Miners are like the landowners. BCH hodlers/users are like the citizens. Both have a stake in the network, but one moreso than the others, & one actually has real voting rights by way of hash, which serves to demonstrate their preferences, & puts their money where their mouth is. This, is a system with a high signal:noise ratio, & is made highly competitive by the elastic nature of digital blockchain networks that can easily direct hash towards other chains. In other words, Miners (landowners) can easily move to another town in this digital landscape/quasi-state. This fosters cooperation between devs, & the Miners. Miners, who benefit from running their software. And users/hodlers, who use the network supported by the Miners. Yet, the Global Network Council doesn't discard users (citizens) from contributing to the ecosystem. Mechanisms are being put in place, so that those users with verifiable skin in the game, can contribute their voice towards enhancing the network from the user perspective. BCH is primed for success, by way of the coinbase rule aligning & coordinating the ecosystem. Sharpen your knives. The real work of building & growing the chain is only just beginning...
BCH; Sharpen your knives...
Here is the crucial breakthrough that the IFP has created.
**Professionalism.**
No more hobby projects, relying on the goodwill of some coder that's fueled by Red Bull and an ideological obsession, such as the case may have been for Satoshi and other early contributors.
For a network to fulfill the mission of P2P Electronic Cash for the world, it has become clear that a sustainable funding model is needed.
IFP provides that.
*"But what about coding neutrality?"*
^This is the most common, and credible, retort in response to the IFP.
IFP enters us into the next phase of Bitcoin's metamorphosis.
Bitcoin, at inception, needed to be open source & "neutral." If it was not, there would be a central point of failure. Someone to hold to account for it's threat to the Dragon, and would be dealt with like the projects before it.
Bitcoin, since prominence, has clearly been nobody's project. Hence, the vast sea of talented developers creating their own projects, and a general lack of hostility from governments.
This led to the 2017 hype bubble, highlighted by ICOs.
Developers pursuing their self-interest. Seeking material profit, instead of psychic profit, by way of contributing towards the creation of an ideological, digital, Galt's Gulch. Why join the Bitcoin crusade? Just create your own religion & be the leader.
Yet, here we are, still relying on morals as a motivator, & not cultivating an environment to foster THE killer app that blockchain provided for. Money.
With ICO's flaming out, and the litany of shiny objects being pitched to desperate investors & lost developers looking to rekindle the flame *cough*-DeFi-*cough*. We've come back full circle to the original mission... Bitcoin as a better money for the world.
Primarily, a Medium of Exchange + Store of Value (or more accurately, a 'value-transfer network')
Bitcoin was nobody's project. Hence, it was EVERYBODY'S project.
And if it's everybody's project, a nebulous collective, who is responsible for continuing code maintenance? Who contributes the necessary commits? How does anything get done?
So, indeed, code neutrality was a necessary condition for Bitcoin to have any chance at survival in its beginning. Yes.
https://youtu.be/uJOQsQdp1Uc?t=35m33s
Enter the next phase...
Pandora's Box has been opened. The idea of a decentralized, digital, p2p money cannot be put back in that box. And the race is on. To compete against all monies. No longer amongst ourselves.
We see reports every day of countries and their governments planning to go fully digital & abandon cash, we see better payment apps (Venmo, CashApp, Zelle), the IMF's plans for a digital currency, the myriad of competing altcoins, corporate coins such as Libra, etc.
It is important to focus on BUIDLing, and adoption, once again. The fundamentals.
Especially in the advent of more private, State Chartered banks, that will no longer be under the thumb of the Fed and their regulations. See (1) article on credible competition from creation of private banks, and (2a) such private banks being cultivated in Wyoming by way of their (2b) Special Purpose Depository Institutions (Also, see CoinFugazi's article for the best counter I've seen for my positing of private banks providing metals + fintech/pmts as viable threat to Bitcoin.) https://read.cash/@SeanBallard/remembering-the-liberty-dollar-the-threat-to-btc-node-decentralization-hodl-number-go-up-4e75fa52 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/kraken-crypto-exchange-receives-unique-charter-to-operate-as-a-bank-2020-09-21 http://wyomingbankingdivision.wyo.gov/home/areas-of-regulation/laws-and-regulation/special-purpose-depository-institution https://read.cash/@CoinFugazi/bitcoin-cash-as-a-hangover-cure-8a276392
Alternative monies + payment technologies will, and are, competing to become the next money, and will be making themselves available for all those jumping ship once inflation starts sinking the boat of fiat. (See Hayden Otto's The Fiat Endgame) https://youtu.be/zRJp5-pyreY
BCH understands this, and #buidlerbergs are indeed sharpening their knives.
Come November 15th, incentives will be aligned, knives sharpened, a well-funded army, and the battle will commence.
Development teams, now getting paid by the network's native currency, will have their compensation inextricably tied their work product, the network itself.
And, as ****professionals******,** they will be held accountable for their work. No getting funded by donations & flaking, or pining for more funding in order to finish what they started. Such as is enabled by a precarious donation-based funding model. If there is not reliable compensation for work, and most coders have primary jobs outside of crypto, why would they continue working?
The IFP will incentivize developers to see their work to completion, and be compensated accordingly, all while attracting talented developers.
This sounds not only like a winning system, but a just one.
BCH with IFP cracks the code on incentives for a creating a sustainable network.
No more martyrdom & expectation of self-sacrifice for the good 'ol cause. That is an antiquated model. One that must be outgrown. The landscape has changed, paradigms sufficiently broken, and time to enter into the new phase.
Whether you ideologically believe it or not, there will be a professional development team buidling BCH to become P2P Electronic Cash.
The new frontier of property rights, and taking back individual sovereignty, awaits us at the other end...
https://youtu.be/_VwcuO51BRw
Viva la revolucion!
<3
-Sean Ballard
Are these "short posts" like tweets? 🧐🤔
The Arbitrary Rule of Amaury; the Rhetoric & Actions of a Dictator?
Here is a presentation from Amaury in September of 2019 on Bitcoin Cash culture, the dynamics of "Infrastructure" in coding & the real world, the role of users, businesses, social media, and developers in the ecosystem.
I implore all to watch before reading any further, as it provides the necessary context to comprehend not just this post, but the BCH ecosystem at large.
https://youtu.be/6ywIL17ityk
The Benevolent Dictator of Bitcoin Cash is a funny tongue & cheek nickname, and it works because it plays on a lot of factors which create the culture of Bitcoin Cash.
Separate blockchains, which implement different rules, are akin to different states, neighborhoods, sports leagues, churches, etc. Quasi-states, if you will. And with a Quasi-State, in the digital realm, comes a key distinction.
Blockchain "quasi-states" are inherently voluntary.
The rules of a "quasi-state" are not followed because it has the credible threat to initiate violence against violators. They are, by definition, consensual. Hence, the underlying mechanism for governance being labelled as "emergent consensus." Consensus, being the key word here, implying its consensual nature.
In many ways, blockchains enable Mises' ideal on the topic of borders & given rules in society. Stating the ideal scenario as one where it's easy to move, so that market forces may work in the realm of society, so that better societies emerge via the competitive forces inherent in a market, and the freedom for an individual to choose which is best for their unique circumstance. The ability to move most freely, voting with ones feet, so as to to demonstrate their preferences, and send a signal of consent for the utility of a given society's rule set, and how they accommodate the nature of a certain individual. Highlighting how these forces will drive freedom & antiquate tyranny. It is something of a utopia, made real via technology.
The costs of moving are inordinately high when compared to the gradual cost stemming from an increase of governmental rent-seeking, leading people to end up staying despite discontent, leading to Governments growing insidiously, doing what they can get away with.
In this new quasi-state landscape, **these moving costs are removed,** allowing any such abuses to get punished with the corresponding **feedback in the blockchain mining marketplace**. And hence, the prospects for the existence of a BCHN chain! A welcome dissolution in light of irreconcilable ideological differences, where Miners whom don't value the ABC client will move their hash.
We should also remember the apparent paradox of voluntaryism, or anarchism.
It is not no rules. It is rules, without rulers.
How do we get rules without rulers? The Austrians invariably cite Hayek's "spontaneous order."
A common example, beautiful in its simplicity, is the convention of walking on the right side of the sidewalk. Or, the rules in a pickup basketball game. It typically occurs based on the utility of a given rule, for the benefit of all involved in the game. It is something that became a rule because of its utility, hence most people naturally agree to it, and there is no need for violent enforcement.
This is the beauty of open source software and the blockchain.
There can be many visions implemented, and the ones providing the most utility will be the ones that are followed, not by coercive force, but by the obvious utility, leading to usage, demand, & increased value of the chain.
In relation to force when it comes to implementing ideas, I'm reminded of the memes regarding the underlying mechanism of socialism...
This is to highlight that, within blockchains, there is no single enforcer coercing action with violence.
This is why the coming split is beautiful.
Amaury is not enforcing the rules in this sense. He has made a proposal for Bitcoin Cash, based on his beliefs for how to fulfill the stated promise and mission of Bitcoin, as a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System for the World, and there is a critical mass of people that will agree on this belief, as ultimately demonstrated by their CPU.
We will see the arising order that springs from ABC's leadership in tieing IFP funding directly to the chain based on the merit of the idea & the utility/value it brings to the overall network, not as a result of ABC utilizing a military force.
There is no question that there is a legitimate ideological schism, representing irreconcilable differences, on the means towards fulfilling the Bitcoin mission, to become a P2P Electronic Cash System for the world.
How does this irreconcilable difference get solved?
A split. Testing each party's implementation of Bitcoin against the real world.
We have a rare opportunity to perform such a split in a mature, civil manner. One that sets an example for all blockchains, and demonstrates the integrity of both sides, instead of bringing out the vitriol of both, making each side worse off.
An event of adults "agreeing to disagree" and moving on accordingly. Not unlike the "Dissolution of the Union" between Norway & Sweden. Or an amicable divorce. Not done in spite. But in a respectful farewell, and recognition of the dignity in the other, despite such irreconcilable differences. To be contrasted with America's Civil War, in a violent attempt to "preserve the Union" for the "common good," resulting in the deaths of 500k people. Or in contrast with Shiite & Suni's civil war, and many other historical examples of ideological differences leading to violent conflict, often characterized by their respective "Tyranny of Vision" and "Quest for Cosmic Justice."
It has been stated many times by Roger Ver, that he doesn't care so much which technology ends up fulfilling the stated ends of Bitcoin, but just that it is fulfilled at all, for the sake of human prosperity. And that he believes BCH has the best chance of fulfilling that promise of a P2P digital cash for the world, in order to create a world that is free from coercion.
Roger Ver has also said that, "the means are the ends" in the course of his discussion over the underhanded tactics that BTC community used in manufacturing consent for small blocks. I'd argue that, rather, "bad means tether good ends."
Of the tactics, vitriolic character assassinations may be the most damaging, for all involved, as it forfeits collaboration & cooperation, in the present & the future. I'll let Thomas Sowell explain what I'm talking about...
https://twitter.com/SeanBallard/status/1293752743350480899?s=20
In fairness, I believe that the manner of argumentation between more prominent leaders backing BCHN and ABC carries much more substance than the BTC tropes, one that was characterized by incessant screaming of "scammer, shitcoin, fraud, etc" followed by blocking, but there is a fine line being walked and let these examples be a cautionary tale.
I am inspired by the higher quality of debate & respect of many within the community. I feel the channels of communication are more open, and issues are being hashed out in a much better fashion. More mature handling of existing conflict. And the result of open/honest communication & the subsequent revealing of preferences, has revealed the irreconcilable differences of opinion, and enabled both parties to have the information necessary in order to move on early & forego any continuing pain by delaying the inevitable by not bringing such issues to light, and both chains can get back to working on their implementation of Bitcoin. Albeit, I understand the frustration of each party feeling that they know what's best for the group, fuelled by good intentions, & their own competency, and these beliefs not being shared or treated charitably.
As for the trash talk, I love it! I feel it has come alive in the spirit of competition, as a respect for the game (*chain*), not to be confused with the scorched earth crusade against an "evil opponent", as explained by Thomas Sowell in the twitter link already provided above. One characterized by a "Tyranny of Vision" as we can see in the BTC crusades, as well as in the USA political parties.
When I talk trash, it's because I think I'm the best, and I want you to be at your best. Spark that competitive spirit & get the juices flowing. Prove me wrong! All for the betterment of ourselves, and the game/chain. Iron sharpening iron. To cite a couple of examples, I've linked YouTube videos below of what I'm talking about...
https://youtu.be/u-2508s0UK4
https://youtu.be/oyVksFviJVE
The label #Bitshevik is part of this competitive nature. It is a caricature of what many see as the modus operandi for many prominent proponents of BCHN, that increasingly attempt to bolster their arguments by claiming to represent a "social consensus," utilizing this "social consensus" as a meaningful mechanism for decision-making/governance, which I think confuses the consumer/user (anyone transacting on the BCH chain) for stockholders (miners), and leads to a mob-style type decision-making.
I think this is a reactionary result of falsely applying the paradigm of coercive Government onto a new paradigm of open-source blockchains, which is an inherently voluntaryist paradigm, wherein hierarchies will naturally arise based on merit, where there is freedom of association, which naturally brings forth leaders, where groups/companies compete on utility/quality of their product, not by coercive force, and certainly not by claiming to represent & enforce the will of the proletariat via a "social consensus."
The #bitshevik being in contrast to the more #capitalist ABC, making their proposals based on the merit of the proposal itself (including the game theoretic incentive problems), their competency, substantiated by their previous work, bolstering the credibility in fulfilling the deliverables outlined in the Road Map, all guided by the support of groups invested in the ecosystem, namely miners, businesses utilizing the network, including exchanges. All of this after utilizing the donation funding model for infrastructure, and funding it insufficient. As Amaury frames the issue, it is Infrastructure that we are talking about. It is not sexy, but it needs to work. Requires very high level engineers, and requires some base level of maintenance. This article by @Cheshirecat does a great job of outlining the maintenance required, and ABC's role in that. https://read.cash/@Cheshirecat/abc-dragging-feet-or-existential-choice-d212416a
Ultimately though, it is miners who are directly effected by the IFP fee, and it is the job of ABC to make the case to miners as to why this funding mechanism is adding value to the chain, and ABC is completely at mercy to the miners for the implementation of this rule change.
To further contrast the ABC operation with "social consensus", I see "social consensus" as being akin to "Social Choice Theory."
Social Choice Theory substantiates the maxim of "talk is cheap," and specifically within a system that coordinates resources & decision-making on the basis of each persons voting, treating each vote as equal, as a quantitative measure of the "social consensus" which #Bitshevik is appealing to for coding decisions. But the social consensus referenced is mostly a popular reddit sentiment.
Additionally, I feel the IFP debate has much of the Bike Shed problem in it, which is something to consider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
In conclusion, this analysis has come from challenging assumptions & exploring this new landscape of open-source software projects, revolutionized by Bitcoin & blockchain, and trying to intellectually orient myself, and figure out the paradigm. It is important to start from first principles, and get it right in that regard. And this is my attempt.
I want to get it right, not be right.
As such, please provide all of your constructive feedback. And sure, throw a little spice in there.
<3
10 Points for Radical Transparency> Radical Privacy; a means for achieving individual liberty
For whatever reason, we are extremely susceptible to false dichotomies, when inevitably, damn near everything exists on a spectrum. That said, the extremes inform the means. So pontificating on the extreme ends of two points, can land us in an optimal middle, and traverse the landscape, allowing for each individual to make an informed decision on the basis of their unique situation.
To bring alive the spectrum and build the landscape, here is my view of it...
Radical Privacy
Radical Privacy I view as basically living alone in a mountain somewhere. Being an unidentified souls, pursuing your own ends for truth itself, and using a pseudonym, if any consistent name at all, as a medium for connecting with others. This can be an intoxicating choice for some, not unlike a Guy Fawkes like figure, but is certainly not for everyone. But even this, there is a conjured identity, so it's only private insofar as there is not a link to your Gov't ordained identity, which the Radical Privateers out there would label as terrible OpSec, bc in the event of a compromise, there is a single thread between you and all the acts done under that identity. Thus, a Radical Privateer would abolish an public identity entirely, and be at peace with no accreditation. Personally, I view this end of the spectrum similar to the sentiment expressed from the movie Into the Wild...
Radical Transparency
Radical Transparency... I struggle to find a real world example of the ultimate extreme, as privacy is such a foundational and obvious principle of human life & dignity. We all understand how vital it is to have a certain amount of privacy within our lives. Privacy represents a place for us to be free. Explore "forbidden" thoughts without fear of judgement or consequences. In privacy, we become in touch with our inner soul, our being, our spirit, and can subsequently cultivate that. This is THE means to enlightenment. One can only find oneself in stillness & the absence of distraction & stimuli. Hence the commonality of most spiritual practicing requiring long periods in solitude for meditation. I feel this is the peril of our modern age, and has led to the NPC meme, and has been coined as #TheDimAge (credit Vin Armani).
The world is filled with drones being surreptitiously programmed via words (see emotive conjugation), completely lacking the capability of critical independent thinking. The Gov't Indoctrination Camps are cultivating emotive decision-making, virtues of collectivism over individualism, and obedience over righteousness. ALL THAT SAID, the most resonate real world case I can come up with for Radical Transparency is the archetype of the overly zealous & naive religious nut, or maybe even the hippy. One who claims to have been contacted by their Lord or some higher power, operating on a premise of absolute certainty & security, and just shares everything accordingly, as its seen as his duty for carrying such an important message, or even lack thereof... I think we can all agree on how off-putting this is, but inevitably this person WILL impact people and find resonate souls to join him, which serves to embolden & protect his message and mode of operating. But we all see this as definitely not normal and not desirable. Being a martyr is a cheap & easy way out of doing the hard work of first figuring out what YOU want, as well as cheap & easy to discount everything as unimportant in a bid for absurdist nihilism. Hence the solitude & meditation I mentioned before, and why we see so few people do it, as it's deeply uncomfortable to confront & embrace the majestic power of our essence.
And that, more or less, is my view of the landscape. Now that it has been laid-out, here are the points that have inspired my journey towards implementing the Radical Transparency, in my desire to see humanity prosper under the conditions of liberty...
10 Points for Practicing Radical Transparency *in the quest for Individual Liberty*
**"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." - Thomas Paine**
This is the seeming paradox, and the monumental wedge dividing the Minarchist & the Anarchist. The dichotomy of achieving worthwhile individual liberty, via the collective. The paradox of individual liberty being a public good doesn't need to touch any variation of the common toxic arguments for the "public good" we so often here from both power hungry psychopaths, & moral elitist busybodies...
https://twitter.com/CerebralWisdom/status/1298122943759675394?s=20
It is in your selfish best interest to invest in the liberty of your neighbors. This is what fuels the Founding Fathers idea of a militia (common citizens oath to bear arms & protect the individual within a community against threats both foreign & domestic). One way to combat the common man's proclivity to vote, is to empower and inspire them with this decaying mode of thinking. If you TRULY believe in individual liberty, for yourself and others, the way to achieve this MUST be through Radical Transparency, but this is where the nuance comes in. It is one thing to volunteer your beliefs to the world via the internet. It's a completely different thing to selectively reveal it, with intent & purpose, to those who MATTER. AKA your neighbors. SPECIFICALLY in person. This is one of the STRONGEST signals for liberty you can emit, as it is actually costly! It costs nothing to blast a message on social media to your network. Knocking on their door, shaking their hand, and expressing your intention to protect them in the face of threats, both foreign & domestic, in the event that SHTF?!?! Think about how powerful that is. And there is NO BETTER TIME TO DO THIS than now! As government agents, as well as rioters, two collectives/mob groups that represent credible dangers to your individual liberty & livelihood? It's well know for centuries that Gov't uses fear to control us, and by way of aikido, we can channel that fear which has already been fostered, to better utilize that driving force for GOOD, instead of letting it yield submission to Government. As we know, with any good lie, it comes from a seed of truth, so it is futile to directly combat & qwell this fear, rather embrace it. I'm speaking in generalities, and obviously for some, this may not even be worth it, and just showering them with love from undeniable energy of a free spirit (don't hate the sinner, hate the sin), and open that line of communication for liberty, and plant that thought of liberty & individual empowerment, is a revolutionary act. It is an egotistical act of futility to dig your feet in the ground, shame them, and believe that this will change their mind. It takes some sense to recognize this own attitude in others, but you do not want to waste your own time, but you also do not want to damage the cause further than it already has been damaged in their own head & belief system. The medium is also the message. Display grace, don't take it personally, & show the power of your philosophy through this act of dignity & non-judgement. Be a good steward of the message. And try not to fake this. People do have a keen sense for dishonesty. Again, to act this way in earnest, the belief of don't hate the sinner, hate the sin, has done wonders for my happiness & peace of mind. The philosophy of liberty is one of grace, & tolerance of opinions & freedom of expression, albeit intolerant of aggression onto the free practice thereof. Some people are beyond saving.
It's also worth noting, that this is a deeply uncomfortable proposition. It is weird to talk to your neighbor in these highly individualized & materially wealthy times. Where do you even begin? How do you break the ice? How do you go about messaging this intention?
To these questions, to continue on the theme of "Radical", I would use Radical Honesty here. Honesty being the crucial. It may be ugly & uncomfortable at first, but with practice & experience, you'll become more tactful with your messaging and approach. It's highly variable with each individual, and honesty should be the driving force of the conversation. Always. Nobody wants to talk to a robot, and feel they are getting sold something. There is no need to feel bad about approaching, it is not only for, but obviously for them as well. It is a mutually beneficial interaction!
That said, my idea of such a conversation, in a suburb setting, would go as follows;
"Hi, my name is Bob, I live down the street. I just wanted to open a line of communication with some of the people of the neighborhood, and try to create a network to ensure each others safety/liberty/prosperity during these turbulent times. I am a huge believer in community & being responsible for looking after it as a member. In that effort, I wanted to let you & others know my intention to help in my capacity & make myself available to you. So if you need anything, help with yard work, need some tools, advice on XYZ, which I have expertise, or just want to vent or have a discussion partner, please reach out. Here is my business card. It would be an honor to help in any way."
An even easier method, would be to just go to the local church! This acts as a natural medium for conversation, and a great setting for getting to know the people of the community.
For an apartment? Maybe a more youthful crowd of young professionals? Just bring a boutique alcoholic beverage & ask if they want to hang for a bit, as you are making an attempt to get engaged with the community/neighborhood.
And that is all for this edition.
So I challenge you with this; perform this for just ONE such neighbor/community-member this week. The easiest person you can think of. A true friend doesn't count, but maybe someone you've interacted with before and feel comfortable talking to. And follow this same process once per week. Build momentum, and build your network. Freedom starts locally!
Let me know your thoughts and feedback in the comments! I will be serializing this, hence only one point provided. I got carried away with the topic. Be on the lookout for Point #2, and subscribe to get updated on its release. (PS; please dont comment useless bot-like message in an attempt to get a piece of the read.cash fund. Only high quality engagement please! Others will be downvoted. I'd rather have negative feedback than useless non-actionable nonsense.)
Some freshly baked Memes for @micropresident's Competition...
😆 necessary disclaimer: These are all in good fun & good faith. I assume positive intent amongst all BCH participants first, & wish to keep ideas, reason, & civil discussion at the forefront, & not so much personalities... but you gotta keep it spicy 😝 I hope these oversimplified hyperbolic memes can provide some comedic relief & maybe spur some more productive convos surrounding BCH & its mission. I know I def need to learn more about the different views about what is going on in the space, and maybe this can help (huge shout out to Edward C Kelsi & CoinSpice for keeping me somewhat in touch with their news). We are all impassioned by the power of p2p electronic cash for the world & that can lead to some heated discussions. Communicating your position can be hard, esp when a counter party is not treating your intentions as charitably as you think you deserve. But don't conform into their view of you. Continue the righteous path in the face of such a dynamic. As hard as communicating your views & ideas for BCH may be, nothing could be more important and rewarding.
Here's to three years!
Remembering the Liberty Dollar, the threat to BTC; Node Decentralization, HODL & Number Go Up
I'm afraid the investment thesis of HODL & number go up, is coming to a critical point of marginal returns for BTC given the block limit, supply schedule, & lack of adoption.
Gold is a hell of a base layer. Central Banks & war served to centralize Gold, however, & debased it with dollars as a proxy, & eventually unhinged the dollar from Gold with the Nixon shock in 1971, and proceeded to back the dollar by chattel (taxpayers) & oil (military occupation/protection of oil-producing territories).
Gold can still serve as this base layer today as a check on fiat money & endless inflation/devaluing of the money, but the transmittance/portability of Gold as a value exchange tool represents trust in a third-party, and represents counter-party risk for the custodians who hold the Gold. In addition, govt globally all benefit from having their own respective currency to control. Hence, the value proposition of BTC.
Enter private banks. This portability problem can easily be solved with the current technology when it comes to gold & silver. Banks can effectively act as a kind of LN node for metals, given the cost of transacting/settling metals by trade in the real world. Banks can make trading digitally cheap. This is what was attempted & operational in 1998 with the Liberty Dollar, exchanging metals for Fed Note Dollars. But was tragically railroaded in a 2007 raid by agents posing as Americans protecting the Constitution & individual rights, but acting as domestic threats to individual Liberty. Namely, the FBI & USSS. Liberty Dollar was effectively shut down at court with the following indictments. https://twitter.com/WTF_1971
**Indictments**
*"Bernard von NotHaus is charged with one count of conspiracy to possess and sell coins in resemblance and similitude of coins of a denomination higher than five cents, and silver coins in resemblance of genuine coins of the United States in denominations of five dollars and greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485, 18 U.S.C. § 486, and 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; one count of selling, and possessing with intent to defraud, coins of resemblance and similitude of United States coins in denominations of five cents and higher, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 485 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and one count of uttering, passing, and attempting to utter and pass, silver coins in resemblance of genuine U.S. coins in denominations of five dollars or greater, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.[25]"*
**Convictions**;
*"March 18, 2011, von NotHaus was convicted of "making, possessing and selling his own coins", after a jury in* *Statesville, North Carolina* *deliberated for less than two hours.**[27]* *The jury found him guilty of one count under* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 485* *and* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 2**, one count of violating* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 486* *and* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 2**, and one count of conspiracy, under* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 371**, to violate sections 485 and 486.**[28]* *He faces up to 15 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and may be forced to give $7 million worth of minted coins and precious metals to the government, weighing 16,000 pounds.**[27]* *Attorney for the* *Western District of North Carolina**, Anne M. Tompkins, described the Liberty Dollar as "a unique form of domestic terrorism" that is trying "to undermine the legitimate currency of this country".**[29]* *The Justice Department press release quotes her as saying: "While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."**[29]* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesville,_North_Carolina https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-WBTV-27 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/485 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/486 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-28 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_North_Carolina https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-Sun-29
**Appeal & Post-Trial Treatment**
*"Since his trial,* *The New York Times* *has said that some people describe von NotHaus as "the* *Rosa Parks* *of the constitutional currency movement."* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
*He appealed his conviction but his appeal was denied on 10 November 2014.**[31]* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-31
*On Nov 11th, 2014 Judge Voorhees denied von NotHaus' Motion for Acquittal.**[32]* *On December 2, 2014, despite prosecutor demands that he serve as much as 23 years in federal prison, he was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, with 3 years probation.**[33]**As part of his reasoning for delivering a greatly reduced sentence from what Federal Prosecutors demanded, Judge Richard L. Voorhees considered von NotHaus' appeal, which stated:* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-32 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)#cite_note-33
***...if anything is clear from the evidence presented at trial, it is that the last thing Mr. von NotHaus wanted was for Liberty Dollars [to] be confused with coins issued by the United States government...His intention – to protest the Federal Reserve system – has always been plain. The jury's verdict conflates a program created to function as an alternative to the Federal Reserve system with one designed to [deceive] people into believing it was the very thing Mr. von NotHaus was protesting in the first place...the Liberty Dollars was not a counterfeit and was not intended to function as such. The verdict is a perversion of the counterfeiting statutes and should be set aside.***
*The conviction, which was seen as a victory for the government, has now defined* *18 U.S.C.* *§ 486* *as prohibiting the use of silver bullion, or any other metal coin or bar not issued under government authority, from being used as currency in commerce. The Silver Certificates issued by Liberty Services were not considered any form of counterfeiting or violation of law."* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/486
The above statement by Judge Voorhees regarding the legitimacy of Bernard von NotHaus' Liberty Dollars, & acknowledging the farce under which he was convicted, created a new landscape for banks to operate under the same model, solving for critical debasement & portability models of metals as money, & reintroducing competition in the market of commodity money, with the backing of the Constitution & this legal precedent.
Those behind the Liberty Dollar were renegades of reason & liberty, and way ahead of the curve. Foreseeing the dysfunction of fiat, it's inevitable hyperinflation, the unconstitutionality of fiat, & utilizing the current technology (digitalism + internet) to combat that in a free market. They were only centralized because they were the only ones solving this portability issue for the value transfer of sound, hard, metal money, as they saw the writing on the wall, which of course got us the 2008 financial crisis & massive artificial stimulus, QE, expansion of the monetary supply. funny that they were shut down a year before 2008. Operating with "God's Money" separates you from Gov't money which they are capable of printing at will. States are beginning to mobilize in protecting such renegades using the rules which govern the fed, aka the Constitution, and having a natural pivot of banks towards offering deposits of metals with digital tokens, thus easily enabling them to become a medium of exchange during this digital age. Super easy & feasible measure for banks to take in this environement of fiat QE artificial stimulus.
This network was effectively built by a small team of liberty lovers seeking to end the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve, hence their name, "**National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code**" by providing age-old metal money as represented by digital tokens (eLD), & restoring the power back to the people & providing a check of powers onto the gatekeepers of the money printer. The idea is simple enough, and the system functioned as follows; "*The currency was issued in minted metal rounds (similar to coins), gold and silver certificates and electronic currency (eLD). ALD certificates are 'warehouse receipts' for real gold and silver owned by the bearer."*
What do you think the World will do in the advent of hyperinflation & global collapse of the Dollar? All the banks across the USA & the world could easily set up a similar system to protect against inflation/devaluation of the money they hold. It is simple enough. And Gold has much better brand value & reputation than Bitcoin.
The security is adequate & counter-party risk minimal enough to justify opting for such a network to transact. Especially in comparison to something like Bitcoin & the Lightning Network. In addition, the masses evidently do not care about privacy. We see this everywhere. They'd much rather trade privacy for cheap & easy to use things. Banks using tokenized metal as a fast, cheap, easy to use medium of exchange would CRUSH the adoption needed for BTC to maintain the security model of the network. It would be way easier to convince & onboard the masses onto the same payment systems they use today, just using sound money metals instead of fiat.
In this environment, I feel the benefits of BTC are marginal. Not compelling enough to garner more adoption, which fuels the price, which fuels the miners, which fuel the network, thus putting the project in a precarious position. The main value would then be #1) higher degree of monetary sovereignty & ownership, #2) with more censorship-resistant payments, yet with high fees & poor ux for layer 2 off-chain payment solutions, #3) & better privacy features, but privacy features that cost @ ~$800 for CoinJoin.
On the other hand, the value of Bitcoin Cash being extremely accessible & easy to use, easy privacy, cheap & fast to transact, full ownership with no trusted third party, offers SLP tokens for digital assets (which could be utilized as network for banks to tokenize metals), and also serve tokens such as SPICE, can be used for company equity with dividend capabilities, to certificates of ownership, titles, etc. BCH would still be competitive in such an environment where BTC's value proposition would be marginalized as metals provide significant competition as a base layer, & banks offering very competitive services as a payment layer.
In a world where a sufficient base layer & payment layer exists, BCH has much more competitive edge, and a better investment thesis, based on censorship-resistance, fast, cheap, & reliable transactions, & easy privacy (providing better fungibility), that can seamlessly be sent to anybody across the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
For those thinking Bitcoin is so obviously superior than existing systems? The prospect of banks implementing a hard money transmittance network in response to hyperinflation is a considerable possibility that cuts significantly into the value of BTC given the sentiments of most people. And in this possibility, Bitcoin Cash maintains competitive with a sufficient edge given these properties.
You can learn much more about the Fed, the govt, & the current Bitcoin environment by learning more about the Liberty Dollar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)
What do y'all think?
Leave your comments below.
My Experience Using OpenBazaar for buying Bitcoin Cash
I wanted to convert some BTC to BCH.
Instead of using Coinbase, I decided to use my resources in the support of services, platforms, and real people, by using technology that support individual liberty, and are not in cooperation with certain three letter entities which are against liberty.
OpenBazaar does to Amazon what Bitcoin did to central banks & the Federal Reserve. Because it is decentralized, it is permission-less, and anyone with adequate technology can buy & sell things on this platform. This is becoming increasingly important with the expansion of the surveillance state in the advent of COVID. There is no central server, which leaves such sites vulnerable to shut downs, data-leaks, DDOSing, & outright theft via exit scamming, as seen on DarkNetMarkets (DNM). Each computer that downloads the OpenBazaar open-source software, for free, at their website openbazaar.org, contributes to hosting the network. Similar to BitTorrent.
My Experience & Walk-Thru:
At the Home Page (OB1, or "Discover") the very first option is the "Trade" market.
After clicking "See All" under the Trade market, the below shows up.
After shopping around for the best offers to convert BTC to BCH, factoring in Exchange Rate against the Reputation of the vendor, I settled on vendor Opticbit. (there aren't too many such vendors on the platform just yet, for those entrepreneurs feeling froggy & wanna jump)
After seeing this listing, I clicked on the offering, which took me to this page. (there were no Reviews when i checked, but there will be one posted soon.)
As you can see, a "Verified Moderator" can be used to act as an escrow to ensure you're not getting scammed. (More details on that here, & yet another opportunity for entrepreneurial cryptosavages to make some Bitcoin on the side with this valued service). However, given I was transacting a rather small amount, and the creditworthiness of the Vendor, I did not do this. If you would like an example of using the moderator, express your interest in the comments & I'll try the Moderator service, and potentially apply to become a Verified Moderator myself. https://ob1.io/verified-moderators.html
To vet the vendor, I clicked the "Go to store" button in the top left.
He has 277 Followers, 13 5 Star reviews, & 31 different listings, claims to be located in Las Vegas, and has an interesting cover photo, which appears to be a man, in front of a plane, with a pickup truck. Lol.
Next, I clicked on the hyperlink to look at the reviews.
I'm not sure how the reviews are sorted, but they clearly aren't chronological. All 13 reviews are affirming, across several different product listings. The most recent review was Jan 7th, 2020, which is something to be aware of & may be disconcerting. But given the nature of the platform, and other options, was not worried. This guy/vendor, Opticbit, clearly had the best available listing.
To further verify, you can look at the profiles of the accounts which left reviews. Not everyone makes their account available on the review. However, I could look at the 3rd review from user "mutatingbrains"... just kidding, after waiting two minutes it failed to connect, as shown below. Now trying user "OB zab21a"... same thing. And third times a charm for user "tektonic" who left a review for purchasing a $100 cash bill, a product listing I'm curious in trying for fun...
Looks like "tektonic" is a real person, and not a dummy review. 69 Followers and 145 Following. And the anon location & lack of avatar is common on the platform, so not too worried.
Further, I wanted to look at this Benjamin $100 product listing, for future reference, and for your exemplary purposes...
Now into the details of my order... which you can view by going to your profile by clicking the upper right icon (your avatar) and selecting "Purchases" & then clicking the link under "ORDER ID" in bottom left.
I put the order in on a Saturday. So the two day response time that I got for fulfilling the order was expected. I had low time preference on this transaction. Even still, I received a message from the vendor apologizing for the delay. You can see the messages by clicking "Discussion" on the left side under MENU.
However, the Status of the Order is still sitting at the "Accepted" stage, despite having sent my BTC & received my BCH... can update later on that.
In summation, it was a rather easy process! I successfully executed a purely peer-to-peer transaction with no trusted intermediaries over the internet. Alchemy.
FYI, the meaning of Bazaar according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazaar
This is one of several ways one can leverage the internet to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions, which serves as a tool to empower individual liberty.
I can't encourage enough, for those interested in individual liberty, to invest time into learning how to use these platforms. This knowledge is an asset that can pay great dividends as the need for such tools ramp up in accordance to the Orwellian surveillance state.
Next, I want to use the local.bitcoin.com marketplace which serves to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions with their website. A noted difference with their platform is it's not a decentralized marketplace such as OpenBazaar, but more than likely such solutions are more accessible with less steps, which deserves much commendation for increasing onboarding & adoption. Only one way to find out though.
In liberty,
Sean
Can't Spell Culture without the Cult; A synopsis of the BCH experience
Culture is extremely important, & very real, as much as we may love to poo-poo our own cultures & label as cliche.
Culture is the reason many users/contributors provide when answering "Why BCH?"
It's a culture of voluntary transactions, which is demonstrably proven to facilitate peace & prosperity.
It's gotten me to the point of, can cults be good? Is there a good dogma?
If someone dogmatically follows the NAP is that a good thing?
I think it is great as a placeholder program, until critical, independent, free thinking leads them to understand that, the NAP is the most moral principle to follow across life, and attains the self-ownership & agency that is lauded amongst Libertarian types & serves as the kernel of the philosophy which sprung from the Enlightenment.
Additionally, we are in a world of followers. We are biologically social creatures who seek a chief to lead & protect. Forfeiting us from the immense difficulty of critically thinking, dealing with problems, creating solutions, & bearing the consequences. Further, simply protecting the ego from exerting effort, being vulnerable, making a mistake & feeling inadequate.
That said, until said people seeking this arrive at some agency & responsibility, there is power in numbers & having those who haven't realized their own agency yet, seeing & supporting the mission of Bitcoin Cash as a tool for freedom. A tool for exercising our Self-Evident & inalienable rights. No need for permission from a Gov't, corporation, payment processor, or bank. The only permission required coming from two consenting parties transacting voluntarily. P2P Electronic Cash for the World. Censorless. Your existence & faculties (life & liberty) serve as permission enough. This is what make BCH the ultimate tool for liberty. Allowing adults to express their inalienable rights as humans that are born free & sovereign. Not serfs for covert overlords in State Gov't.
PS it's worth noting, I don't think criticizing & bashing other coins is an attractive method for shining the BCH light. Seeking to first understand, why people created & use such a coin, is always a disarming first step which allows for open & honest discussion.
The Simplest Reason against the IFP
Ownership.
It's part of Hayek's thesis that formulated his work, The Fatal Conceit [of Socialism].
If we render funds earned & owned by the many Miners unto a single institution that wishes to organize these resources towards the development of the underlying BCH protocol? I believe this falls under the category of Central Planning.
Part of The Fatal Conceit of Central Planning inherent in socialism is the lack of ownership over the diligent distribution of resources as a decentralized process, which Hayek called spontaneous order. Such is the maxim, nobody watches over their property better than themselves. And, if it is in the Miners best interest to fund developers? It should be made apparent in the developers effort to procure funding. Typically done through a pitch deck, marketing/sales effort, through a legitimate value proposition. Not simply granted via a fixed amount to a central organization because they have the best intention of the BCH chain in mind
This is not to say that certain Dev groups & organizations don't have the best interest & intention of the BCH blockchain in mind. In fact, I think vast majority of influential contributors do. But granting intentions as enough sets a bad precedent, & lacks the feedback mechanism of taking ownership over this process towards actually being productive in the BCH blockchain's development. How this gets solved for, is via accountability/ownership of those individuals which voluntarily contribute their own resources towards benefitting BCH. They will make sure that these resources produce benefits better than if this responsibility were stripped from them via a centralized funding mechanism. Thus, given this lack of eyes & accountability on the development, the results of a centralized mechanism can be expected to be less productive than a funding mechanism which inherently has more eyes & accountability over the project. Delegating this responsibility to a central organization without a negative feedback mechanism is fertile ground for corruption & complacency, such as we see in any placement of a Government.
To the developers, I understand your plight. Marketing is hard. It sucks. Nobody likes having their intentions & competency attacked, & having to feel like they need to defend them, especially when you know both to be more than adequate. But, these marketing efforts are necessary proving grounds for demonstrating your competency & intentions. This is truly the only sustainable & effective model for funding such infrastructure that is meant to maintain an open-source/public Blockchain that is to service the many humans across the world that are in need of a stable, reliable, functional, hard money that a centralized party cannot tamper with.
All that said, here's to continuing the development & adoption of a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System for the world, and keeping this ecosystem alive & healthy!
-Sean Ballard
[sponsors]
Why is BCH a fraction of the BTC price?
It is a well known & studied phenomenon, that when companies reach a critical mass of size & success, they take less risks & become more comfortable in their status & "rest on their laurels."
When asked, "Why is BCH a fraction of the Market Cap of BTC?" it hit me in a profound way. I had never thought about this question too deeply.
In order to answer this question, we must ask who the users of BTC are? Take a moment to think about that, and leave your answer in the comments before reading on.
From my assessment, it's mostly Miners, Exchanges, Traders, Big Pocket speculators, & early investors (of note; mostly cypherpunk & libertarian types).
It makes sense for all parties that are sharing in the immense recognized value of BTC (as measured in $USD) for them to be ultra-conservative in preserving the BTC network as a SoV. They do not want to risk losing out on their investment by tampering with the protocol, while also believing that playing defense as the method for ending the corruption & violence inherent in Fiat money. They don't have an interest in using it as a payments network, rather as a value transfer network, as distinct from a payments network with payments implying coffee-level transactions, whereas value transfer implies transactions of higher value.
I've struggled, as an avid Bitcoiner, to find sensible discussion on the trade-offs that are presented by the blocksize being capped at 1MB, and the very real Opportunity Costs of keeping this Block Size limit. This discussion seems to have been forfeited by those influencers in the BTC party, which is important as an educational tool, given there is no Marketing or Personal Relations department for Bitcoin. Hence, the creation of BCH, which seeks to optimize for the trade-off between security (SoV) vs utility (MoE), in accordance to the cost of storage & cost of computation. The BCH belief is that the enhancement of utility from a reasonable Block Size increase is disproportionately beneficial to the network. With the current cost for the infrastructure supporting the Bitcoin Network (storage & computation), adequate security/decentralization can be maintained while increasing the utility of the network by enabling transactions to be faster & cheaper than the 1MB limit allows for. Thinking of the 2017 Bull-Run where tx fees were $10, locking up many peoples BTC whom wanted to USE the network to transact, served as a significant deterrent to newcomers by showing them, through harsh experience, the LACK of utility of Bitcoin as a money, given that MoE, as history shows, is a vital characteristic of the money that has arisen from the market.
Where this rational discussion gets corrupted, is the prevailing viewpoint over decentralization as the ULTIMATE GOOD for destroying Fiat currency. A noble goal, indeed, but decentralization for the sake of decentralization is silly. I don't think any serious BTC'ers believe that. It's simply a difference in assessment of the risk of a coordinated attack from a State actor ie China, USA, or a combo of major Fiat G20 countries, and HOW to ward off these attacks. BTC takes a radical defensive approach. BSV takes a radical offensive approach. BCH seeks an optimal balance of both. To provide an example. In football, a good defense, on it's own, cannot thrive. If the offense is terrible & cannot convert a first down, the defense is left to stay on the field & become fatigued, which then leaves them more vulnerable to the other teams offense. As a result, the otherwise STELLAR defense, on its own, ends up breaking down & losing to a team with worse defense, due to their better offense.
Additionally, there are only a select few individuals competent enough to examine the open-source-code of Bitcoin, in order to guide the network. Many choose to trust these individuals, & don't have much of a choice given the unfeasable amount of time & effort required to have a competent opinion on the matter. Given the incentives of these Gatekeepers of the code, it is not unlike the incentives of the FDA & drug regulation. Wherein, the Fed is incentivized to be ULTRA conservative on permitting drugs for use on the open market because if it turns out to be harmful, they are then liable for the corresponding deaths. And the cost of this? Hundreds of thousands of deaths via prohibiting people from obtaining life curing treatments, and not to mention the cost in a decreased quality of life for millions that would be have their lives significantly enhanced by using certain substances.
Bitcoin BTC serves & caters to a niche market of cypherpunk, libertarian, & wealthy people. They have a different risk tolerance & have a higher assessment of the risk of a coordinated attack on the network, so that they value the SoV quality of money more highly than the MoE quality, which affects their strategy for acheiving Monetary Sovereignty. This provides a unique opportunity & competitive advantage for BCH to play offense in the market of Cryptocurrencies. Providing money that eliminates trust in a third-party, places this trust into math & game theory, which serves to unite individuals across the world, enabling trade to proceed unencumbered by banks, country regulation, & fiat currency translation. Trade which has been proven to be the key to wealth creation, peace, & civility amongst people. BCH's strategy towards enabling Monetary Sovereignty is to increase adoption with a reasonable Block Size for adequate security & increased use-ability, which in-turn increases use, which increases decentralization, and increases security.
I seek to contribute to both projects by using & educating people on them & the value each can provide to individuals based on their unique set of preferences & needs. I don't claim to know definitively that one or the other strategy will prevail for achieving Monetary Sovereignty. Right now, both can be used to service this end. And Heck, even the 2000 Baltimore Ravens routed the Giants in the Super Bowl on DEFENSE ALONE! But as a coach, it is a much better strategy to improve the offense for success, which BCH seeks to do, while having adequate defense as well to support the offense (granted football presents zero-sum game as opposed to game of wealth creation on an open market). I hold & use both, & I think both can co-exist in serving different users. However, I believe BCH to be the undervalued chain on a 5 year time horizon as I see much greater potential for growth on the BCH network given that it's uniquely positioned to add value to an untapped & under-served market, and thus, increasing demand for the network, and increasing the purchasing power of the bitcoins native to the network.
In conclusion, BCH is a fraction of the price given the current demographic of people within the Cryptocurrency Market, and the dynamic within the BTC ecosystem (miners, coders, users). The money in this Cryprocurrency Market has shown to value Security (SoV) over Transactability (MoE). This being the case, BCH is granted a competitive advantage in the Cryptocurrency Market in order to reach & service a broader market (ie why @Jack is in Africa), and presents higher potential for growth of the BCH network, and yielding a better ROI for those participating in the network.
Please contribute to the debate. Leave your thoughts & criticisms in the comments section.
Follow me on Twitter for more stream of thought Bitcoin commentary. twitter.com/@seanballard
[sponsors]
What Happens when BTC fees prohibit normal transactions?
I was using BTC a lot. It was more convenient for me, given I could set a Custom Mining fee of 1 Sat/byte in my Edge wallet with an average transaction fee of $0.02, and my transaction would reliably make it into the next block or two.
This was fantastic, until it wasn't.
Transaction volume spiked when Winnie the Pooh came out in support of Blockchain, & proclaimed to have China become the leaders in the space. This caused transaction fees to spike, thus making the price gains I made in BTC/USD less attractive when the fee required to penetrate a block became ~$0.50 to $1.00.
I have most of my savings in BTC. It acts as my Savings Account. During this spike, I was in a dry-spell & needed some USD. As I waited for my next paycheck, knowing that $7k BTC was bound to increase, as it did, I didn't want to liquidate too much BTC. So I was only drawing down ~$30 amounts of BTC as needed for basic daily living expenses (ie gas, monster, impossible burgers, beer, juul pods, etc.).
Before this happened, I had kinda forgotten about the bottleneck from 2017. Mostly because it didn't hurt me. Back then, as much as I believed in the values of BCH, Bitcoin was speculation first, & utility second (albeit the former comes from the latter). This time around, it hurt (in a 1st world way).
I needed cash a couple days after the Pooh surge. I sent BTC to my Cash App address first thing in the morning, with hopes of my transaction getting processed by lunch, or at least dinner. That day I did an intermittent fast through lunch, and borrowed money for dinner. All while waiting for confirmations like Tyrone Biggums. It was frustrating. The whole time wishing that I hadn't jew'd the miners.
For my solutions going forward, I hope to treat BTC & BCH as my Savings & Checking Accounts. Seeking to budget adequate amounts in both. And here's to wishing that Cash App integrate BCH! This will make it extremely liquid, which congruently works alongside the BCH community in it's progress towards increasing adoption by continuing to onboard merchants & users! Liquidity will be a vital requirement for offboarding fiat-users & integrating them into the P2P Digital Revolution that humanity is bound for!
Being on major exchanges is good for liquidity. I can turn BCH into USD within 2-5 days for about $0.20 in fees. Being on the most popular phone Finance App? And being able to turn BCH into USD in less than 10 minutes for maybe $0.10 to $0.25? Better yet, be able to send friends BCH directly & let them liquidate whenever?
Can we get @jack to do this?
I know Roger frayed that relationship a bit, but BCH is much larger than Roger. He is just one of many leaders, & one person amongst the whole of the BCH community. I think this would be a tremendous expedient for freeing humanity from the shackles of the State & their Central Banks.
Thanks for reading & please leave thots 'n comments.
Cheers.
[sponsors]
@SeanBallard
