[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force>monopolies ellided.]>>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography. Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. Satoshi

You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography. Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. Satoshi

Source: satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org

Trump reportedly met with bitcoin miners at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday. The meeting, which included leaders from bitcoin mining firm CleanSpark Inc. and Riot Platforms, is his latest overture to the crypto sector — and the tech sector as a whole — as he strives to establish cryptocurrency as a dividing line between him and his rival Biden as they vie for second terms in the White House. He reportedly told attendees he loves and understands cryptocurrencies, according to Bloomberg, citing CleanSpark chair Matthew Schultz. Schultz told Bloomberg Trump vowed to be an advocate for bitcoin miners in the White House at the meeting and said miners could help stabilize energy supply from the grid.

Source: www.forbes.com

The reasoning behind several key assertions in Trump’s post — namely that bitcoin will defend against a central digital currency, that mining will help the U.S. become “energy dominant” and that embracing bitcoin will help the U.S. against its domestic and foreign enemies — is unclear. It is unclear how embracing cryptocurrency would deter the Fed from establishing a digital U.S. currency and it’s possible widespread uptake of cryptocurrencies in the U.S. could even encourage it to move quicker on the issue. By energy dominance, it’s possible Trump is not referring to the energy used up when mining cryptocurrency but the regulations in place governing where that energy comes from. Bitcoin mining is notoriously energy intensive and was estimated to account for as much as 2.3% of national electricity consumption in 2023. In recent years its hefty environmental footprint has come under heavy scrutiny. Biden’s proposed budget for 2025 has suggested ways to mitigate mining’s environmental impact, such as a 30% tax on miners’ total energy costs. This would be in line with his other criticism of Biden’s environmental policies. Trump’s national security angle is harder to parse, especially given bitcoin’s well-documented potential to aid illicit activity, terrorism and sanctions dodging. It is possible Trump is raising the speculative privacy concerns surrounding a central bank issuing its own assets in a sector renowned for its anonymity and privacy.

Source: www.forbes.com

“We want all the remaining Bitcoin to be MADE IN THE USA!!!,” Trump said in a late night post to his social media platform Truth Social.

Source: www.forbes.com

For retirement planning with bitcoin, traditional methodologies face a paradigm shift due to the unique characteristics of the asset. The conventional compounding principles and safe withdrawal rates are rendered obsolete, necessitating a shift towards an actuarial approach. By estimating life expectancy and determining withdrawal rates based on retirement age, individuals can calculate the amount of bitcoin needed for retirement. However, the integration of fiat currency introduces complexities, requiring projections of anticipated expenses with inflation rates. Additionally, the timing of retirement in relation to market conditions, especially considering bear vs. bull market years, becomes crucial to avoid potential income shocks due to bitcoin’s volatility. This prompts the consideration of converting a portion of holdings back to fiat for stability during turbulent times. In this intricate landscape, careful planning and an adaptable strategy are essential for those seeking to navigate retirement with a concentration in bitcoin holdings.

Source: bitcoinfinancialadvisorsnetwork.com

As an illustration, if an individual aims to retire at 55, his withdrawal rate would be 2.22%. Should this individual calculate his anticipated retirement expenses to be 1 bitcoin annually, basic arithmetic would reveal that saving 45 bitcoins would enable him to spend 1 bitcoin each year for the ensuing 45 years of retirement.

Source: bitcoinfinancialadvisorsnetwork.com

As an illustration, if an individual aims to retire at 55, his withdrawal rate would be 2.22%. Should this individual calculate his anticipated retirement expenses to be 1 bitcoin annually, basic arithmetic would reveal that saving 45 bitcoins would enable him to spend 1 bitcoin each year for the ensuing 45 years of retirement.

Source: bitcoinfinancialadvisorsnetwork.com

Instead, we must project anticipated retirement expenses, accounting for inflation, and employ an expected rate of return for bitcoin to estimate the future value needed. In this scenario, the conventional safe withdrawal rates don’t apply to the bitcoin segment of the portfolio. Rather, the same actuarial table presented in this article becomes the tool for navigating bitcoin and the Trinity Study withdrawal rates for any remaining fiat.

Source: bitcoinfinancialadvisorsnetwork.com

As an illustration, if an individual aims to retire at 55, his withdrawal rate would be 2.22%. Should this individual calculate his anticipated retirement expenses to be 1 bitcoin annually, basic arithmetic would reveal that saving 45 bitcoins would enable him to spend 1 bitcoin each year for the ensuing 45 years of retirement.

Source: bitcoinfinancialadvisorsnetwork.com

Could be. They're talking about the old Chaumian central mint stuff, but maybe only because that was the only thing available. Maybe they would be interested in going in a new direction. A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

They're talking about the old Chaumian central mint stuff, but maybe only because that was the only thing available. Maybe they would be interested in going in a new direction. A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

Source: satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org

Could be. They're talking about the old Chaumian central mint stuff, but maybe only because that was the only thing available. Maybe they would be interested in going in a new direction. A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

They're talking about the old Chaumian central mint stuff, but maybe only because that was the only thing available. Maybe they would be interested in going in a new direction. A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

Source: satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org

Holesail Liveports Join our Discord Support Server Features Instantly share your localhost website with anyone in the world and see what your friends are building. Expose your localhost on the internet Connect to anyone's localhost through a connection Key

Holesail Liveports Join our Discord Support Server Features Instantly share your localhost website with anyone in the world and see what your friends are building. Expose your localhost on the internet Connect to anyone's localhost through a connection Key

Source: github.com

Peter Todd is wrong that Nostr is

Peter Todd is wrong that Nostr is inherently centralized or that it needs a protocol change to become what it has always purported to be. He is in fact wrong today, because what is written above is not valid for all clients of today, and if we drive in the right direction we can successfully make Peter Todd be more and more wrong as time passes, instead of the contrary.

Loading preview...

nostr:naddr1qqyrsdmpxgcrsepeqgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8grqsqqqa2877wjz6

Kind: 30023

mmalmi@cc.hut.fi wrote: > All right, I can do the website and the FAQ. I'll start writing the FAQ > now with the questions that I can think of. That would be great! I added you (dmp1ce) as a dev to the sourceforge project and gave you access to edit the web space and everything. > I have a feature suggestion for the program: a UI tool for creating > password protected private keys and saving them into a custom location. > Backups of the key will be needed to be safe from losing the control of > your coins, and for using the coins on more than one computers. Password > protection would be needed to make using your money more difficult for > someone who happens to find your key file. Definitely. This will be an absolutely essential feature once things get going, making it so you can lock your wealth up with strong encryption and back it up more securely than any physical safe. So far I've been putting it off in favour of other features because it's not crucial yet until bitcoins start to have value. I plan to work on the escrow feature next, which is needed to make actual trades for physical stuff safer and before backing the currency with fiat money can begin. > I'm running a bitcoin node always when my PC is powered on, which means > about 24/7. Bitcoin is a great project, and it's really cool to > participate! Thanks! Right now there are a lot of people on the network who can't receive incoming connections, so every node that can really helps. Having more helps keep down the "(not accepted)" issue for now until I reduce the chances of that happening in v0.1.6. I guess one answer for the FAQ should be how to set up your firewall to forward port 8333 so you can receive incoming connections. The question could be something like "what if I have 0 connections" and that could be the answer that it might be because the nodes you can connect with is limited if you don't set that up. Here's a compilation of questions I've answered in forums and e-mail that should help you see what questions are frequently asked and some answers I've used. It's not intended to use all or most of the material here, just pick and choose. This is just a dump of everything I've answered. Some issues that we don't have easy answers for are best not to bring up. Casual users seems content to assume that the system works as stated (which it does), and getting into the design details just opens a can of worms that can't be answered without a deep understanding of the system. The advanced questions I've received have mostly been unique per person and best answered individually. **** QUESTION AND ANSWER DUMP **** Any questions used for the FAQ should probably be rephrased. questions: > The bottom of the UI shows: > > Generating 4 connections 4024 blocks 164 transactions > > I understand "generating"; I assume I am connected to 4 other nodes; and > I know I have recorded 164 transactions (including failed generation > attempts). I'm not clear what the "blocks" figure describes. It's much > smaller than the total of all the blocks shown against all my transactions. > It's the total number of blocks in the block chain, meaning the network's block chain, which everyone has a copy of. Every Bitcoin node displays the same number and it goes up about every 10 minutes whenever someone generates a block. When you haven't had it running for a while, once you're connected it spins up rapidly as it downloads what was generated while you were gone to catch up. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it (that would fit on the status bar in 1 word, maybe 2 words max), any ideas? The blocks number in the status column next to your transactions is the number of blocks that have come after that transaction. Your transaction is essentially "in" that many blocks. Satoshi > My best guess - it > is the length of the global chain, and the rapid advance at the start > is as the software downloads and verifies the preceding blocks in the > chain as being valid. Right. I'm trying to think of more clear wording for that, maybe "%d network blocks" or "%d block chain". > I'm having an unusual run of (block not-accepted) failures, and thought I'd let you know in > case this was of any significance. What rate of not-accepted did you see? I didn't see anything unusual on my end. If you had more than, say, 4 in a row, that would be abnormal and probably a loss of network communication. If it's scattered and less than 25%, just random bad luck. It's normal and harmless to randomly get some per cent of not-accepted, and of course randomness can sometimes bunch up and look like a pattern. The idea of an option to View/Hide unaccepted blocks is a good one, as well as View/Hide all generated blocks so you can more easily see incoming transactions. Seeing the unaccepted blocks is just annoying and frustrating. Everyone faces the same rate of unaccepted, it's just a part of the process. It would probably be best to default to hide unaccepted blocks, so as not to show giving and taking away something that never was, and not show new generated blocks at all until they have at least one confirmation. It would only mean finding out you have a generated block 15 minutes later than normal, and then you still have 119 blocks to go before it matures anyway. This is on the to-do list for v0.1.6. Satoshi [note: I have some improvements in 0.1.6 to reduce this problem somewhat, and it'll also improve when the network is larger] > For some reason your transfer to me shows up as "From: unknown" even > though I added you to my address book. > > I have a "Generated (not accepted)" line in my transaction list, it > seems like an attempt to generate a coin went wrong somehow. Not sure > what happened here - presumably my node successfully solved a block > but then I went offline before it was sent to the network? Transactions sent to a bitcoin address will always say "from: unknown". The transaction only tells who it's to. Sending by bitcoin address has a number of problems, but it's so nice having the fallback option to be able to send to anyone whether they're online or not. There are a number of ideas to try to improve things later. For now, if things work out like the real world where the vast majority of transactions are with merchants, they'll pretty much always make sure to set up to receive by IP. The P2P file sharing networks seem fairly successful at getting a large percentage of their users to set up their firewalls to forward a port. I badly wanted to find some way to include a comment with indirect transfers, but there just wasn't a way to do it. Bitcoin uses EC-DSA, which was essential for making the block chain compact enough to be practical with today's technology because its signatures are an order of magnitude smaller than RSA. But EC-DSA can't encrypt messages like RSA, it can only be used to verify signatures. The "Generated (not accepted)" normally happens if two nodes find a block at close to the same time, one of them will not be accepted. It's normal and unavoidable. I plan in v0.1.6 to hide those, since they're just confusing and annoying and there's no reason for users to have to see them. While the network is still small like it is now, if you can't receive incoming connections you're at more of a disadvantage because you can't receive block announcements as directly. > ...So far it has two "Generated" messages, however the > "Credit" field for those is 0.00 and the balance hasn't changed. Is > this due to the age/maturity requirement for a coin to be valid? Right, the credit field stays 0.00 until it matures, then it'll be 50.00. BTW, you can doubleclick on a line for details. > ...understand correctly, there is only one (or maybe a few) global > chain[s] into which all transactions are hashed. If there is only one > chain recording "the story of the economy" so to speak, how does this > scale? In an imaginary planet-wide deployment there would be millions > of even billions of transactions per hour being hashed into the chain... > ...I found the section on incentives hard to follow. In particular, I'm > not clear on what triggers the transition from minting new coins as a > reason to run a node, to charging transaction fees (isn't the point of > BitCoin largely to zero transaction costs anyway?). Presumably there's > some human in charge of the system... > ...How did you decide on the inflation schedule for v1? Where did 21 > million coins come from? What denominations are these coins? You > mention a way to combine and split value but I'm not clear on how this > works. For instance are bitcoins always denominated by an integer or > can you have fractional bitcoins?... > ...it's rare that I encounter truly > revolutionary ideas. The last time I was this excited about a new > monetary scheme was when I discovered Ripple. If you have any thoughts > on Ripple, I'd also love to hear them. There is only one global chain. The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size. By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions. I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces. A key aspect of Bitcoin is that the security of the network grows as the size of the network and the amount of value that needs to be protected grows. The down side is that it's vulnerable at the beginning when it's small, although the value that could be stolen should always be smaller than the amount of effort required to steal it. If someone has other motives to prove a point, they'll just be proving a point I already concede. My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it's locked in and we're stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that's very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it'll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there's only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There's plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it's now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1. Ripple is interesting in that it's the only other system that does something with trust besides concentrate it into a central server. Satoshi > If we assume that 0.1% is a good risk rate, then z=5 thus > any transaction must wait a bit less than an hour before being > solidified in the chain. As micropayments for things like web content > or virtual goods are by definition something that requires low > overhead, waiting an hour seems like quite a significant hurdle. For the actual risk, multiply the 0.1% by the probability that the buyer is an attacker with a huge network of computers. For micropayments, you can safely accept the payment immediately. The size of the payment is too small for the effort to steal it. Micropayments are almost always for intellectual property, where there's no physical loss to the merchant. Anyone trying to steal a micropayment would probably not be a paying customer anyway, and if they want to steal intellectual property they can use the file sharing networks. Currently, businesses accept a certain chargeoff rate. I believe the risk with 1 or even 0 confirming blocks will be much less than the rate of chargebacks on verified credit card transactions. The usual scam against a merchant that doesn't wait for confirming blocks would be to send a payment to a merchant, then quickly try to propagate a double-spend to the network before the merchant's copy. What the merchant can do is broadcast his transaction and then monitor the network for any double-spend copies. The thief would not be able to broadcast during the monitoring period or else the merchant's node would receive a copy. The merchant would only have to monitor for a minute or two until most of the network nodes have his version and it's too late for the thief's version to catch up and reach many nodes. With just a minute or two delay, the chance of getting away without paying could be made much too low to scam. A thief usually needs a high probability of getting an item for free to make it worthwhile. Using a lot of CPU power to do the brute force attack discussed in the paper in addition to the above scam would not increase the thief's chances very much. Anything that grants access to something, like something that takes a while to download, access to a website, web hosting, a subscription or service, can be cancelled a few minutes later if the transaction is rejected. > How is the required difficulty of each block communicated through the > network and agreed upon? It's not communicated. The formula is hardcoded in the program and every node does the same calculation to know what difficulty is required for the next block. If someone diverged from the formula, their block would not be accepted by the majority. > Is the code free/open source or just open source? It's free open source. It's the MIT license, which just requires some disclaimer text be kept with the source code, other than that you can do just about anything you want with it. The source is included in the main download. Satoshi > Is there a way to be told of new versions? Does the app auto update > itself? Some kind of mailing list would be excellent. The list is: bitcoin-list@lists.sourceforge.net Subscribe/unsubscribe page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-list Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-list I'll always announce new versions there. Automatic update, or at least notification of new versions, is definitely on the list. [this inflation discussion was before the transaction fee mechanism and fixed plan of 21 million coins was posted, so it may not be as applicable anymore] > Since they can be created for free (or at the cost > of computer power people have anyway for other reasons), > monetizing them means simply giving away money. You're still thinking as if the difficulty level will be so easy that people will be able to generate all the bitcoins they want. Imagine you have to run your computer 24/7 for a month to generate 1 cent. After a year, you could generate 12 cents. That's not going to make it so people can just generate all the bitcoin they want for spending. The value of bitcoins would be relative to the electricity consumed to produce them. All modern CPUs save power when they're idle. If you run a computational task 24/7, not letting it idle, it uses significantly more power, and you'll notice it generates more heat. The extra wattage consumed goes straight to your power bill, and the value of the bitcoins you produce would be something less than that. > Why would they, when they make money by generating > new ones No, they can't make money that way. It would cost them more in electricity than they'd be selling the bitcoins for. Historically, people have taken up scarce commodities as money, if necessary taking up whatever is at hand, such as shells or stones. Each has a kernel of usefulness that helped bootstrap the process, but the monetary value ends up being much more than the functional value alone. Most of the value comes from the value that others place in it. Gold, for instance, is pretty, non-corrosive and easily malleable, but most of its value is clearly not from that. Brass is shiny and similar in colour. The vast majority of gold sits unused in vaults, owned by governments that could care less about its prettiness. Until now, no scarce commodity that can be traded over a communications channel without a trusted third party has been available. If there is a desire to take up a form of money that can be traded over the Internet without a TTP, then now that is possible. Satoshi > As more capable > computer hardware comes out, the natural supply per user > doubles at every cycle of Moore's law. Actually, that is handled. There's a moving average that compensates for the total effort being expended so that the total production is a constant. As computers get more powerful, the difficulty increases to compensate. > I do not recall any economic history of a commodity subject > to natural inflation ever being used as money There's gold for one. The supply of gold increases by about 2%-3% per year. Any fiat currency typically averages more inflation than that. > Won't there be massive inflation as computers get faster and are able to solve the proof-of-work problem faster? The difficulty is controlled by a moving average that compensates for the total effort being expended to keep the total production constant. As computers get more powerful, the difficulty increases to compensate. > If someone double spends, then the transaction record > can be unblinded revealing the identity of the cheater? Identities are not used, and there's no reliance on recourse. It's all prevention. > ...You're saying > there's no effort to identify and exclude nodes that don't > cooperate? I suspect this will lead to trouble and possible DOS > attacks. There is no reliance on identifying anyone. As you've said, it's futile and can be trivially defeated with sock puppets. The credential that establishes someone as real is the ability to supply CPU power. > But in the absence of identity, there's no downside to them > if spends become invalid, if they've already received the > goods they double-spent for (access to website, download, > whatever). The merchants are left holding the bag with > "invalid" coins, unless they wait that magical "few blocks" > (and how can they know how many?) before treating the spender > as having paid. > > The consumers won't do this if they spend their coin and it takes > an hour to clear before they can do what they spent their coin on. > The merchants won't do it if there's no way to charge back a > customer when they find the that their coin is invalid because > the customer has doublespent. This is a version 2 problem that I believe can be solved fairly satisfactorily for most applications. The race is to spread your transaction on the network first. Think 6 degrees of freedom -- it spreads exponentially. It would only take something like 2 minutes for a transaction to spread widely enough that a competitor starting late would have little chance of grabbing very many nodes before the first one is overtaking the whole network. During those 2 minutes, the merchant's nodes can be watching for a double-spent transaction. The double-spender would not be able to blast his alternate transaction out to the world without the merchant getting it, so he has to wait before starting. If the real transaction reaches 90% and the double-spent tx reaches 10%, the double-spender only gets a 10% chance of not paying, and 90% chance his money gets spent. For almost any type of goods, that's not going to be worth it for the scammer. Information based goods like access to website or downloads are non-fencible. Nobody is going to be able to make a living off stealing access to websites or downloads. They can go to the file sharing networks to steal that. Most instant-access products aren't going to have a huge incentive to steal. If a merchant actually has a problem with theft, they can make the customer wait 2 minutes, or wait for something in e-mail, which many already do. If they really want to optimize, and it's a large download, they could cancel the download in the middle if the transaction comes back double-spent. If it's website access, typically it wouldn't be a big deal to let the customer have access for 5 minutes and then cut off access if it's rejected. Many such sites have a free trial anyway. Satoshi [in response to a question about scale] 100,000 block generating nodes is a good ballpark large-scale size to think about. Propagating a transaction across the whole network twice would consume a total of US$ 0.02 of bandwidth at today's prices. In practice, many would be burning off excess allocated bandwidth or unlimited plans with one of the cheaper backbones. There could be millions of SPV clients. They only matter in how many transactions they generate. If they pay 1 or 2 cents transaction fees, they pay for themselves. I've coded it so you can pay any optional amount of transaction fees you want. When the incentive subsidy eventually tapers off, it may be necessary to put a market-determined transaction fee on your transactions to make sure nodes process them promptly. To think about what a really huge transaction load would look like, I look at the existing credit card network. I found some more estimates about how many transactions are online purchases. It's about 15 million tx per day for the entire e-commerce load of the Internet worldwide. At 1KB per transaction, that would be 15GB of bandwidth for each block generating node per day, or about two DVD movies worth. Seems do-able even with today's technology. Important to remember, even if Bitcoin caught on at dot-com rates of growth, it would still take years to become any substantial fraction of all transactions. I believe hardware has already recently become strong enough to handle large scale, but if there's any doubt about that, bandwidth speeds, prices, disk space and computing power will be much greater by the time it's needed. Satoshi > One other question I had... What prevents the single node with the most > CPU power from generating and retaining the majority of the BitCoins? > If every node is working independently of all others, if one is > significantly more powerful than the others, isn't it probable that this > node will reach the proper conclusion before other nodes? An > underpowered node may get lucky once in a while, but if they are at a > significant horsepower advantage I would expect the majority of BitCoins > to be generated by the most powerful node. It's not like a race where if one car is twice as fast, it'll always win. It's an SHA-256 that takes less than a microsecond, and each guess has an independent chance of success. Each computer's chance of finding a hash collision is linearly proportional to it's CPU power. A computer that's half as fast would get half as many coins. [question about what to backup] The files are in "%appdata%\Bitcoin", that's the directory to backup. %appdata% is per-user access privilege. Most new programs like Firefox store their settings files there, despite the headwind of Microsoft changing the directory name with every Windows release and being full of spaces and so long it runs off the screen. [question about what to backup] The directory is "%appdata%\Bitcoin" It has spaces in it so you need the quotes cd "%appdata%\bitcoin" On XP it would typically be: C:\Documents and Settings[username]\Application Data\Bitcoin Backup that whole directory. All data files are in that directory. There are no temporary files. [question about what to backup] The crucial file to backup is wallet.dat. If bitcoin is running then you have to backup the whole %appdata%\bitcoin directory including the database subdirectory, but even if it's not running it certainly feels safer to always backup the whole directory. The database unfortunately names its files "log.0000000001". To the rest of the world, "log" means delete-at-will, but to database people it means delete-and-lose-everything-in-your-other-files. I tried to put them out of harm's way by putting them in the database subdirectory. Later I'll write code to flush the logs after every wallet change so wallet.dat will be standalone safe almost all the time. > > You know, I think there were a lot more people interested in the 90's, > > but after more than a decade of failed Trusted Third Party based systems > > (Digicash, etc), they see it as a lost cause. I hope they can make the > > distinction that this is the first time I know of that we're trying a > > non-trust-based system. > > Yea, that was the primary feature that caught my eye. The real trick > will be to get people to actually value the Bitcoins so that they become > currency. Hal sort of alluded to the possibility that it could be seen as a long-odds investment. I would be surprised if 10 years from now we're not using electronic currency in some way, now that we know a way to do it that won't inevitably get dumbed down when the trusted third party gets cold feet. Once it gets bootstrapped, there are so many applications if you could effortlessly pay a few cents to a website as easily as dropping coins in a vending machine. [this next bit turned out to be very controversial. there is extreme prejudice against spam solutions, especially proof-of-work.] It can already be used for pay-to-send e-mail. The send dialog is resizeable and you can enter as long of a message as you like. It's sent directly when it connects. The recipient doubleclicks on the transaction to see the full message. If someone famous is getting more e-mail than they can read, but would still like to have a way for fans to contact them, they could set up Bitcoin and give out the IP address on their website. "Send X bitcoins to my priority hotline at this IP and I'll read the message personally." Subscription sites that need some extra proof-of-work for their free trial so it doesn't cannibalize subscriptions could charge bitcoins for the trial. [again, I don't know why I'm including this, as it's best to stay away from claims about spam. people automatically react violently against any suggestion of a spam solution.] > Spammer botnets could burn through pay-per-send email filters > trivially (as usual, the costs would fall on people other than the > botnet herders & spammers). Then you could earn a nice profit by setting up pay-per-send e-mail addresses and collecting all the spam money. You could sell it back to spammers who don't have big enough botnets to generate their own, helping bootstrap the currency's value. As more people catch on, they'll set up more and more phony addresses to harvest it. By the time the book "How I got rich exploiting spammers and you can too" is coming out, there'll be too many fake addresses and the spammers will have to give up. > > * Spammer botnets could burn through pay-per-send email filters > > trivially > If POW tokens do become useful, and especially if they become money, > machines will no longer sit idle. Users will expect their computers to > be earning them money (assuming the reward is greater than the cost to > operate). A computer whose earnings are being stolen by a botnet will > be more noticeable to its owner than is the case today, hence we might > expect that in that world, users will work harder to maintain their > computers and clean them of botnet infestations. One more factor that would mitigate spam if POW tokens have value: there would be a profit motive for people to set up massive quantities of fake e-mail accounts to harvest POW tokens from spam. They'd essentially be reverse-spamming the spammers with automated mailboxes that collect their POW and don't read the message. The ratio of fake mailboxes to real people could become too high for spam to be cost effective. The process has the potential to establish the POW token's value in the first place, since spammers that don't have a botnet could buy tokens from harvesters. While the buying back would temporarily let more spam through, it would only hasten the self-defeating cycle leading to too many harvesters exploiting the spammers. Interestingly, one of the e-gold systems already has a form of spam called "dusting". Spammers send a tiny amount of gold dust in order to put a spam message in the transaction's comment field. If the system let users configure the minimum payment they're willing to receive, or at least the minimum that can have a message with it, users could set how much they're willing to get paid to receive spam. > The last thing we need is to deploy a system designed to burn all > available cycles, consuming electricity and generating carbon dioxide, > all over the Internet, in order to produce small amounts of bitbux to > get emails or spams through. > > Can't we just convert actual money in a bank account into bitbux -- > cheaply and without a carbon tax? Please? Ironic if we end up having to choose between economic liberty and conservation. Unfortunately, proof of work is the only solution I've found to make p2p e-cash work without a trusted third party. Even if I wasn't using it secondarily as a way to allocate the initial distribution of currency, PoW is fundamental to coordinating the network and preventing double-spending. If it did grow to consume significant energy, I think it would still be less wasteful than the labour and resource intensive conventional banking activity it would replace. The cost would be an order of magnitude less than the billions in banking fees that pay for all those brick and mortar buildings, skyscrapers and junk mail credit card offers. Satoshi > BTW I don't remember if we talked about this, but the other day some > people were mentioning secure timestamping. You want to be able to > prove that a certain document existed at a certain time in the past. > Seems to me that bitcoin's stack of blocks would be perfect for this. Indeed, Bitcoin is a distributed secure timestamp server for transactions. A few lines of code could create a transaction with an extra hash in it of anything that needs to be timestamped. I should add a command to timestamp a file that way. From a thread on p2presearch which starts with my rant about trust being the root weakness of all conventional financial systems. http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-February/thread.html I've developed a new open source P2P e-cash system called Bitcoin. It's completely decentralized, with no central server or trusted parties, because everything is based on crypto proof instead of trust. Give it a try, or take a look at the screenshots and design paper: Download Bitcoin v0.1 at http://www.bitcoin.org The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible. A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless. One of the fundamental building blocks for such a system is digital signatures. A digital coin contains the public key of its owner. To transfer it, the owner signs the coin together with the public key of the next owner. Anyone can check the signatures to verify the chain of ownership. It works well to secure ownership, but leaves one big problem unsolved: double-spending. Any owner could try to re-spend an already spent coin by signing it again to another owner. The usual solution is for a trusted company with a central database to check for double-spending, but that just gets back to the trust model. In its central position, the company can override the users, and the fees needed to support the company make micropayments impractical. Bitcoin's solution is to use a peer-to-peer network to check for double-spending. In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle. For details on how it works, see the design paper at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf The result is a distributed system with no single point of failure. Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the P2P network to check for double-spending. Satoshi Nakamoto http://www.bitcoin.org Martien van Steenbergen Martien at AardRock.COM Thu Feb 12 08:40:53 CET 2009 Very interesting. Is this akin to David Chaum's anonymous digital money? His concept makes sure money is anonymous unless it is compromised, i.e. the same money spent more than once. As soon as it's compromised, the ‘counterfeiter’ is immediately publicly exposed. Also, in bitcoin, is there a limited supply of money (that must be managed)? Or is money created exaclty at the moment of transaction? Succes en plezier, Martien. Martien van Steenbergen wrote: > Very interesting. Is this akin to David Chaum's anonymous digital money? > His concept makes sure money is anonymous unless it is compromised, i.e. > the same money spent more than once. As soon as it's compromised, the > ‘counterfeiter’ is immediately publicly exposed. It's similar in that it uses digital signatures for coins, but different in the approach to privacy and preventing double-spending. The recipient of a Bitcoin payment is able to check whether it is the first spend or not, and second-spends are not accepted. There isn't an off-line mode where double-spenders are caught and shamed after the fact, because that would require participants to have identities. To protect privacy, key pairs are used only once, with a new one for every transaction. The owner of a coin is just whoever has its private key. Of course, the biggest difference is the lack of a central server. That was the Achilles heel of Chaumian systems; when the central company shut down, so did the currency. > Also, in bitcoin, is there a limited supply of money (that must be > managed)? Or is money created exaclty at the moment of transaction? There is a limited supply of money. Circulation will be 21,000,000 coins. Transactions only transfer ownership. Thank you for your questions, Satoshi Martien van Steenbergen wrote: > Reminds me of: > > * AardRock » Wizard Rabbit Treasurer > http://wiki.aardrock.com/Wizard_Rabbit_Treasurer; and > * AardRock » Pekunio http://wiki.aardrock.com/Pekunio Indeed, it is much like Pekunio in the concept of spraying redundant copies of every transaction to a number of peers on the network, but the implementation is not a reputation network like Wizard Rabbit Treasurer. In fact, Bitcoin does not use reputation at all. It sees the network as just a big crowd and doesn't much care who it talks to or who tells it something, as long as at least one of them relays the information being broadcast around the network. It doesn't care because there's no way to lie to it. Either you tell it crypto proof of something, or it ignores you. > Are you familiar with Ripple? As trust systems go, Ripple is unique in spreading trust around rather than concentrating it. [I've been asked at least 4 other times "have you heard of Ripple?"] Michel Bauwens wrote: > how operational is your project? how soon do you think people will be > able to use it in real life? It's fully operational and the network is growing. If you try the software, e-mail me your Bitcoin address and I'll send you a few coins. We just need to spread the word and keep getting more people interested. Here's a link to the original introduction of the paper on the Cryptography mailing list. (Inflation issues were superseded by changes I made later to support transaction fees and the limited circulation plan. This link is a moving target, this archive page is just a certain number of days back and the discussion will keep scrolling off to the next page.) http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/mail3.html A little follow up when the software was released. http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/mail2.html My description of how Bitcoin solves the Byzantine Generals' problem: http://www.bitcoin.org/byzantine.html

My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it's locked in and we're stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that's very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it'll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there's only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There's plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it's now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1.

Source: mmalmi.github.io

France sent a warship to New York harbor in early August 1971 with instructions to bring back its gold from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. It was, after all, French President Charles de Gaulle who remained consistently skeptical about the US dollar, saying at a press conference on February 4, 1965, that it was impossible for the dollar to be "an impartial and international trade medium . . . It is in fact a credit instrument reserved for one state only." (Cited in Benn Steil's The Battle of Bretton Woods. Princeton University Press, 2013.) After August 15, 1971, the value of the dollar floated against other major currencies, thereby relieving the pressure on the world's major reserve currency but also removing the earlier discipline to use that responsibility carefully.

Source: www.huffpost.com

Valuation can only take place in terms of units, yet it is impossible that there should ever be a unit of subjective use value for goods. Marginal utility does not posit any unit of value, since it is obvious that the value of two units of a given stock is necessarily greater than, but less than double, the value of a single unit. Judgments of value do not measure; they merely establish grades and scales. 4 Even Robinson Crusoe, when he has to make a decision where no ready judgment of value appears and where he has to construct one upon the basis of a more or less exact estimate, cannot operate solely with subjective use value, but must take into consideration the intersubstitutability of goods on the basis of which he can then form his estimates. In such circumstances it will be impossible for him to refer all things back to one unit. Rather will he, so far as he can, refer all the elements which have to be taken into account in forming his estimate to those economic goods which can be apprehended by an obvious judgment of value<—that is to say, to goods of a lower order and to pain-cost. That this is only possible in very simple conditions is obvious. In the case of more complicated and more lengthy processes of production it will, plainly, not answer.

Source: mises.org

The global mine production of gold steadily rose following the 2008 economic crisis. In 2010, gold mine production worldwide totaled 2,560 metric tons and has surpassed three thousand metric tons in each year since 2015. Alongside mining costs, the U.S. production value of gold increased from 3.67 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 to a high of 12.6 billion U.S. dollars in 2012. Figures have since fluctuated, standing at 11 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. China is currently leading the global gold mining countries, with an estimated 330 metric tons produced in 2022, while Australia came in a close second, producing about 320 metric tons in the same year.

Source: www.statista.com

In 2023, worldwide gold production stood at 3,000 metric tons. Gold is a transition metal known for its bright lustrous yellow coloring. For industrial purposes, its malleability, ductility, and resistance to corrosion and many chemical reactions makes it ideal for applications such as electrical connectors, infrared shielding, and gold leafing.

Source: www.statista.com

Soon P2P network BitTorrent became extremely popular. According to some estimations, in 2004 its traffic represented from 20 to 35% of all traffic on the Internet.

Source: history-computer.com

We're looking for more good examples of Tor users and Tor use cases. If you use Tor for a scenario or purpose not yet described on that page, and you're comfortable sharing it with us, we'd love to hear from you.

Source: 2019.www.torproject.org

If you like Tor's goals, please take a moment to donate to support further Tor development. We're also looking for more sponsors — if you know any companies, NGOs, agencies, or other organizations that want anonymity / privacy / communications security, let them know about us.

Source: 2019.www.torproject.org

You know, I recently began living on bitcoin. I now own no dollars. It has been incredible. I think we can start a Boston Tea Party type movement there if the UX is great. Would you all be interested in Strike+ where you pay monthly for a full-featured live on bitcoin premium experience? Bill pay, waived fees, direct deposit, and more. Nowadays, I think I would.

Source: strike.me

Let us know what interests you most about Strike, we’d love to share more with you.

Source: strike.me

Some of our top countries by total users: Australia South Korea Mexico

Some of our top countries by total users: Australia South Korea Mexico

Source: strike.me

We improved our on-chain wallet by building on-chain tiers. We wanted to ensure that when the mempool gets tough, our users don’t get hurt. With Strike, you can manage on-chain fees on your terms. When a user initiates an on-chain payment with Strike, they are given three options for both fees and speed of settlement: Priority, Standard, and Flexible: Priority is the most expensive but also the fastest option Standard is fairly quick and less expensive Flexible is free but may take a while if you’re willing to wait. We’ve seen a lot of growth in our wallet usage as Strike has become an incredible way to manage your bitcoin. I’m very proud to be able to offer the ability for our customers to purchase as much bitcoin as they’d like and then withdraw it to self-custody for free, using our own infrastructure!

We improved our on-chain wallet by building on-chain tiers. We wanted to ensure that when the mempool gets tough, our users don’t get hurt. With Strike, you can manage on-chain fees on your terms. When a user initiates an on-chain payment with Strike, they are given three options for both fees and speed of settlement: Priority, Standard, and Flexible: Priority is the most expensive but also the fastest option Standard is fairly quick and less expensive Flexible is free but may take a while if you’re willing to wait. We’ve seen a lot of growth in our wallet usage as Strike has become an incredible way to manage your bitcoin. I’m very proud to be able to offer the ability for our customers to purchase as much bitcoin as they’d like and then withdraw it to self-custody for free, using our own infrastructure!

Source: strike.me

Bitcoin Is Difficult to Value Bitcoin is a speculative investment. There is no fundamental reason why it is priced where it is today. It is at the whims of supply and demand, making future prices hard to predict. My colleague, Madeline Hume, took a look at four valuation methodologies for pricing bitcoin. Her conclusion? Each is flawed in its own way, and there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for improving them. Investors must understand that bitcoin prices, and therefore these ETFs, are untethered from a fundamental value. Don’t buy these ETFs if that makes you uneasy.

Bitcoin Is Difficult to Value Bitcoin is a speculative investment. There is no fundamental reason why it is priced where it is today. It is at the whims of supply and demand, making future prices hard to predict. My colleague, Madeline Hume, took a look at four valuation methodologies for pricing bitcoin. Her conclusion? Each is flawed in its own way, and there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for improving them. Investors must understand that bitcoin prices, and therefore these ETFs, are untethered from a fundamental value. Don’t buy these ETFs if that makes you uneasy.

Source: www.morningstar.com

When you hit “Confirm”... Your cash is converted to bitcoin Bitcoin is sent to the third-party partner The partner converts the bitcoin to local currency Local currency is deposited into your recipient’s account The whole process is automated and can be finalized in seconds. Neither you nor your recipient ever owns bitcoin, which lets you avoid any price volatility or tax headaches. It’s just a cash to foreign currency transaction, made through Bitcoin.

When you hit “Confirm”... Your cash is converted to bitcoin Bitcoin is sent to the third-party partner The partner converts the bitcoin to local currency Local currency is deposited into your recipient’s account The whole process is automated and can be finalized in seconds. Neither you nor your recipient ever owns bitcoin, which lets you avoid any price volatility or tax headaches. It’s just a cash to foreign currency transaction, made through Bitcoin.

Source: strike.me

Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine—too cheap to meter.

Source: stewartmader.com

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Source: nakamotoinstitute.org

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

Source: nakamotoinstitute.org

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

Source: nakamotoinstitute.org

The history of banking is in many ways the history of this dilution—as governments soon discovered that through mere legislation they could declare that everyone within their borders had to accept that this year’s coins were equal to last year’s coins, even if the new coins had less silver and more lead. In many countries, the penalties for casting doubt on this system, even for pointing out the adulteration, was asset-seizure at best, and at worst: hanging, beheading, death-by-fire. In Imperial Rome, this currency-degradation, which today might be described as a “financial innovation,” would go on to finance previously-unaffordable policies and forever wars, leading eventually to the Crisis of the Third Century and Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, which outlived the collapse of the Roman economy and the empire itself in an appropriately memorable way:

The history of banking is in many ways the history of this dilution—as governments soon discovered that through mere legislation they could declare that everyone within their borders had to accept that this year’s coins were equal to last year’s coins, even if the new coins had less silver and more lead. In many countries, the penalties for casting doubt on this system, even for pointing out the adulteration, was asset-seizure at best, and at worst: hanging, beheading, death-by-fire. In Imperial Rome, this currency-degradation, which today might be described as a “financial innovation,” would go on to finance previously-unaffordable policies and forever wars, leading eventually to the Crisis of the Third Century and Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, which outlived the collapse of the Roman economy and the empire itself in an appropriately memorable way

Source: edwardsnowden.substack.com

Rather, I will tell you what a CBDC is NOT—it is NOT, as Wikipedia might tell you, a digital dollar. After all, most dollars are already digital, existing not as something folded in your wallet, but as an entry in a bank’s database, faithfully requested and rendered beneath the glass of your phone. In every example, money cannot exist outside the knowledge of the Central Bank Neither is a Central Bank Digital Currency a State-level embrace of cryptocurrency—at least not of cryptocurrency as pretty much everyone in the world who uses it currently understands it. Instead, a CBDC is something closer to being a perversion of cryptocurrency, or at least of the founding principles and protocols of cryptocurrency—a cryptofascist currency, an evil twin entered into the ledgers on Opposite Day, expressly designed to deny its users the basic ownership of their money and to install the State at the mediating center of every transaction.

I will tell you what a CBDC is NOT—it is NOT, as Wikipedia might tell you, a digital dollar. After all, most dollars are already digital, existing not as something folded in your wallet, but as an entry in a bank’s database, faithfully requested and rendered beneath the glass of your phone. In every example, money cannot exist outside the knowledge of the Central Bank Neither is a Central Bank Digital Currency a State-level embrace of cryptocurrency—at least not of cryptocurrency as pretty much everyone in the world who uses it currently understands it. Instead, a CBDC is something closer to being a perversion of cryptocurrency, or at least of the founding principles and protocols of cryptocurrency—a cryptofascist currency, an evil twin entered into the ledgers on Opposite Day, expressly designed to deny its users the basic ownership of their money and to install the State at the mediating center of every transaction.

Source: edwardsnowden.substack.com

I agree with my friends (and lawyers) at the ACLU: the US government’s indictment of Assange amounts to the criminalization of investigative journalism. And I agree with myriad friends (and lawyers) throughout the world that at the core of this criminalization is a cruel and unsual paradox: namely, the fact that many of the activities that the US government would rather hush up are perpetrated in foreign countries, whose journalism will now be answerable to the US court system. And the precedent established here will be exploited by all manner of authoritarian leaders across the globe. What will be the State Department’s response when the Republic of Iran demands the extradition of New York Times reporters for violating Iran’s secrecy laws? How will the United Kingdom respond when Viktor Orban or Recep Erdogan seeks the extradition of Guardian reporters? The point is not that the U.S. or U.K would ever comply with those demands — of course they wouldn’t — but that they would lack any principled basis for their refusals.

Source: edwardsnowden.substack.com

This Christmas may well be the last that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange will spend outside US custody. On December 10, the British High Court ruled in favor of extraditing Assange to the United States, where he will be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing truthful information. It is clear to me that the charges against Assange are both baseless and dangerous, in unequal measure — baseless in Assange’s personal case, and dangerous to all. In seeking to prosecute Assange, the US government is purporting to extend its sovereignty to the global stage and hold foreign publishers accountable to US secrecy laws. By doing so, the US government will be establishing a precedent for prosecuting all news organization everywhere — all journalists in every country — who rely on classified documents to report on, for example, US war crimes, or the US drone program, or any other governmental or military or intelligence activity that the State Department, or the CIA, or the NSA, would rather keep locked away in the classified dark, far from public view, and even from Congressional oversight. As a measure of journalistic impact, the Pulitzer Prize holds significantly less prestige than the CIA plotting to murder you.

Source: edwardsnowden.substack.com

But Donald Trump doesn't seem to share the same excitement towards NFTs or cryptocurrencies, based on his interview with Fox News. "I never loved it [crypto] because I like to have the dollar. I think the currency should be the dollar, so I was never a big fan but it's building up bigger and bigger and nobody's doing anything about it. I want a currency called the dollar, I don't want to have all of these others," Trump said.

But Donald Trump doesn't seem to share the same excitement towards NFTs or cryptocurrencies, based on his interview with Fox News. "I never loved it [crypto] because I like to have the dollar. I think the currency should be the dollar, so I was never a big fan but it's building up bigger and bigger and nobody's doing anything about it. I want a currency called the dollar, I don't want to have all of these others," Trump said

Source: markets.businessinsider.com

In July 2019, the governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada issued a communique, concluding that: “tech companies should include mechanisms in the design of their encrypted products and services whereby governments, acting with appropriate legal authority, can gain access to data in a readable and usable format. Those companies should also embed the safety of their users in their system designs, enabling them to take action against illegal content.”[footnote 5]

Source: www.gov.uk

Jefferson's disk cipher The Jefferson disk, also called the Bazeries cylinder or wheel cypher[1] was a cipher system invented by Thomas Jefferson in 1795 that uses a set of wheels or disks, each with the 26 letters of the alphabet arranged around their edge. A similar, improved device was independently re-invented in 1891 by Commandant Etienne Bazeries, but did not become well known until he broke the Great Cipher, of Rossignols, a century after Jefferson's work.[2] The order of the letters is different for each disk and is usually ordered randomly. Each disk is marked with a unique number and a hole in the center of the disks allows them to be stacked on an axle. The disks are removable and can be mounted on the axle in any order desired. The order of the disks is the cipher key, and both sender and receiver must arrange the disks in the same predefined order. Jefferson's device had 36 disks while Bazeries' system had 20.[3][4] Once the disks have been placed on the axle in the agreed order, the sender rotates each disk up and down until a desired message is spelled out in one row. Then, the sender can copy down any row of text on the disks other than the one that contains the plaintext message. The recipient has to arrange the disks in the agreed-upon order, rotate the disks so they spell out the encrypted message on one row, and then look around the rows until they see the plaintext.

Jefferson's disk cipher The Jefferson disk, also called the Bazeries cylinder or wheel cypher[1] was a cipher system invented by Thomas Jefferson in 1795 that uses a set of wheels or disks, each with the 26 letters of the alphabet arranged around their edge. A similar, improved device was independently re-invented in 1891 by Commandant Etienne Bazeries, but did not become well known until he broke the Great Cipher, of Rossignols, a century after Jefferson's work.[2] The order of the letters is different for each disk and is usually ordered randomly. Each disk is marked with a unique number and a hole in the center of the disks allows them to be stacked on an axle. The disks are removable and can be mounted on the axle in any order desired. The order of the disks is the cipher key, and both sender and receiver must arrange the disks in the same predefined order. Jefferson's device had 36 disks while Bazeries' system had 20.[3][4] Once the disks have been placed on the axle in the agreed order, the sender rotates each disk up and down until a desired message is spelled out in one row. Then, the sender can copy down any row of text on the disks other than the one that contains the plaintext message. The recipient has to arrange the disks in the agreed-upon order, rotate the disks so they spell out the encrypted message on one row, and then look around the rows until they see the plaintext.

Source: en.wikipedia.org

The government knows what a pivotal role cryptography is destined to play in the power relationship with its people. In April 1993, the Clinton administration unveiled a bold new encryption policy initiative, which had been under development at the National Security Agency (NSA) since the start of the Bush administration. The centerpiece of this initiative was a government-built encryption device, called the Clipper chip, containing a new classified NSA encryption algorithm. The government tried to encourage private industry to design it into all their secure communication products, such as secure phones, secure faxes, and so on. AT&T put Clipper into its secure voice products. The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip is loaded with its own unique key, and the government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though–the government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only "when duly authorized by law." Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography. The government initially claimed that using Clipper would be voluntary, that no one would be forced to use it instead of other types of cryptography. But the public reaction against the Clipper chip was strong, stronger than the government anticipated. The computer industry monolithically proclaimed its opposition to using Clipper. FBI director Louis Freeh responded to a question in a press conference in 1994 by saying that if Clipper failed to gain public support, and FBI wiretaps were shut out by non-government-controlled cryptography, his office would have no choice but to seek legislative relief. Later, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Freeh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public availability of strong cryptography must be curtailed by the government (although no one had suggested that cryptography was used by the bombers). The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government policies. They spied on the antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. They wiretapped the phone of Martin Luther King. Nixon had his enemies list. Then there was the Watergate mess. More recently, Congress has either attempted to or succeeded in passing laws curtailing our civil liberties on the Internet. Some elements of the Clinton White House collected confidential FBI files on Republican civil servants, conceivably for political exploitation. And some overzealous prosecutors have shown a willingness to go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of exposing sexual indiscretions of political enemies. At no time in the past century has public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed across the political spectrum, as it is today.

The government knows what a pivotal role cryptography is destined to play in the power relationship with its people. In April 1993, the Clinton administration unveiled a bold new encryption policy initiative, which had been under development at the National Security Agency (NSA) since the start of the Bush administration. The centerpiece of this initiative was a government-built encryption device, called the Clipper chip, containing a new classified NSA encryption algorithm. The government tried to encourage private industry to design it into all their secure communication products, such as secure phones, secure faxes, and so on. AT&T put Clipper into its secure voice products. The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip is loaded with its own unique key, and the government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though–the government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only "when duly authorized by law." Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography. The government initially claimed that using Clipper would be voluntary, that no one would be forced to use it instead of other types of cryptography. But the public reaction against the Clipper chip was strong, stronger than the government anticipated. The computer industry monolithically proclaimed its opposition to using Clipper. FBI director Louis Freeh responded to a question in a press conference in 1994 by saying that if Clipper failed to gain public support, and FBI wiretaps were shut out by non-government-controlled cryptography, his office would have no choice but to seek legislative relief. Later, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Freeh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that public availability of strong cryptography must be curtailed by the government (although no one had suggested that cryptography was used by the bombers). The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government policies. They spied on the antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. They wiretapped the phone of Martin Luther King. Nixon had his enemies list. Then there was the Watergate mess. More recently, Congress has either attempted to or succeeded in passing laws curtailing our civil liberties on the Internet. Some elements of the Clinton White House collected confidential FBI files on Republican civil servants, conceivably for political exploitation. And some overzealous prosecutors have shown a willingness to go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of exposing sexual indiscretions of political enemies. At no time in the past century has public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed across the political spectrum, as it is today.

Source: www.philzimmermann.com

The United States is entitled to more than $5.2m from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s book royalties, a federal court ruled this week, according to the US Department of Justice. In a statement, the department said the US district court for the eastern district of Virginia on Tuesday also ruled in favor of setting up a trust for the government for any future earnings from Snowden’s book, which had been the subject of a federal lawsuit. A lawyer for Snowden did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In September 2019, the US government sued Snowden, who resides in Russia, over his publication of Permanent Record, a book which the United States says violated non-disclosure agreements he signed when working for the NSA and the CIA. The United States alleges that Snowden published the book without first submitting it to US agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of agreements he signed when working for the agencies. US authorities did not seek to block publication of Snowden’s book but rather to seize all proceeds.

The United States is entitled to more than $5.2m from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s book royalties, a federal court ruled this week, according to the US Department of Justice. In a statement, the department said the US district court for the eastern district of Virginia on Tuesday also ruled in favor of setting up a trust for the government for any future earnings from Snowden’s book, which had been the subject of a federal lawsuit. A lawyer for Snowden did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In September 2019, the US government sued Snowden, who resides in Russia, over his publication of Permanent Record, a book which the United States says violated non-disclosure agreements he signed when working for the NSA and the CIA. The United States alleges that Snowden published the book without first submitting it to US agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of agreements he signed when working for the agencies. US authorities did not seek to block publication of Snowden’s book but rather to seize all proceeds.

Source: www.theguardian.com

On September 17, 2019, the Federal Government of the United States filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Snowden for alleged violations of non-disclosure agreements with the CIA and NSA.[8] The complaint alleges that Snowden violated prepublication obligations related to the publication of his memoir Permanent Record. The complaint lists the publishers Macmillan and Holtzbrink as relief defendants.[9] The government stated that its lawsuit "does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution" of the book, but instead aims to capture the proceeds Snowden would be earning from it.[8] In December 2019, Judge Liam O'Grady concurred with the plaintiff.[10] Snowden refused during the civil lawsuit to produce documents showing how much he was paid. As a result, federal prosecutors sought sanctions against Snowden.[11] On August 7, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan agreed to impose sanctions on Snowden, ruling that he "unequivocally acted in bad faith".[12][better source needed]

On September 17, 2019, the Federal Government of the United States filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Snowden for alleged violations of non-disclosure agreements with the CIA and NSA.[8] The complaint alleges that Snowden violated prepublication obligations related to the publication of his memoir Permanent Record. The complaint lists the publishers Macmillan and Holtzbrink as relief defendants.[9] The government stated that its lawsuit "does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution" of the book, but instead aims to capture the proceeds Snowden would be earning from it.[8] In December 2019, Judge Liam O'Grady concurred with the plaintiff.[10] Snowden refused during the civil lawsuit to produce documents showing how much he was paid. As a result, federal prosecutors sought sanctions against Snowden.[11] On August 7, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan agreed to impose sanctions on Snowden, ruling that he "unequivocally acted in bad faith".[

Source: en.wikipedia.org

DESIRED SKILLS Must Haves: Excellent written and verbal English language skills Strong understanding of basic Bitcoin concepts Strong understanding on different types of Bitcoin wallets, including software, hardware, and multisignature Nice to Haves: Located in a U.S. timezone Prior experience in a customer facing role Bonus Skills: Experience in 1-on-1 customer support via calls and/or video chat Experience in creating written documentation for consumer products *Resume and Cover Letter are required.

DESIRED SKILLS Must Haves: Excellent written and verbal English language skills Strong understanding of basic Bitcoin concepts Strong understanding on different types of Bitcoin wallets, including software, hardware, and multisignature Nice to Haves: Located in a U.S. timezone Prior experience in a customer facing role Bonus Skills: Experience in 1-on-1 customer support via calls and/or video chat Experience in creating written documentation for consumer products *Resume and Cover Letter are required.

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

Your primary responsibilities will be to respond to customer inquiries via our self-hosted support dashboard, as well as offering support where possible in our community Telegram group. Under the leadership of the Head of Customer Experience, you will play a key role in helping us extend our industry leading customer support solutions. Customer inquiries can be wide ranging from shipping inquiries, to Passport or Envoy specific issues, to even general conceptual Bitcoin questions. A good knowledge of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin tools we create at Foundation is crucial. You should be a subject matter expert, enabling them to empower our users to get the best from our growing product range.

Your primary responsibilities will be to respond to customer inquiries via our self-hosted support dashboard, as well as offering support where possible in our community Telegram group. Under the leadership of the Head of Customer Experience, you will play a key role in helping us extend our industry leading customer support solutions. Customer inquiries can be wide ranging from shipping inquiries, to Passport or Envoy specific issues, to even general conceptual Bitcoin questions. A good knowledge of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin tools we create at Foundation is crucial. You should be a subject matter expert, enabling them to empower our users to get the best from our growing product range.

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

Nice to Haves: Located in a U.S. timezone Prior experience in a customer facing role Bonus Skills: Experience in 1-on-1 customer support via calls and/or video chat Experience in creating written documentation for consumer products *Resume and Cover Letter are required.

Nice to Haves: Located in a U.S. timezone Prior experience in a customer facing role Bonus Skills: Experience in 1-on-1 customer support via calls and/or video chat Experience in creating written documentation for consumer products *Resume and Cover Letter are required.

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

Strong understanding on different types of Bitcoin wallets, including software, hardware, and multisignature

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

DESIRED SKILLS Must Haves: Excellent written and verbal English language skills Strong understanding of basic Bitcoin concepts Strong understanding on different types of Bitcoin wallets, including software, hardware, and multisignature

DESIRED SKILLS Must Haves: Excellent written and verbal English language skills Strong understanding of basic Bitcoin concepts Strong understanding on different types of Bitcoin wallets, including software, hardware, and multisignature

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

SELECT RESPONSIBILITIES Monitor and respond to customer inquiries via multiple channels within our support dashboard Monitor and respond to community questions in our Telegram community room Communicate with the Customer Experience team on common issues to help improve our products

SELECT RESPONSIBILITIES Monitor and respond to customer inquiries via multiple channels within our support dashboard Monitor and respond to community questions in our Telegram community room Communicate with the Customer Experience team on common issues to help improve our products

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

Enthusiasm for Bitcoin and/or empowering people with sovereignty is required

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

A good knowledge of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin tools we create at Foundation is crucial. You should be a subject matter expert, enabling them to empower our users to get the best from our growing product range.

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com

Do you believe in sovereignty, privacy, and freedom? Do you want to help Bitcoin and sovereignty achieve widespread adoption?

Source: bitcoinerjobs.com