is going to 0. However, using derogatory terms is disrespectful. Is it too much to ask to use proper or neutral terms for the opposing side's coin? It's not like you have to call the other coin the "true bitcoin", just use a name acceptable by them instead of purposely triggering them by using names that are deemed unsatisfactory by the other side. As for derogatory terms used on their own subreddit, I dislike it for sure. However, there is really no way to stop it from happening unless we all come together as a whole and condemn it. I personally consider these terms to be like the n-word, as they can be interpreted as hate speech. However, everyone sees things differently and when it comes to freedom of speech, anything goes. There should always be room for open discussion. Right now, both subreddits are guilty of suppressing opinions to some extent, whether it is by downvoting or removing posts. In one subreddit the members have more power while in the other one the moderators do.I wish that there was a neutral place to discuss these issues respectfully, but it doesn't seem like it will be on Reddit.
So, if you have read through this whole wall of text, I commend you. Whether you choose to change your current behavior or not is something completely up to you, Maybe this will reach the front page of both Subreddits. Or maybe this will be downvoted and be a lost part of the sea of hatred. Or maybe it'll even be removed. I have no idea what the reception to this post will be. But the important part to me is that I expressed my true feeling. You may call me oversensitive, a social justice warrior, or even a shill if that's how you feel. And I'm completely fine with it. The important part is that this was something that I needed to get out of my mind and onto the Internet. And maybe, just maybe, I can help to influence change throughout the community. /btc and /bitcoin, we are family no matter how different we may be. We all stemmed off of a simple concept that somehow a digital currency would replace the fiat currency we've used for our whole lives. We started together and even though we're in different places now, we should still treat each other like family, and respect each other. Edit: Side note: I am a new Bitcoin holder and don't know much about the rivalry and history between /bitcoin and /btc. However, I do have an understanding of peaceful discussion and hope that one day that we'll be able to have civilized discussions. I won't be responding to any of the comments to try to promote neutrality and not express my personal opinion.
In this case, Bitcoin and Ethereum are considered to be their own side chains. All side chains will trust the main chain to handle cross-chain interactions. All side chains will trust the main ... Larger amino acids side chains can wiggle quite a bit, and their dipole moment is difficult to define. Instead, polarity is usually given by rules of thumb like "hydroxy groups are polar" and "aromatic rings are nonpolar. But then there are borderline cases like tyrosine that has both an aromatic ring and a hydroxy group. Reminder: many of the bitcoin core developers are employed by Blockstream, who is owned by AXA, whose CEO is Henri de Castries, who is also the Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, a group of world elites with "control of the world’s resources and its money" Drawing circles is just one way the POLAR Pen can help you out like no other pen can. Pull the pen apart and chain up the magnets side to side to transform into a compass, add more magnets for a larger diameter, slowly rotate around the center to draw the perfect circle. PLAY - Compass Build Fun. The attracting and repelling of rare earth magnets is truly mesmerizing! Turn your pen into a ... This is clearly a very non polar side chain, but the molecule as a whole is mostly polar, as the side chain is such an insignificantly small part of the molecule. Thus authors who categorize amino acids by side chain (mainly chemists) put Glycine into the non polar category, while authors who categorize amino acids by the whole molecule (mainly biochemists and biologists) put it into the polar ...
Whether or not it's worth investing in, the math behind Bitcoin is an elegant solution to some complex problems. Hosted by: Michael Aranda Special Thanks: Da... Elastos has on average 60% of the Bitcoin miners hashrate securing its ecosystem alongside its own supernodes! The Elastos Internet OS is in-fact more secure... This video discusses the different categories of amino acid side chains and presents several amino acids that fall into each category. http://leah4sci.com/aminoacids presents: Amino Acids Part 2 - Hydrophobic Neutral Non-Polar Amino Acids. Is your MCAT just around the corner? Grab a free cop... Bitcoin begins its downwards tumble back to the $6k levels. Angelo BTC and his Bitcoin 6k prophecy is looking more like a reality day by day. Fundamentally why will this happen? CHINA! China wants ...