CSW
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525

This will never make small casual transactions a problem. You see, the cost of obtaining a court order will be in the tens of thousands of dollars. As such, it will be like existing cash laws where if you lose 20 pounds on the street, you have lost 20 pounds and the finder can take it.

Alternatively if you lose $10,000 in a shopping centre, you have a right to recover it and the finder has no expectations to keep it.

CSW
Apr 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619256267421200?thread_ts=1614172750.042600&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2525

CSW
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527

For those who say Anonymous Speech did not take credit cards...

https://web.archive.org/web/20090123081753/http://anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx

Sorry.

You fail again

https://web.archive.org/web/20070223100630/http://www.anonymousspeech.com/products.aspx

CSW
Jun 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622802223044100?thread_ts=1622802223.044100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2527

I have been studying this empirically for the last four years. We definitely have more concentration in mining. I always expected professionalisation but the nature is different to what I foresaw. However, the changes that are going to occur in this halving in the next will have profound effects.
I stated many years ago that bitcoin would have an immense transaction volume or none. In the next eight and a bit years we are going to halve three times. That takes us to 6.25% of remaining bitcoin, 3.125% of remaining bitcoin and then only under 1.6% remaining bitcoin respectively for each halving. You will notice the reward matches exactly the amount of remaining bitcoin at the start and a percent.

CSW
SEP 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352568275800

At the 20 year mark over 98% of bitcoin will be mined. Any market impact through miners selling will be minimal at this point. The start to notice it in the current halving and then the effect will be large by the next.
There is no million-dollar bitcoin without use and I don't see it occurring within 30 years. If this works, it means that we have built a system over decades.

21:19
Luckily, the nature of pool mining is about to change. The use of a double hash puzzle allows us to specialise. Only in BSV now because I was forced to patent this.

CSW
sep 24, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569352678276000 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2531

CSW
Oct 28, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572270011069200 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2533

All of those individual systems pretending to be nodes will start to drop off and no longer act as miners. The end is that as the system becomes larger and larger, only a few miners can compete. Each of these will specialise and compete. So, over time, the number of nodes acting to provide proof of work decreases. The number of remaining systems will be small but with significant investment.
It is not the act of hashing that secures the network. A hash is an integrity function. It does not provide security or minimise risk. In bitcoin, hash is used primarily to prove cost and demonstrate investment. That is what the system is about.

There is no big blocks and better, there is number of transactions.
Bitcoin is a transaction system. Nodes are paid in transaction fees. The subsidy will vanish shortly. Those promoting small blocks are seeking a system that stays under the radar. They're hoping to solve the problem I worked on for 20 years and create a system that can act outside of the law. They won't. They fail to understand that all computer systems link to the real world. There is no cyberpunk heaven existing outside of reality.
And no, large blocks do not increase cost. They increase profit. Like all things, and equilibrium forms based on the two sides of the scissors, cost and revenue. However, cost does not increase. Money moves from the investment in hash power into other aspects of the system including hard drives and computational power that is needed to verify more transactions.
As such, for a given revenue rate (which will go up with use forming larger blocks) the cost remains a function of the profitability of the miner. As the cost of validating large blocks increases, miners will move investment away from pure hashing and towards other systems. I personally think bitmain understands this. This is an issue in that they seek to minimise the growth of the blockchain at present because they are still earning revenue and more critically, their only competitive on hash rate and systems based on that. Once transaction volume becomes important, bitmain's basically down the tube.

On top of this, there are economies of scale. One developer and one network administrator in a large system can run many many systems. Where individuals run nodes, the lack of specialisation leads to inefficiencies. (editado)

The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.

Not ASiCs

You will discover this after the halvings start to bite
También se ha enviado al canal

The Whitepaper details CPU power and not computational power associated with solving hash puzzles. As the network matures, it will be necessary to earn more revenue through transaction processing. Bitcoin nodes are paid through a combination of a time diminishing subsidy and the collection of fees for the processing of a wide variety of template-based transactions. Although the solutions to hash puzzles allows a node to earn a percentage of the network blocks, if they do not simultaneously solve transactions to create fees, the amount that they earn will remain small. Consequently, nodes that invest less in hash power may solve fewer blocks overall but still collect more fees.

As was noted above, CPU power is not merely the computational power associated with solving the hash puzzle and forming a block. Rather, CPU power incorporates the entire process associated with forming the block. As the block subsidy diminishes, the collection of transactional fees will become more important. To earn fees, bitcoin miners or nodes need to compete with the existing system. In competition with existing payment providers, the strength of the bitcoin network is in the ability to deliver micropayments. To compete, bitcoin needs to be able to earn ample revenue to leave nodes profitable whilst charging under 10% of any existing payment solution.

Big blocks alone do not earn bigger fees. You need to consider that with scale comes at decrease in cost. To be competitive, bitcoin needs to act in a global marketplace. To do this, it needs to be cheaper than the incumbent payment providers.
As for question two, not necessarily. This is a market based scenario and the profitability tends toward zero at scale. Like airlines, bitcoin ends in 20 years time if it succeeds with a very tight profit margin and very few players making any money more than 1 to 2% but with huge capital investments.

You need to consider that if a system is competitive and others can enter, as with bitcoin, opening bitcoin up to more and more competition introduces more standard hardware. In the next six years, companies like bitmain will become extinct. They fail to act competitively across systems. Although hash rate is important, there are many ways to achieve it. We will end up with a combination of supercomputers that act to process millions of transactions are second in parallel and tokenised proof of work.

As we get to the scenario where millions of transactions are solved per second, the computational cost of solving transactions in parallel starts to far exceed any investment in hash power. In fact, it is likely that the overall hash rate will be under 30% of the total costs of the network compared to right now where it is over 90%.

At scale, bitcoin is incredibly efficient. In fact, it will end up being cheaper to run than the entire global payment system is now. It can incorporate every single payment system, Google, Facebook and more and cost less.

and yes, PoS is horribly flawed in many ways

but never stop an enemy when they're making a drastic and ultimately fatal mistake

It is the only way that the network survives

CSW
Oct 28, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572270011069200 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2533

CSW
Dic 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1575670722283600 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2536

100 million is the real goal. With the Feb 2020 update, it is possible.
At that rate, sustained... we start to no longer care about the halving.
So... that also makes us exceed all and I mean ALL else.
The competition is not ETH, it is not BTC, it is global commerce!

Time to build

But, note, this is just the end of the start

I plan no alcohol....
In 254388658

CSW
Dic 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1575670722283600 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2536

CSW
Mar 18, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584511983131200 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2538

Bitcoin goes down, not up in a crisis. It is NOT a store of value. It is not a safe haven asset.
It is a highly technical system. If the world has issues, bitcoin has issues cubed.
Bitcoin dies if the world hits a large enough recession, it doesn't save anyone.
Global internet, finance, etc.
Bitcoin is not designed to replace the existing economy (editado)

It was never designed to replace the dollar or banks, and it cannot do such. (editado)

Global networking. This requires large diversification of globally significant companies.

Datacenters, power... more than some towns use.

Financial institutions as nodes in those facilities must exchange the tokens to pay staff, networking, capital costs, electricity and more.

Paying in Bitcoin only kicks the can, their still needs to be a fiat gateway, and not a speculative one.

Tax, why, as datacenter facilitates are impossible to hide.

This current crisis has only proved me correct yet again.

The fed increased the US total money by 0.001%

Derivatives are a far bigger issue right now

All money
The fed instruments are like bitcoin halving
Not the real supply

CSW
Mar 18, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1584511983131200 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2538

CSW
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540

There is this false statement that bitcoin has an inflation rate differs with halving. There is no inflation rate in bitcoin. There is a distribution rate. There are 21 million bitcoin ( approximately ) of which there are 100 million tokens per bitcoin unit. These 21 million bitcoin units existed on the launch of bitcoin in January 2009. These 21 million bitcoin are not being created but were rather created all the one instant.
Each bitcoin is distributed. The issue of bitcoin was conducted in its totality when bitcoin was launched.
Each bitcoin exists and is available but are not distributed until a predefined event in time. Consequently, there is no inflation to bitcoin. There are exactly the same number of bitcoin at all times. There are different amounts available to the marketplace. The amount that is released through a distributed agreement under a unilateral contract that was constructed in 2009 was preset. The entirety of all bitcoin that will ever exist was set to be released under that agreement.
This contract cannot be said to exist in BTC. BTC is merely a copy of bitcoin that is passing off. There is a reason why bitcoin are set in stone and it is not because code cannot be changed.

You can issue in any manner, I did not need to distribute all tokens nor evenset the manner as I did

PoW is a signal.
The ownership is transferred under a contract.

A unilateral offer to act each block. To enforce the set rules.

CSW
May 29, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590750924330100
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2540

CSW
Nov 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1606389769058800 2/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542

1/2 I think the biggest takeaway I’m getting from all of my studies concerns innovation. The financial frameworks in place all have a terrible flaw. They assume that the dynamics of a system are static over time. Schumpeter (Nicholas, 2003) found a pessimistic view of capitalism the nature of creative destruction. This line of thought solidified the thinking of Nietzsche and Schumpeter (Reinert & Reinert, 2006) in economic theory. Unfortunately, the works of Samuelson in formulating a theory of Keynes’s economics (Backhouse, 2015) treated economic theory and hence the field of finance is a zero-sum game. In ignoring the long-term, the short-term focus was solidified in financial thought.
In all of this, the underlying fallacy of expecting the same results no matter how you change the environment leads to larger and larger problems. For instance, where Samuelson (1988, p. 4) stated Keynes’s idea that “the need for ‘widening of capital’ to keep the same per capital intensity would thereby drop by one-half - leading if there were no change in the propensity to consume to a big increase in average percentage underemployment” both Samuelson and Keynes have effectively taken the economic output as stable. In this, changing the population from 1 million to 500,000 individuals needs to no structural differences at all. Yet this is easy to discredit.
When you have the ability for a limited number of people to leverage their productivity using machines, halving the number of people does not merely change the output in equal proportion. For instance, the amount of agriculture required increases. As you increase the population, the amount of primary production decreases.
Letters take this as a small-scale thought experiment.
Let us assume a community of 10 people. In this community, we have four members involved in agriculture. The other eight provide other services. There is an agricultural excess. The four individuals together are capable of producing 12 units which are enough to satisfy everybody and allow external trade. Because of specialisation, the four people produce in total more than the cumulative amount which individuals create on their own. A way of looking at this would be to say that each individual without working as a team produces 1.5 units. So if the four people were individually working, we would only have six units produced. If there are two teams of two people, each team can produce two units for a total production of eight units for the two teams:
Individual production 1.5/person x 4 groups 6 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 2 groups 8 unit output
Large group 3 units/person (x4) x 1 group 12 unit output
If we now halve the population, we have the possibility of either producing through the small or large group. There are now five people available. Our small group production can produce 12 units allowing us to trade some produce but taking four people of our total population. If we reduce this to 3 people, we end up with a production that is from a small and an individual group as follows:
Individual production 1.5/person x 1 groups 1.5 unit output
Small group production 2 units/person (x 2) x 1 group 4 unit output
Total 5.5 output
So, we can feed everybody, but now we have very little left to trade or to save for something going wrong. So we have two other people in society working. Before this, we had six.
Even in the case where three of the five people in agriculture, the comparison of other goods has changed: 1/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542

2/2 Agriculture Other goods
Case – 10 people 12 units/10 people 6 output / 10 people
1.2 units each 0.6 each Case – 5 people 5.5 units/ 5 people 2 units / 5 people
1.1 units each 0.4 each
So, it is not a static economy. The error is placing everything in a stable monetary value. This change is not able to lead to a valid direct calculation of outcome. When we halve the population, we don’t have everyone equally satisfied. You will see from the thought experiment above, the earning rate of each individual is now completely lessened. When you halve the number of people, you do not halve the production leaving everyone in the same place. The overall impact of how society works changes.
This same problem occurs in companies as well. When we reduce the amount of innovation, the short-term gains are consumed by long-term losses.
References:
Backhouse, R. E. (2015). Samuelson, Keynes and the search for a general theory of economics. Italian Economic Journal, 1(1), 139-153.
Nicholas, T. (2003). Why Schumpeter was right: innovation, market power, and creative destruction in 1920s America. Journal of Economic History, 1023-1058.
Reinert, H., & Reinert, E. S. (2006). Creative destruction in economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, schumpeter. In Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) (pp. 55-85). Springer, Boston, MA.
Samuelson, P. A. (1988). The Keynes-Hansen-Samuelson multiplier-accelerator model of secular stagnation. Japan and the world economy, 1(1), 3-19.

To tie this back to my point on innovation, certain aspects of life and society require significant capital investment and that we have individuals who are outside of the provision of day-to-day consumption goods, including agriculture. Right now, agriculture is a tiny part of the economy. So are the aspects of life for other primary production goods such as mined materials et cetera.
Through all of this, what we see is that the larger the production levels we create become, the more free time and available accesses we have to allow individuals to pursue other activities including innovation and to invest in new designs or products. There is less need to work on primary production and just satisfying our basic needs allowing us to expand into new offerings. Through history, the growth of both population and production has allowed us to increase the amount of time and effort placed in technology research and other pursuits, including the arts. This has created exponential growth levels. Not because we are consuming more, but because we have developed better ways of doing things. Today we use less energy per unit of delivered output then we did 100 years ago, and every generation becomes more efficient.
So, the more we allow growth, the more we provide an opportunity for innovation, which provide more efficient outcomes. The existing financial frameworks have no way of handling this. They assume a static environment which does not exist and produces radically wrong answers.

CSW
Nov 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1606389769058800 2/2 https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2542

CSW
Feb 23, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614103336086700?thread_ts=1614098453.045800&cid=C5131HKFX
-
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2545

CSW
May 7, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525698698000464?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2546