diff --git a/docs/libraries/time.md b/docs/libraries/time.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ccdb671 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/libraries/time.md @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ +--- +title: time +sidebar: true +notmine: false +... + +We plan to have a network with all parties agreeing on the consensus network time, +which accommodates leap seconds by being rubbery, +passing at 1001 milliseconds per second, or 999 milliseconds per second, or so, +when a leap second happens. + +the C++ library chrono reports the steady time, guaranteed not to jump, +and guaranteed to pass at very very close to one second per actual second, +but not guaranteed to have any particular relationship with any other machine, +and also the global official time, with no guarantees +that it is not wildly wrong, and which once in a while jumps by a second. + +To check the global posix time on linux, *and uncertainty in that time* on linux + +``` c +#include +#include + +int main() +{ + struct timex timex_info = {}; + timex_info.modes = 0; /* explicitly don't adjust any time parameters */ + + int ntp_result = ntp_adjtime(&timex_info); + + printf("Max error: %9ld (us)\n", timex_info.maxerror); + printf("Estimated error: %9ld (us)\n", timex_info.esterror); + printf("Clock precision: %9ld (us)\n", timex_info.precision); + printf("Jitter: %9ld (%s)\n", timex_info.jitter, + (timex_info.status & STA_NANO) ? "ns" : "us"); + printf("Synchronized: %9s\n", + (ntp_result >= 0 && ntp_result != TIME_ERROR) ? "yes" : "no"); + return 0; +} +``` + +Those machines that do not have an accurate global time will try to be +at the median of all the machines that they have direct connection with +while biasing the consensus towards the passage of one second per second, +plus or minus a couple of milliseconds, by being a little bit off the median, +should the consensus time seem to be moving too fast or too slow -- which is +to say if the new consensus seems to have drifted from the old, +they will stubbornly drag their heels in moving to the new consensus. + +Those that do have an accurate global time will try to be nearer to the +global time, while remaining inside two thirds of the distribution. +If the network +time differs by so from the authoritative time, they will be as +close as they can be to the authoritative time, while remaining inside +the majority consensus, thus causing the consensus to drift towards +the authoritative time. + +This describes an ad hoc mechanism for keeping consensus. + +[gamma distribution]:../estimating_frequencies_from_small_samples.html#beta-distribution +{target="_blank"} + +[delta distribution]:../estimating_frequencies_from_small_samples.html#beta-distribution +{target="_blank"} + +We could be really clever and represent the consensus by a +[gamma distribution], which for a continuous quantity such as +time means a two dimensional $α$ and a two dimensional $β$, +hyper parameters, but the mathematics of conjugate distributions +gets rather scary. + +Or cleverer still and accommodate leap seconds by consensus +on both the time and the rate of passage of consensus time relative +to steady time by a [delta distribution], in which case we have +a three dimensional $α$ and $β$ diff --git a/docs/manifesto/SWIFT.md b/docs/manifesto/SWIFT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..922fd27 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/manifesto/SWIFT.md @@ -0,0 +1,612 @@ +--- +# katex +title: >- + Lets eat SWIFT's lunch. +sidebar: true +notmine: false +abstract: >- + SWIFT transactions are slow, expensive, and unreliable. And there are a lot of them, + a mountain of money to be made. SWIFT is being weaponized and shooting itself in the feet. + Everyone wants to move into the vacuum that has opened up, + but what moves into the vacuum will be Bitcoin, + *if* we can handle the scaling problem. + + SWIFT merely provides an infrastructure for exchanging messages. + Double spends are resolved by databases of the entities receiving the messages. + The grotesque profits are made by the banks that use it. + And the profits for its crypto currency replacement are going to be made + by the cexs, dexes daos and wallets that use it. + With a lions share of the profits made by first dao of the first dex, + because of first mover advantage. + + A replacement of SWIFT will not make money. + It will be a neutral environment in which people can make money. + So the replacement needs to be funded by software bounties. +--- + +# Opportunity. + +People are spending an enormous amount of money on SWIFT transfers. +How much is hard to know, because the profits are made by the participant banks, +not by SWIFT, which is a neutral platform and neutral protocol, +that does not in itself transfer any money, but enables transfers, +but something in the ballpark of a billion dollars a day. +If people who create the infrastructure that repaces SWIFT can +capture a tiny sliver of that, they all get very rich. + +Incoming international wire transfer fees may range from $10–$30, +while outgoing fees can be up to $50 or more. +SWIFT reported an average of 42 million payments and securities transactions per day in 2022, +indicating a about a billion dollars a day in fees. + +The World Bank estimates that the average cost of an international bank transfer +is around 6% of the amount transferred, +which also indicates about a billion dollars a day in fees. + +It is difficult for Bitcoin to replace gold as a store of value because of Metcalfe's law. +Central banks keep gold and do not keep bitcoin, +because all the other central banks keep gold and do not keep bitcoin. +If Bitcoin level two replaces SWIFT, then the central banks will need bitcoin, +and soon enough bitcoin will replace gold. +This will raise the market cap of Bitcoin to something like ten times its current value, +but that is small potatoes compared to capturing a tiny sliver of SWIFT fees. + +# Outline of what needs to exist. + +SWIFT is a messaging system that handles about five hundred standardized structured messages per second +(many messages of many types) between a few hundred banks, with certain special security guarantees, +in particular reliable and provable delivery. To eat SWIFT's lunch, +need a sharded reliable broadcast channel with open entry, without centralization. + +I am using “reliable broadcast channel” in the cryptographic sense. +It will not be reliable in the ordinary sense, since you may attempt to put a message on it, +and the message may not get on it, and you have to try again. +It will not be broadcast in the ordinary sense, +since most messages are end to end encrypted so that only the two parties can read them. +What makes it a reliable broadcast channel in the cryptographic sense, +is that if Bob sends a message to Carol over it, +as part of a protocol where Bob has to send a message, +and Carol has to send a reply, then if the protocol fails because of Bob, Carol can prove it, +and if the protocol fails because of Carol, Bob can prove it. +And both can prove what messages they received, +and what messages they sent that the counterparty should have received. + +Being sharded, can handle unlimited volume. +And once that exists as a neutral protocol with open entry and no central control, +can put dexes on it, Daos on it, +uncensored social media on it, web 3.0 on it, and coins on it. + +And the first thing that should go on it is a dex that can exchange +Bitcoin, Liquid Bitcoin, Liquid Tether, Lightning, and Liquid Lightning. +And the next thing that should go on is the Aqua wallet. +But it needs to be a neutral open protocol, not owned by anyone, +and especially not owned by Blockstream. +Because Blockstream will gain value by being able to send or receive +a money bearing message to anyone. + +At present each dex has its own messaging platform that does not talk to any of the others. +Bisq has a custom platform that runs on Tor, while Particl uses a fork of Bitmessage. +And each platform lacks some of the features a dex needs, +for which the dao of each dex has ad-hoc workarounds requiring frequent human intervention, +such as Bisq's painfully slow and unreliable mediation and arbitration system, which most +of the time winds up resolving issues that computers can and should solve automatically. + +If one party goes down and stays down in the middle of a Bisq transaction, it gets +resolved by humans to the disadvantage of the unresponsive party, a simple rule +that machines should execute automatically. + +Such a channel needs a distributed consensus as to what messages went on it. +Consensus is a hard problem, that gets a whole lot harder when you have sharding. +But a whole lot easier when the platform does not have to resolve double spends, +but merely provide a total order that enables other systems to +communicate about their resolution. + +In existing dex communication platforms messages have value because of their relationship to other blockchains, +and it is those other blockchains that resolve double spends. +This is the equivalent of the way SWIFT does it. + +And Bob can prove it even if his message is supposed to appear on one shard, +and Carol’s response on a different shard + +Because SWIFT does not carry money, sharding its cryptocurrency equivalent +is a much easier problem than sharding a blockchain. +If two incompatible messages are sent over Swift, +the equivalent of a double spend on Bitcoin, the conflict is resolved outside of Swift, +and then messages resolving the conflict are sent within Swift. + +# Scaling + +Bitcoin hit its scaling limit in 2016-2017. Lightning still has capacity, +but high level one fees have ended growth in the number of lightning channels, +so it is going to hit its scaling limit soon. +And we are very soon going to be facing vastly increased demand for transactions. + +Blockstream’s plan is to use the layer two bitcoin blockchain, +Liquid, to take over from SWIFT. Liquid can handle a lot of transactions per second, +but to really take over from Swift, we are going to be taking Visa’s role in international transaction, +and that will need Liquid Lightning, a layer three. +Which theoretically exists, but has no useful consumer wallet and has no useful Liquid lightning network, +because its command line wallet is only barely usable by a linux guru +who is running exactly the right version of linux. +Which is OK, if you have half a dozen linux systems running on +your private network and several shelves full of computers +with no keyboards or video screens running in your basement, +which you interact with over ssh and xrdp. + +The collapse of SWIFT is happening now, and Blockstream’s replacement for it is happening now. +The internal collapse of the US$ is a few years off, +and we need to have crypto currency ready to replace it. +And I don’t think that even liquid lightning Bitcoin can handle that. +Going to need recursive snarks with snark based sharding. +BitcoinOS are addressing that. When last I looked their solution was far from ready, +but it does not yet urgently need to be ready. + +To take over from SWIFT, lightning is unlikely to suffice. +Going to need Liquid. Since Liquid uses polynomail commits, it +might be possible to shard it, but the path to that is unclear, +in which case replacing SWIFT is going to need to need Liquid Lightning. + +For Liquid Lightning to be any use, going to need more than Boltz +for exchange between lightning and liquid lightning. +Third parties will not want to build on a network wholly owned by a single party, +for fear that once that party gets Metcalfe law network lockin, +it will, like SWIFT, enshitify the network, as so many beneficiaries of Metcalfe's law have done. +To replace SWIFT will need liquid lightning, and liquid lightning +will need to be exchangeable on a dex, +a dex on which Boltz may well be the largest single liquidity provider, +but only one liquidity provider of many. + +To take over from Visa in international transactions, +Lightning and Liquid are unlikely to suffice, due to scaling limits, +going need Liquid Lightning, which theoretically exists, but not really. + +To take over in internal transactions when the US$ collapses, +Liquid Lightning is unlikely to suffice. Going to need recursive snarks, +which allow a sharded blockchain. Bitsnark's plan is +[Grail](https://assets-global.website-files.com/661e3b1622f7c56970b07a4c/662a7a89ce097389c876db57_BitSNARK__Grail.pdf), +a bridge between level one Bitcoin and a shardable level two bitcoin based on recursive snarks. + +# Existing messaging systems + +Every interchange blockchain bridge and every dex has its own ad hoc, +incomplete, and unsatisfactory messaging system, +and the design for this swift killer was primarily motivated by +the messaging systems of Particl and Bisq, and in particular by +Particl's adoption of Bitmessage for its purpose. +If there was something much better, and more scalable, than Bitmessage, everyone could use it. +So the first step is to create a better, and more blockchain friendly, Bitmessage. + +We need something like Particl to enable a dex that exchanges +bitcoin, lightning, liquid bitcoin, liquid tether, liquid lightning bitcoin, +and liquid lightning tether, +for SWIFT is a nexus of third parties and third parties are not going to build on a cex. +A major reason that Particl is not very satisfactory is that Bitmessage is not very satisfactory. + +# misc unorganized fragments + +## consensus + +> why do you hate POW? Because of resource waste? I thought it was the +> reason for success of BTC. With proof of share, or proof of stake, +> there will be always discussions of pre-mine, centralization etc. +> Would it be the case? + +Hate the resource waste. It offends me. Plus a system that does +not directly handle money, that is a a messaging system between +systems that do handle money, cannot incentivise the +necessary resource waste. + +It could bill people for messaging, and the payments could go to the block winner, but then +it would be a dao or yet another crypto currency, and not a neutral platform that other daos +and crypto currencies could use. + +Suppose we have a filecoin style proof of spacetime . +Which also wastes resources, but identifies those +peers that are contributing to the network by storing +information and are capable of passing it around, +and have lots of connections to other peers. +All peers that pass the proof of space test become +authorized consensus makers for +a certain number of blocks, say 8192 blocks. +The test is not too hard. Most peers are authorized. + +We harvest randomness, possibly from the fact that parties +do not know each other's secret keys, possibly from the +proof of space time test, so that each round, or each group of rounds, +a peer gets a random weight, such that the inverse of the weight is uniformly +distributed between one and two to the fifty sixth + +Which means the weight is non uniformly distributed, with a very few peers +having most of the weight. + +Each peer goes with the consensus block that has the highest chain of weights that it knows of. + +Actually that algorithm has pathologies that could lead to suprising chain re-organisations + -- a slightly more complex algorithm is needed. + +Every time a proposed block consensus is shared, it now has addiitional support.\ + The weights of the two peers that have that consensus +and have the highest weight of all peers having that consensus is propagated +among all the peers that have that consensus, and the weight of the consensus is the weight of +the lesser of the two peers, plus the weight of the lesser of the two peers of the block it +was built upon that were known to the peer that built upon it at the time he built upon it, +plus the weight of the block that block was built upon, and so on and so forth. + +Thus the most well known chain is propagated, becoming more well known. The more +peers that know of a block, the greater the weight of the block. + +It is a better algorithm, but a whole lot more work to implement than RandomX POW. + +## plan + + +> > But there is a perfectly respectable case for a social net that +> > allows end to end encrypted conversations and allows +> > pseudonymous identitities to conceal their network address, since if +> > one is doing trades of blockchain currencies on +> > a dex, one has make public offers without revealing the network +> > address of a computer that could be stolen, or +> > a person who could be subjected to rubber hose cryptography, and +> > engage in securely private conversations +> > about the resulting transactions, also without revealing one's +> > network address. +> > +> > For liquid lightning to work, needs an exchange between level one +> > lightning, liquid lightning, +> > tether lightning, bitcoin, liquid bitcoin, and tether. +> > +> > And the early adopters are not going to get aboard if the wallet is +> > locked to a cex, locked to Boltz, fearing +> > that once Boltz gets Metcalfe's law on its side, it is going to +> > enshitify the network. +> > +> > Early adopters will want a dex, on which Blockz happens to be the +> > major, but entirely replaceable, supplier +> > of liquidity, so that if it turns evil, as corporations that have a +> > Metcalfe's law lockin tend to do, the +> > dex will become dominated by less evil alternatives. +> > +> > And a dex, a dex that exists for the perfectly respectable purpose +> > of exchanging level one bitcoin +> > for level two (lightning and liquid) bitcoin, tether, and level +> > three (liquid lightning) bitcoin needs a +> > privacy social net. + +> It makes sense. + +> > If they decide they want a liquid lightning network to exist, they +> > need a dex, and they need a privacy social net for it +> > (Though I need a name less likely to give corporate officers the +> > hebee jeebies than privacy social net. + +> Special social net. :) + +Maybe I will just long windedly call it a social net designed to support +humanand and machine communications in a way suitable for cryptographic currency +purposes and especially a dex, that is a superset of the capabilities of Particl and +Bisq human to human communication protocol, particl's system being Bitmessage, +and Bitmessage being out of support. + +> > My plan is to tell them they need a liquid lightning network to +> > exist, for it to exist there has to be +> > a liquid lightning dex, and it needs a mechanism for communicating +> > publicly and privately +> > without revealing one's network address. +> > +> > Therefore, fund a privacy protocol that is an update to bitmessage, +> > with additional capability of +> > zooko names and reliable broadcast, reliable in the cryptographic +> > sense. +> > +> > Reliable broadcast in the cryptographic sense being that if one has +> > a transaction protocol in which Bob is supposed +> > to send a message to Carol, and Carol supposed to send a +> > corresponding response to Bob, the blockchain +> > can prove who dropped the ball -- so one can have contracts on the +> > blockchain that have one outcome if Bob failed to +> > send the message, and a different outcome if Carol failed to reply. +> > +> > This makes possible a whole lot of useful dex capabilities, which do +> > not yet exist on any dex, but could. +> > I need to write them up as part of a totally bland proposal for a +> > totally bland privacy social net that +> > enables arbitrary dexes and daos, among them a totally bland dex +> > that enables exchange of things near and dear to +> > Blockstream's heart. + +> Ok, if you want me to pass your proposal, I'm ready to do it. I'm +> sure I can contact Adam, and at least get a response. I'm not sure +> how it should be proposed though. "Someone I messaged on BitMessage +> sharing this proposal, I'm sure you'll like it." :) But I think we +> can work it out. + +I want to read what Adam has been writing, before I prepare the proposal. + +I think he has been on some you tube channels, or something like that -- +some kind of conference. + +The proposal is going to be long and technical -- a white paper explaining what +Bitmessage is, that it is being used in the Particl dex, and explaining what +additional capabilities a dex needs, that Bisq and Particl lack. + +## Python rant + + Wouldn't it be an start to use existing code to experiment some p2p +> payments using bitmessage protocol? + +Python is the best language in the world for code you intend will only be used by yourself, +used only a few times, then thrown away. It also works great for small trivial programs, +because these are apt to remain reasonably portable. + +But the bigger it gets, the more it traps you into code that is only going to run +correctly on your one particular development system and that no one else is +going to be able to modify and add to, so investing in python +in anything you intend to be widely used is a trap. Open source +python is also a trap, because no one else is going to be able +to modify and add to it. + +If I try to start modifying Bitmessage, I will surely fail. It is a bigger python +program than anyone except the original developer can maintain and modify. + +In this sense, no large open source python program is truly open source. PHP +has the same problem, though to lesser degree. Javascript likewise. Has +improved considerably, but still sucks. But typescript which is compiled to javascript is OK. +so all big projects with many developers use typescript rather than javascript. +Or they die before they get big. + +## mixer plan + +(Which I am sure blockstream does not want) + +> > Get early adopters to use it. One obvious use case is bitcoin +> > mixing. We have mixers, but the social environments that made them +> > usable have all been shut down. + +> Or maybe integratate Samourai wallet into current BitMessage client? + +Samourai wallet migrated to centralisation, which directly led to them getting +busted. That codebase is poisoned with communications that the FBI +has flagged as actionable. And integrating anything into current +Bitmessage is impossible except for the original developer. No +big Python program is truly open source. + +The correct design for a mixer is as follows. One has a social net, +on which anyone can offer to coordinate a single mixing transaction. +for a mix that will produce mixed coins (utxos )of a particular +round number, 10mBTC, 20mBTC, 50mBTC, or 100mBTC, + plus unmixed changed coins. + +All the mixed coins are of equal value, for example all 100mBTC. + +Not some funny value highly identifiable value like 99.9872384mBTC + +People offer to contribute utxos to this mix transaction - revealing +to the coordinater the public keys, the address, of the utxos,and +revealing to the coordinator that these utxos have a common owner. + +They also give him the blinded addresses of coins they want to +receive. He blindsigns those addresses. They then reveal the unblinded +addresses, and his unblinded signature, which proves he signed those +addresses, but does not reveal to him which of the addresses he blindsigned it +is -- he does not learn the relation between the utxos that will be contributed +to the mix transaction, and the mixed or the change utxos that it will replace +them. (Though he and anyone doing blockchain analysis can trace the +change coins by the sudoko attack. But the sudoko attack is irrelevant to +coins that are all the same round number of bitcoin, such as 10mBTC) + +He then creates the transaction, and everyone signs it. If not everyone +signs, everyone can see what the missing utxos were, the ones that +were promised, and not delivered, and blacklist them, +then try again. + +People contributing already mixed utxos do not have to pay transaction fees +so get back exactly what they contributed. + +People contributing as yet unmixed bitcoin have to pay a portion of the transaction +fee proportional to the number of utxos contributed and received. This is good for +them because the free of charge remixed utxos are enlarging their anonymity pool. +making each mixing transaction part of one enormous anonymity pool instead of many +tiny anonymity pools. + +If mixing does not work like this, then someone has fucked it up in order to profit from +it, their users will be traced, and *they* will be traced, then arrested. + +> > The core of my plan has always been Web 3.0, a privacy social net, +> > and everything else is just monetization, because software never +> > gets done properly or properly maintained without someone making +> > money off it. + +> I got what you mean now. Once you reach a point that's indeed a good +> strategy to reinforce value of the network. You offer those +> integrate your service to beat metcalfe's law, your network becomes +> much more stronger. Facebook and some other social networks all +> followed this path via. 'applications' within them. + +> > I have been trying to do that, but it is hard to get to the front of +> > the line of all the people who want to tell blockstream why +> > blockstream should fund them and their projects. + +> Have you really tried? Adam must have had some fidelity to +> cypherpunks. + +I have not tried, but I have been looking for entry points, and +have come up empty. One has to have an in, and one has +to listen before one speaks. + +## the big problem + +The urgent important problem that crypto currency has to solve is privacy and scaliing. + +But cannot solve it just by creating a currency that is private and scales, +because scaling is not a competitive advantage over ten thousand scamcoins, +five thousand shitcoins, and two dozen altcoins, +until you reach a market capitalization of thirty billion dollars, +which is when scaling started to bite bitcoin in 2016-2017 + +Further, all the recursive snark libraries are rough around the edges. +Polygon's Poly2 is OK, but though theoretically open source, +it is not exactly open source, there are complications and gotchas. + +So, the path is to create a privacy social net tool first. +A tool where you can securely have public and private conversations +without your IP being discoverable. Bitmessage done right. + +A Dao that facilitates stuff done wth crypto currency, +such as Bisq and Particl, needs such a social tool, +and what they have is rather broken. + +A Dao can organize over such a tool in ways that flagrantly fail the Howey test. +Which is to say, it can openly organise in a way that is +efficient and transparent to investors, a sovereign corporation, +while existing daos are dancing around the Howey test, +and so are opaque and disorderly. + +So, create, not a crypto currency, but an environment for such Daos. +Among them daos for trading crypto currency. +A Dao that facilitates crypto currency transactions needs a trade currency +and dao ownership currency (substitute for shares). +These are apt to be one and the same, to obfuscate the Howey test, +but they need not be and probably should not be. + +There are a whole lot of capabilities that a crypto coin needs +-- and we see that even in things that are well funded by many large corporations, +these things are geneally missing. + +Blockstream does not have a satisfactory lightning wallet, +and their business plan depends on the existence of a satisfactory lightning wallet. +Litecoin has demonstrated atomic exchange between +Bitcoin, bitcoin lightning, Litecoin, and litecoin lightning, +but does not have a dao in which to do it. Particl is not quite working, +and Bisq lacks important things and still, after all these years, +has known major bugs which can cause the loss of lots of money. + +Blockstream's aqua is sort of a lightning wallet, and sort of not. +It is not quite what they need, and lack. And very few people are using it. +It is not really a proper connection to the lightning network. +It is what they could come up with in a hurry. + +This stuff is hard and takes a long time to write. + +My initial business plan was: Plan A: Issue a private and scalable currency --> ????? --> profit + +Revised business plan. Plan B: Issue a privacy social net that conceals IP addresses. +Bitmessage does this OK, but it is abandonware and mighty rough around the edges, +and being written in python, really cannot be fixed. +Large python projects accumulate such technical debt that only the original programmer +can fix them, and become ever more fragile to minor, +obscure, and seemingly irrelevant changes in their environment. + +Get early adopters to use it. One obvious use case is bitcoin mixing. +We have mixers, but the social environments that made them usable have all been shut down. + +An important use case for bitmessage was selling services for crypto currency +to people who did not want to reveal their IP address. +This use case becomes a lot more conveniient if we can lift crypto transactions on existing privacy currencies +(Litecoin and Monero) and semi secure currencies (lightning) into the communication channel, +as Nostr does a sort of mostly OK job of lifting lightning +into the communication channel. +First such use, following the footsteps of nostr tips. + +Get existing Daos to use it + +Get new Daos to use it. A Dao that wants to openly organise in an efficient manner transparent +to investors is going to want a very private privacy blockchain on which to issue its shares. + +And now, it is back to plan A. (almost) A privacy blockchain +on which anyone can issue a Daocoin. Or a shitcoin or scamcoin. + +But the privacy blockchain does not need to be fully scalable. +It does, however need to be future compatible with the technologies +that make full scalability possible. But we delay in the hope that by currency time, +recursive snarks libraries do not have quite so many rough edges + +> > The size of this project is illustrated by how many other big +> > projects need some key element of this project, and do not have it. + +> I'm not sure if I understood that to be honest. + +The core of my plan has always been Web 3.0, a privacy social net, +and everything else is just monetization, +because software never gets done properly +or properly maintained without someone making money off it. + +And I look at all these people doing Web 3.0 stuff, +or doing projects like particl that really require Web 3.0, +and they are not done. + +> Can you double check Keet/Pear.. Holepunch thing? I belive a good +> part of Blockstream funding is coming from Tether. And Tether (and +> their CEO) loves Keet (like his brainchild). Problem is they don't +> have any good use case. I believe a project somehow leveraging would +> easily get funding from Blockstream hence Tether. + +I have been trying to do that, but it is hard to get to the front of +the line of all the people who want to tell blockstream why +blockstream should fund them and their projects. + +Also, I need to find the keywords needed to get the proposal +past the layer of idiot no men whose job is to protect them +from all those people with bright ideas as to why blockstream should fund them. + +What words are they internally using for stuff that really needs to be done? + +But some of the stuff I want done, they really need done. +> +> Also excuse me but how it would work if you stays anonymous and pay +> devs to work on it. How can they fund, doesn't it require +> psedenomous organization? Or do you think some can work in psedonmy +> but some can be non-anonymous while working on it? + +I think they should promise an L-BTC bounty or lightning Bitcoin bounty +for someone who accomplishes certain goals. +Other people have used this funding model, albeit lightning Bitcoin. + +> Even if you have the funding, it is not easy to bring talent on the +> table. What's your plan to find to hire the talent even if you can +> pay them? + +Litecoin bounties for contributions that get included in the repository. +(Litecoin being arguably the best existing privacy currency -- at least when you use mweb addresses. + +> > And so, all the larger moving parts that have to be part of the +> > ultimate coin, have to be part of something that has more immediate +> > utility, and is part of a business plan that will bring the project +> > closer to completion, and product of that completion closer to +> > getting past the cold start problem +> 100% +> + +## collapse and cryptocurrency + +> +> Or, do you think it will replace the Gold, nobody would need or want +> to use it. +> +> Today, if you ask me to accept Gold vs. Bitcoin, leaving aside the +> speculative part, I'd go 100% for gold. I'm not sure that would +> change in the future. But also maybe that's because I think I'm +> emotional about it. I always thought Gold is a godly thing, a "gift" +> of god to us punish or reward. No question fiat is a scam, or even +> in a good intent it is an opiod of an ecomy, however I'm really not +> convinced about Gold. + +Obviously over the past few years, Bitcoin has risen enormously more than gold. + +When it looked like full scale war might break out, bitcoin fell a little, +and gold rose considerably. + +If the crisis is nuclear war, Gold, 22 LR rifle ammo, whiskey, tobacco, +and coffee are likely to be considerably more valuable investments than bitcoin. + +If, on the other hand, the crisis is state internal collapse and red terror +against whites, straight males, and Christians, bitcoin because you can carry it through an airport, +while gold will be fairly useless + +If the crisis is that you are likely to get conscripted to die in Eastern Europe or the middle east or Taiwan, +or all of them simultaneously, bitcoin will be useful, and gold fairly useless. + +If the crisis is hyperinflation and collapse of the US dollar, +Gold and Bitcoin both work, but Bitcoin is better because +the primary problem will be transactions over distance. + +If the problem is all of the above, simultaneously or in rapid succession, Bitcoin.