What did Q say about the end of the fed?

"Structure."

What do the banks provide?

Necessary for now?

Why?

End of the fed = end of the banks?

No banks now = no strucutre now.

Chaos ensues?

Good for The Plan?

Who would be blamed?

45.

Red Wave important?

Critical.

What does stucture provide a building?

Stability necessary.

THINK STRUCTURE.

Old structure rotten but stable?

New structure needed?

Structure SOURCE?

How does a building's structure come to be?

It is BUILT.

Build the structure, make it stable, end the Rotten Fed.

The people have the power to build it.

You (and your Peer) have more power than you know.

FIND and build the "structure."

_

>>2222550

>My greatest concern for cryptos is they're the prelude to 'one world currency' type bullshit.

The beauty of them is that there is competition. 1500 exist, most are total shit. Bitcoin got taken over by banks and then forked off to bitcoin cash, which still follow the original vision of free person to person non-centrally banked currency.

>The fact it's inventor is anonymous and cannot be transparently verified makes me think intel agency or deepstate.

Sounds like someone similar to Qanon to me.

>Even the hash tool used in bitcoin (SHA256) is an NSA invention.

What did Q say about not everyone inside the agencies being corrupt?

>>2388235

Interdasting…Haven't seen that one. Do you know where the original pic of the shirt is from?

Also people love to make fun of CSW, but I am too convinced that he was one of the original creators of bitcoin.

>>2388444

There is this one too.

>>2395525

>Back to the topic of Bitcoin/crypto. Trump did an AMA on 4chan a while ago and was asked about Bitcoin. When asked if he had plans for it, he simply said that 'it is still very new' - implying?

>>2388444

>>2388444

>>2388444

>>2401502

Kek

>>2402702

God bless you coinfag.

There's a guy named Bix Weir (on youtube) who has been theorizing that whitehats inside the treasury & fed had been giving out messages about the need to bring down the Fed by creating new structure. First releases of a comic book with very interesting imagery came out very close to the birth of bitcoin as well. Interesting rabbithole if you haven't been down.

>>2447650

BOOM.

>Use Logic.

>Q

>>2447179

Wishes and rainbows - https:// www.bostonfed.org/-/media/documents/education/pubs/wishes

Road to Roota (teacher's guide to the comic book): https:// www.bostonfed.org/-/media/documents/education/pubs/roota

You can also see explanations on the youtube channel RoadtoRoota/Bix Weir. He's a little over the top but he pretty much nails it on this stuff.

He used to be a big gold proponent until he realized a.) that it won't work as it's also controlled and b.) that the whitehates created bitcoin/crypto as a better solution.

>>2451914

The fed also put out another comic recently with a character called "Glix" (rhymes with "Bix" the guy I mentioned) who is reminiscent of Bix himself. Coincidence?

>>2458879

This actually isn't true. Coins can be backed up offline, and they would be in the same place when the electric/internet comes back up.

>>2477178

EOS/Masonic symbol is an interesting find.

Re. Greenspan; read some of his pre-fed writings. He was a true goldbug. Went along to get along in the Fed I'm guessing.

https:// news.bitcoin.com/bob-goodlatte-becomes-first-member-of-congress-to-disclose-crypto-holdings/

>first crypto holding congressment = goodlatte

https:// qanon.pub/?q=goodlatte

Goodlatte appears to be /ourguy/.

Coincidence?

>>2388444

>>2398952

>>2496613

>Structure.

>Q

I like how you're thinking, but I think basically Q is saying (and I agree) that any radical action would cause too much upheaval and disruption of the economy and of real Americans' lives. I think we have to simply build the new infrastructure and make the old one obsolete.

Think the internet to libraries.

Reddit bitcoin cash community talking about qanon: https:// www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/95czkj/train_your_brain/

>>2506044

>If my memory is correct, @Jack did this, Spez from Reddit did this, etc. And I believe a member of the Rothschilds starting publically investing in Bitcoin once it was taken over as well.

>https://news.bitcoin.com/rothschild-investment-corporation-becomes-bitcoin-stakeholder/

Good point. Would also make a dank meme.

>if Bitcoin Cash hadn't come into existence I would have given up on crypto.

I agree completely. The day the fork happened was bitcoin's 1776.

>>2505945

I hadn't heard that about aluminium. Very interesting. I would be shocked if (when made feasible) didn't make PM's much less scarce.

>>2512026

KEK.

CSW talks structure and highlights same exact text as meme posted here days before. Great find anon.

>>2511855

I have reached the same conclusion about bonds.

What are bonds?

When you hold them, why are they valuable?

Promised future payments?

Payments of what?

Dollars?

Dollar's value in 10 years?

Who wins in times of inflation?

Borrowers?

Who loses in times of inflation?

Lenders?

Holding bonds is like being a lender?

Coming collapse of bonds?

>>2512431

But what about the stock market?

What are stocks?

Partial ownership in a business?

When held, why are they valuable?

Future profit from business?

How do businesses make profit?

Create products?

Provide services?

Add value?

Study financial statements?

Where is the value?

Equipment? Goodwill? Expected future earnings?

How much of total assets is dollars?

Stocks are denominated in dollars.

Bonds ARE dollars.

Be careful what you hold.

>>2513667

>how do you rectify the Hash id is confirmed NSA?

whitehats

>Not dumping on BC however in its present form it will not be carried over that is for sure.

True.

>>2388444

>>2520727

>But I take it from your line of questioning that dollars no longer matter. Or bonds. Or stocks.

Stocks and bonds are very different.

Bonds are backed by future repayments of a specific currency.

Stocks are backed by part ownership in productive assets.

Think equipment, returning customers, inventory, goodwill, etc.

If the dollar crashes, what happens to dollar based bonds?

Worthless.

If the dollar crashes, what happens to a stock?

If the company can still produce and make a profit, the stock price goes UP.

Stocks are denominated in dollars, but backed by non-dollars.

Does your house stop being a house if the dollar crashes?

Does it have less bedrooms?

What happens to its price?

Up?

Does your car still drive?

Assets' aren't tied productivity currency.

Bonds are entirely tied to currency.

>I used to believe that Trump would keep stocks high for political points but it's not possible - I see that now. Wouldn't that be political suicide? He used to call it a bubble during the campaign, but now he always talks it up.

Search trump tweets about the stock market. He has said time and time again it will keep going up. Markets will continue to be propped up.

Will they go up because of economic activity?

Or will they go up because of inflation?

Mutually exclusive?

If not, how could you tell the difference?

A way to bring in a new system with less disruption than a 'reset'?

Very Stable Genius!

>>2521142

>Assets' aren't tied productivity currency.

This should say

"Assets' productivity aren't tied to currency.

>>2521993

>21MM

>Matthew 21, moneychangers

KEK.

I understand "english ordinal" but can you explain "Full reduction", "Reverse ordinal", "Reverse full reduction"?

>>2521603

>But what about people who can't/aren't in the market. I'm worried they will get left behind (higher prices etc).

Almost everyone with savings is in the stock market. All tax-deferred retirement plans have been essentially legislated into the market. Ever have a 401k? What were your options? Large caps, small caps, midcaps, value, growth, etc. All stocks. Maybe a bit of bonds.Same goes for pensions.

Trump is signaling bigly that the market is where to keep your savings if you don't want to lose your wealth.

>Is this where Bitcoin Cash comes in?

I think bitcoin cash comes in as the inevitable new system for cash. Cash is critical for any person or business as it allows a means to take action immediately (i.e. highly liquid).

Assuming bitcoin cash/crypto becomes the new currency, while it will be volatile in the short term, nobody loses by converting USD to it as the price will continuously increase as adoption of the "new network" comes online.

For those that don't adopt until the very end, they likely won't lose much if any (in terms of purchasing power) when they finally do so.

The total market value (market cap) of all fiat is 10's possibly 100's of trillions in USD. Total of crypto is 100s-1000s of times less than that.

>>2526332

>>2526553

disregard. I understand. https:// www.gematrinator.com/calculator/index.php for those interested.

>>2521993

>>2573686

>>2573675

>>2573697

Thank you anon. I didn't see these in main breads. Can't say if they're onto something or not, but glad to have them safely stored here.

>>2573760

Bad actors were removed on 8/1/17 with fork of bitcoin to bitcoin cash. Still a risky investment. But all signs point to increasing use and adoption.

>>2528615

I don't own a single share of any stock and have no incentive to have anyone invest in them. I am just explaining why I think Trump's plan is to keep stocks high and why it makes sense through the lens of The Plan.

>>2600417

God speed anon. Your work is greatly appreciated. I am watching this thread closely every day. I am quite confident that the bitcoin cash communities and anons here will have more and more overlap in the coming months.

Ver:

>actors given marching orders

>You are watching a movie

>Q

>>2602866

Interesting. That led me down a whole dig on CSW and the lawsuit involving CSW and Dave Kleiman's brother. I can't make heads or tails of it. It is very hard to argue with things that CSW says. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a reasonable guy, but the things he says about bitcoin/economics/human behavior all seem very logical to me.

Based on your citation of Roger Ver saying they are all actors (and CSW's ties as a gov. contractor) I wonder his role. Given how much sense and focus he makes on bitcoin being digital p2p cash without middlemen and his want for more competition, I don't see how he can be anything other than /ourguy/. Unless he's some kind of Alex Jones like honeypot shill. Be careful who you follow I guess.

>>2612293

plebbit nerds post the suicide hotline every time there is a decline in the market. They'll be doing the same thing after the next bull run when it crashes from $100,000 to $30,000.

>Federal Reserve ending soon?

>Anon

>Structure.

>Q

Found this when I was doing some research for something else: https:// www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20170328a.htm

It's a paper from Jerome Powell, current Chairman of the Fed, written last year not long before he was appointed Chairman.

The word structure appears 20 times. On its face it says that the Fed is necessary for stability. It reads like something you'd expect from a banker.

However, if you read between the lines, he is saying that the Fed was intended to be more "decentralized" (he uses that word twice). The last sentence is especially interesting when read from the perspective of the plan and Q's "structure" comment:

>The structure achieves a practical balance that should not be changed lightly, as it continues to serve the country well.

He doesn't say "should not be changed." he says "should not be changed, LIGHTLY". i.e. we need to change it carefully as its structure is functional now. Changing it lightly would cause panic. We need a new structure in place before we get rid of the fed.

>learn to read our comms

>>2613838

>Jon Faust (1996), "Whom Can We Trust to Run the Fed? Theoretical Support for the Founders' Views,"

This paper is also cited in the last footnote of Powell's paper above. Anyone have access to it? If so, I'd love to see: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304393296900379

>>2621654

>I've attached a photo here of a trademark he registered with dave kleiman .. "eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty" in the title. It's pretty patriotic, and if he were a shill he would have to be playing a very long game. And the smarts required to use the word 'cost' instead of 'price' (meaning to always be paying for your freedom as long as you are alive). Most honeypot shills don't have those sorts of brains.

very very interesting and good point anon.

>These people are stupid.

>And of course the word Faust caught my eye.

I completely missed that. Good (if obvious) catch.

That got me thinking as well, so I looked a bit more into Faust…he was appointed by J. Powell, possibly /ourguy/ per:

>>2613838

See: https:// forexlive.com/centralbank/!/fed-chair-powell-taps-two-specialists-to-serve-as-senior-advisers-report-20180219

>Fed chair Powell taps two specialists to serve as senior advisers

>Fed chair Jerome Powell said to have tapped monetary policy specialists Jon Faust and Antulio Bomfim to serve as senior advisers

>They would be the first appointments made by Powell since he took over as Fed chair two weeks ago.

So we have:

Structure (per Q)>>JP's paper about structure and the fed (structure appears 20 times, 21 if you count the 1x "structured", kek)>>cites Jon Faust's paper re. who can we trust to run the fed and the founders' vision>>Faust appointed senior adviser

Lots of coincidences.

>>2635108

>Powell has nothing against bitcoin/private currencies

Top kek indeed.

>I was always more comfortable on the technology side of things, staying away from the old school institutions

Great. It takes all types anon. Technology is not my strong suit.

>I think there's enough here to complete the circle…From Q's post, through Powell/FED, all the way back around through Bitcoin, through CSW, back to Q.

Q>>Fed>>Powell>>Bitcoin is very strong I will work on drawing up those connections. CSW connection I haven't fully comprehended in my mind, probably because I haven't dug on that one as much.

>This requires a comprehensive dig.. I will get on it asap. I said I was going to stop digging on crypto for now, but I guess that was a mistake.

I was hoping this would be the case. I've been browsing /biz/ a bit after you mentioned it. It is a freakshow but I saw some chatter about this very thread over there. Glad to have you and fellow anons working in this thread. Main breads are great, but I can really tuck into the autist part of my brain in this one.

>>2647059

Inflation/Deflation is simply the increase/decrease in the money supply. Bitcoin has steady inflation built in until the last bitcoin is mined in approx 120 years from now. So long as use/adoption increases a faster rate than the inflation (which so far it has greatly outpaced) then prices in bitcoin will go down, similarly as to how computer and TV prices have decreased of the last many decades due to manufacturing efficiency outpacing inflation of fiat currencies.

>>2646884

Couldn't say re. silver, anon. I don't like putting all of my eggs in one basket be it silver bitcoin gold stocks cash or artwork.

>>2650305

>>2650861

>>2650351

kek that's some downfall level symbolism right there.

>>2650464

wow that's quite a find and a mind melter. One hell of a coincidence if so. (especially with the Faust/mirror writing conection)

I also had to look up the significance of 444:

https:// willowsoul.com/blogs/numbers/5-reasons-why-you-are-seeing-4-44-the-meaning-of-444

>1st Meaning of 444: You are on the Path of Awakening

>3rd Meaning of 444: You Are on the Right Path, Just Trust

>444 9/11/01

Great awakening re. 9/11

>>2650992

>I was reading twitter earlier and some developer for Bitcoin said he plans to make a wallet that can go into a chip in your hand. I would never , ever, never use something like that

Kek no

>>2651589

>You carry a card in your pocket (no to mention your phone, the most sophisticated surveillance device in history) but wouldn't put a RFID chip in your hand? The smartphone is way more the mark of the beast that some ultra limited chip.

There's one big difference anon. I can put my phone in a faraday bag leave it in my house and go for a walk, talk, or sleep without it being attached to me. Huge difference. The chip doesn't come out so easily.

>>2658642

wow great find anon. Thank you for digging this up. I just read through almost all of it besides the detailed formulas which were beyond both my comprehension and interest.

On that note here's what I found from the paper. It's going to be long, but I think it is interesting and connects some dots re: Q>>Structure>>Powell>>Faust>>The plan for the fed. Here goes:

>>2655671

The image you posted from Faust's website that you weren't sure if it was important, I think is very important. The writing around the edge says:

>Is it the Greek letters or the words around them that matter?

This sounds like something Q would ask us. In fact, as I was reading the linked paper from Faust, I was thinking to myself…the point of this paper is the ideas that he's bringing up, not some esoteric financial model. That's just the vehicle by which he can get away with implying the message.

>LEARN TO READ OUR COMMS

Onto the paper itself:

The most interesting parts are the intro, background, and conclusion. The rest is just theoretical economic modelling (which I will make another post about Faust's thoughts on that after this one, as it is also quite revealing.). From the paper:

He brings up Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution at least twice:

>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Off to a good start.

In an entire paper about the economics of various fed policies he bring up political implications:

>While one major argument for the bill is based in political philosophy (footnote 41)

and then footnotes that sentence:

>The argument is that it is inappropriate for public policy to be made by people who are neither selected nor ratified by a political body. Of course, this paper does not deal with issues regarding the legitimization of government power.

He's going out of his way to say the Fed is private/unelected without saying it.

Think how Trump said that he would "never call KJU "short and fat" Plausable deniability.

Think the "words around the greek letters"

> In formalizing the rationale of the framers of the Fed, I have not argued that the framers correctly balanced interests on the Board.Thus, I am not arguing about whether these proposals would improve or worsen the current balance.

Faust spends the majority of a 40 page paper with dense economic modeling and then disclaims whether or not his models would have any effect either way. Next sentence:

>Rather, I cite them as evidence that issues of balance remain of interest today.

I.e. "I'm saying that there are big problems here."

>These contentions about the cause of inflation not only indicate that debtor-creditor tension is still important, they raise questions as to the success of the Fed as an institutional response to these tensions.

"Should the Fed even be allowed to meddle in these things?"

He concludes the body of the paper with "A postscript about democracy"

> While such a system of policymaking is clearly not democratic in the simplest sense of the term, neither are many of the most important institutions in the U.S. As noted above, some of the Constitution's Article I Section 10 restrictions provide an interesting case.

> few economists would suggest that capitalism would be well-served by leaving the enforcement of contracts open to majority vote. Just as the majority may be better off by giving up its general rights to alter contracts, it may also improve its welfare by giving up some of its power to alter the terms of nominal contracts through monetary policy. Thus, while the particular form of independence chosen by Congress may be open to question, it is difficult to support a generic "pro-democracy" argument against monetary authority independence.

When read "slowly and carefully" as Q often instructs, it appears that we need, rather than the mob rule of democrazy, we need a standard protocol, like we have for contracts (i.e. we all agree that contracts are a protocol to be obeyed), for our monetary system.

Perhaps a consensus algorithm?

>>2655671

>DSGE modelling is a Titanic achievement. As for the benefits, I'm sure we've just seen the tip of the iceberg.

In a paper on the same subject DSGE modelling:

>I believe that the current crop of DSGE models, like

lab rats, are magnificent models. For the profession, they represent

a titanic achievement—with all the images that adjective may bring

to mind.

>all the images

titanicsinking.jpg

I believe he is saying that all of the economic modelling done by the Fed, Keynesians, etc. are total rat shit.

>Is it the Greek letters or the words around them that matter

KEK

>>2661057

Sorry, I f'd up the formatting when I copied pasted from the PDF. This should all be green text:

>>I believe that the current crop of DSGE models, like lab rats, are magnificent models. For the profession, they represent a titanic achievement—with all the images that adjective may bring to mind.

>>2669730

kek

Thanks for taking the time to read through it. Sounds like you've alrady found some gems. I concur that Faust is a key connection.

It also occurred to me to search "Jon Faust bitcoin" and I found this article from last December.

https://cfe.econ.jhu.edu/happy-new-year-bitcoin/

Again very critical on the surface but has several extremely keen insights and hidden messages. I have some meatspace things to do now but I will make a post on it later.

https:// cfe.econ.jhu.edu/happy-new-year-bitcoin/

>>2673366

>With a critical eye, and with the benefit of knowing everything that happened after this paper was written, I think the answer is pretty clear.

>We can't. Trust anyone.

>The FED should not require trust to operate.

Kek great point.

>For example, in the paper it is stated that theoretically the lower wealth portion of the population will advocate for inflation in order to boost their wages, and the wealthier would tend to try and keep money growth nearer to zero to keep their wealth intact, but we know now that the opposite occurred.

>So if we cannot trust democrazy to properly control the money supply, and history shows us that we cannot trust institutions like the FED either…

Great catch. I remember reading this and thinking that the opposite happened, but I figured that I must not understand what he's saying. I think your interpretation is spot on. They told us (whether they expected otherwise or knew) one thing would happen, but it was quite the opposite, with the bottom line being that they either can't or don't want to control inflation in a favorable way for the people.

>So the next part of the title says "Theoretical support for the Founders' views"

>Which founders? Of the FED or of our nation?

KEK. This also activated my almonds when I read it, but only subconsciously. I have read fairly extensively about the fed and and I don't recall its architects ever being referred to as founders. Given the way it was created (by congressional dictate) "founders" seems like a strange word. Given the way Faust seems to like to write, this seems like a clear double entendre.

>Something like Bitcoin. Interestingly the whitepaper of Bitcoin goes to great lengths to describe its trust-less nature.

>But if so, the current structure should not be changed lightly, like Powell says.

The loop is starting to complete!

>>2673366

notable

(I think we should start labeling notable posts so when this bread fills we have them for the next one. Great to see this one gaining steam.)

>>2670195

(Part 1 of x)

Here is my attempt to breakdown this article on bitcoin by Jon Faust current advisor to J. Powell at the Fed: https://cfe.econ.jhu.edu/happy-new-year-bitcoin/

All parts aren't included here, but a lot of it is. Faust's text is in green:

Faust starts with talking about the inherent inefficiency of bitcoin:

>Bitcoin transactions are inefficient, slow, and uncertain relative to natural alternative approaches to digital currency. And these disadvantages are probably not fixable—they are essentially required to support the amorphous governance model.

Bitcoin's proof of work is inefficient compared to traditional systems. For such an "amorphous" system, this inefficiency is the cost of keeping it so.

>Worse still, amorphous governance probably isn’t a good thing; it is almost certainly not a good enough thing to warrant using such an inefficient, slow, and uncertain payments vehicle.

Amorphous is not the benefit in itself.

>If you are OK with centralized governance, you can do much better than cryptocurrency. If, instead, you are desperate for amorphous governance, you will pay a large efficiency price.

To avoid centralized governance, the cost of inefficiency is necessary.

He then relates this idea to bitcoin's ledger and the importance of consensus:

>Few people I’ve spoken with understand how radically formless Bitcoin governance is. With any book-entry asset, a key issue is how to maintain integrity of the ledger in which ownership, and ownership changes, are recorded. In the case of Bitcoin, there is no official ledger, and, in fact, nobody has any responsibility to keep any ledger at all. Should they wish to do so, anyone can, at any time, start or stop keeping a ledger, and anyone is free to put forward any version of the ledger they like.

Bitcoin's amorphous ledger is not necessarily immutable.

>Then how do we know who legally owns what? That’s old-fashioned thinking.

Key word "legally". Ownership in bitcoin is not like recording a deed with the county or confirming your bank balance. Faust now explains how ownership comes from consensus:

>What stands in for a conventional notion of ownership arises from the following process: take all the things that are being put forward as the ledger at the current moment and apply a set of consensus rules to determine if a consensus exists. If so, we take this as truth, but only as truth of the moment. This snapshot of reality prevails unless and until some other consensus arises. No rule or principle keeps a very different consensus from emerging at any point in the future. In one consensus, you bought some Bitcoin this morning and sold them this afternoon, but in a subsequent consensus, perhaps you never owned them at all.

It is the ability to establish consensus that is the critical factor to determine ownership in bitcoin.

>(Warning: there is a lot of nonsense on the web about irreversible and instant transactions in Bitcoin. A careful reading makes clear that no transaction is ever final. This will become a clearer below, where we dig deeper into Bitcoin.)

WARNING: ignore the critical element of establishing consensus at your peril.

>Even without getting into any further details, it should be clear that the rules for determining consensus are critically important to this system.

Driving home the importance of consensus again. Now that I'm getting to know his style, this seems quite blatant for Faust.

>Nothing, however, about the choice of rules is clear. Nobody controls the consensus rules, and anyone can propose new consensus rules at any time.

The system is precarious. We better choose consensus rules wisely.

>Finally, nobody can enforce the application of any set of rules.

The fed (and no other central authority/government) will be enforcing these rules. (You) better get it right.

>The consensus rules prevailing at any time are simply the rules being used by a sufficiently large share[1] of those who happen to be choosing to apply consensus rules.

It is incumbent upon miners to choose the right consensus algorithms and users to use the coins that those miners support if we want accurate ledgers via a decentralized system.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU FOLLOW.

>>2682208

(Part 2 of x)

>This is an accurate description of Bitcoin governance, but it is intentionally written to highlight the profoundly formless nature of the governance. Let me give a hint as to the possible magic—that is, a hint as to why the ants might work together to pull the train.

I'm going to now tell you what to watch out for in building this still precarious structure.

>Suppose that the consensus rules create an incentive for a lot of folks to keep what we might call an honest ledger.

Suppose bitcoin can do exactly what we want…

>So long as the incentive of crooks to abuse the system are vastly overwhelmed by the incentives of honest players to keep honest ledgers, then honesty will more or less spontaneously emerge from this amorphous system.

Incentives for honesty are critical. CSW talks about this all the time.

>So this might work if we get the incentives right between the forces of good and evil.

"Good vs Evil is real." -Q

>There are two problems with this approach. First, an essential part of getting the incentives right involves imposing gratuitous inefficiency in the system.

See above (and again below) how this inefficiency is necessary for decentralization. I believe this is classic Faust appearing to contradict himself, when he is actually saying "here is something people will say is a problem, which I have already showed is necessary/not a problem.

>Second, even ignoring the inefficiency,

Ignore any arguments about inefficiency.

>nobody has put forth a comprehensive argument that Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies get the incentives right so that honesty reliably prevails.

Think "Proofs necessary?"

We don't have the conensus algorithm perfectly figured out. CSW believes it is figured out via the original vision of Satoshi. There is still much debate about this. The bottom line is that we need to figure this out to make bitcoin work.

>It is difficult to imagine any solution to this problem except the one Satoshi Nakamoto engineered into the blockchain ledger: ledgers must be costly to create.

Kek again. Driving home the importance of inefficiency (i.e. proof of work)

>It should be obvious how this helps: if you make it sufficiently costly to propose any ledger, fraudulent or not, you’ll sharply reduce how many are proposed.

It should be obvious that I'm saying that this so-called inefficiency is critical to decentralization.

(continued below…)

>Let me repeat for emphasis: the key to honesty prevailing is dissuading folks from creating bogus ledgers by making ledgers costly to create.

Listen up patriots: incentivizing honesty is the only way this system will work.

>Remember that this waste supports only 200,000 transactions a day, a tiny fraction of the millions handled by conventional payments networks daily. And in conventional networks, the marginal cost of an additional transaction is near zero, but with Bitcoin, the marginal wasted energy for additional transaction must remain high. More transactions must mean proportionally more waste if the system is to deter the creation of fake transactions.

If we're going to scale bitcoin, it will take a massive amount of resources. This "waste" is what will be necessary to secure the system.

Think onchain scaling (bitcoin cash, waste, massive recources required) vs. off-chain (bitcoin BTC, lends to centralization, not secure)

Satoshi himself said that bitcoin when scaled will end up being ran in massive industrial server farms.

>I’m not asking you to trust me on all this: I’m only trying to spell out what the Bitcoin documentation means when it says that, unless you want radically decentralized governance, there are far more efficient systems.

Or put in another way: if you want radically decentralized governance, there is no more efficient system than bitcoin

>We noted above that some folks claim that Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, but, in fact, no transaction is ever final in this system.

>There are deep discussions underway about how to maintain integrity with less waste, but almost all of those involve abandoning substantial aspects of the amorphous governance that gave rise to the waste in the first place.

Be very careful about trying to make the system more efficient.

>What governance benefits do we buy with inefficiency?

>You don’t have to be at a Trump rally to find people who see a few flaws in conventional government.

Kek

>Thus, the idea of currency without government has some appeal.

More kek

>>2682219

(part 3 of x)

>Let’s accept that you can have currency without government; you still cannot have currency without governance.

Critical distinction often missed by those who say that systems without government coercion cannot work.

>So is amorphous governance better than what we have? Enough better to warrant the cost?

>This is the ridiculous part of the Bitcoin model. Defenders essentially claim to have created the holy grail of political economy, a system in which folks with diverse interests reliably reach consensus on a just and fair outcome with no central authority.

Wouldn't that be nice?

>The key, say the defenders, is game theory: "Possession of Bitcoin is not enforced by business rules and policy, but cryptography and game theory." -[Bitcoin Wiki] Bitcoin discussions are full of statements like this, and read like bad freshman essays. Game theory could help us establish that the decentralized consensus process will reliably pick an honest outcome. The trouble is that nobody has actually done the relevant game theory.

"Proofs are important." -Q

>Indeed, completing such a theory would be a game theory advance akin to what general relativity was in physics.

Einstein figured out relativity. Who will figure out the game theory of bitcoin/decentralized currency?

From wikipedia: "General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature."

I'll leave that to wiser anons to translate that to bitcoin and forces of nature/man.

>Satoshi Nakamoto essentially put forward a conjecture that this would work, but nobody has even attempted to comprehensively analyze the incentives of the multitude of parties involved in order to establish conditions under which honest ledgers will very reliably float to the surface in the consensus process.Because this is a fast moving area, I won’t claim to be on top of it, but there are a couple of deep flaws I see in current analysis.

Satoshi gave us a brilliant start, but have we built a map forward?

>This is a problem at many levels. An immense share of disagreements in the economy arise not because one party does something everyone (even the offender) agrees is illegitimate, but because various parties disagree on what should be accepted as legitimate. There is no process for orderly resolution of such disputes in Bitcoin. This problem is precisely what is behind the debates that have arisen over hard forks, which have roiled the valuation of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

If we are to have a legitimate system, we must agree on the definition of legitimate?

>But the problem is deeper. Since there is no standard of illegitimate consensus building that we could simply make illegal, the only way to forestall these unsavory types of consensus building is to be sure that the resource cost doing them exceeds the expected benefits.

If we can agree what defines legitimate we must then incentivize the system (consensus algorithm) towards that definition.

>Analysis of these tradeoffs in the cryptocurrency literature, however, seems to be based on the naïve view that the potential benefits from shenanigans are bounded by the value of the Bitcoins that might be stolen.

People always focus on how to avoid a 51% attack, that is the ability to create a false conensus and rewrite the ledger for the benefit of the attacker. That is not the really big problem here.

>In a world of derivative securities, the value of the coin stock has little to do with the possible benefit to, say, temporarily deflecting the value of the Bitcoin.

The banking complex can manipulate the price of bitcoin with derivative securities. (They are probably already doing this with futures added in 2017)

>This is basically why Warren Buffett called derivatives financial weapons of mass destruction. The value that changes hands due to a deflection in the value of Bitcoin is bounded only by the size of the bets that have been placed, and has no natural bound. (If we didn’t know this before the financial crisis, we learned it from the credit default swap market during the crisis…

Watch The Big Short if you haven't.

>Of course, laws about illegitimate market manipulation might, in principle, come into play to keep this from happening. Of course, laws about illegitimate market manipulation might, in principle, come into play to keep this from happening.

This would work if they followed their own rules.

>>2682238

(part 4 of 4)

>More ominously still, if Bitcoin became a centerpiece of the payments system, there would be immense externalities arising from the continued health of the system—Bitcoin would become too big to fail. The political benefits to an evil group or state actor from disrupting the system—perhaps bringing down the economy—might far exceed the value of the coin stock.

This is very similar to what happened with the incentives of banks to buyoff blockstream, co-opt the development team, and try to create a banking 2.0 by removing the critical aforementioned of on-chain PoW scaling.

>In short, everyone agrees that the integrity of Bitcoin rests in a game-theoretic calculation of costs and benefits of shenanigans. But nobody has even figured out the relevant calculation, let alone performed it.

BUILD PROOFS?

He goes on to talk about predictions for the future:

>Cryptocurrencies as currently understood must have a far higher marginal cost per transaction than conventional payments networks.

"as currently understood" not as they have to be.

>Thus, unless folks strongly prefer unproven, slow, and inefficient transactions, other approaches will win out in the market.

Unless people prefer [decentralization], [centralized] approaches will win out in the market.

>Put more positively, if some cryptocurrency flourishes it will flourish within a fairly conventional governance structure.

Think structure.

Think Powell's statement on not changing the current structure lightly.

>So why the hype? I took a shot at that question in a previous post on crypto-collectibles. The bottom line of that post is a prediction that Bitcoin could continue to have value as a crypto collectible, and—like pet rocks—Bitcoin might even outperform conventional collectibles such as coal, oil, and nickel.

Faust is careful to disclaim any bright future for bitcoin. But he does suggest that it might outperform typical industrial commodities or collectibles. Many collectibles have been bubbles, but others that aren't, have outpaced inflation and would certainly outpace it in any kind of long-term significant devaluation of all fiat currency.

In short, Bitcoin's inefficiency is necessary to decentralization (i.e. not the banking complex). Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. It is absolutely critical that we make sure that we keep the incentives to keep the system fair in place and that we agree on what is fair. If we can't do that, bitcoin will not work. Focus on those things and build the proofs and if you're careful, it might work.

>>2682219

>(continued below…)

sorry ignore that on post 2 of 4. I was having trouble breaking it down into posts. I hope you find that wall of text as interesting to read as it was to write.

I see we are attracting some shills here. I appreciate that they're letting us know we're on the right track. I will not be engaging with them but will simply ignore and filter as I'm sure other anons have learned to do via main breads. Good to know we're on target!

>>2685151

>Bitcoin will only have a future and be worthwhile if The People choose to have a decentralized form of money. The rise of Trump and his movement shows that The People may indeed choose this route.

BOOM. This fits exactly with the spirit of The Plan. Bitcoin is an inherently voluntary system. The people must buy in for it to work.

>Bitcoin is still young, and people need to get serious about it now to prove that it actually works as intended, and that consensus can be reached honestly and accurately in all cases.

>The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.

There is another split in the bitcoin (cash) community. I think it will be resolved much more quickly and without a chain split this time.

>The COST of freedom is eternal vigilance.

>The article is not outright dismissive, and it is not naive either. More interestingly, after reading your breakdown, it seems like the kind of … it almost seems like due diligence.

That makes a lot of sense. It reads as:

>This could work, but you people better do your due diligence as it could easily not.

>>2688831

>Faust hinted at the idea that it might ironically require a centralized government to save or protect something amorphous like Bitcoin. He then does state that there is no real legal framework around it, no path forward for something like that to occur. Maybe one needs to be made?

Good catch. I think that very well may be necessary. He also hinted that some of the manipulation involved may be illegal, but good luck getting those laws enforced with the corruption inside the banking/regulation complex.

Very similar to the internet bill of rights. Maybe we need a monetary bill of rights.?

>New types of attacks every day.

Eternal vigilance necessary.

>One thing that seems to follow from that thought is this: without the success of 'The Storm', Bitcoin would have a very stunted future.

Yes, and with how well thought out and prepared the Plan was/is, there is no way they haven't considered how to deal with the Fed/dollar. They want to return power to the people (1:21 during Trumps inauguration speech), and that can't be done without dealing with this monstrosity.

>>2691167

>Considering the NSA scooped up everything on everyone, they've got to know who Satoshi Nakamoto is…if not some unit in the NSA itself. I really can't see a smooth transition unless they control Satoshi's coins…

Freakin' great point anon. White hats at work?

>>2689933

Kek.

Great synopsis of how this fits into the plan.

NOTABLE

>>2688221

Great synopsis of the gold/silver standard situation and the potential to create a new elite with such a standard. Thanks anon.

NOTABLE

>>2688831

>>2685151

I think these should also go as notables for the Faust = /ourguy/? breakdown

>>2684037

Thank you anon!

>>2724002

>>2724007

>I come bearing gifts.

Kek. Very useful breakdown. Thank you anon.

The St. Nick/SN/Satoshi Nakamoto is a very interesting coincidence.

>but as with all things Faust, it's probably deeper than that.

I'm beginning to think this Faust guy is a very stable genius.

>focussed

>Aussie connection

I highly doubt that was an accident. I typed "focussed" into word and word auto-corrected it to "focused". Typing it into my web-browser (i.e. in this post) it puts a red line under it like it's misspelled. Faust seems to carefully edit his posts. Interesting indeed….

>>2724002

>>2724007

Also

NOTABLE

>>2762849

>Rassberry

Autist on fire!

Great catch.

I wonder if CSW is watching this thread.

The "ss" in rassberry happened a few days after your first post on "focussed" (8/24) and a day after my follow up post (8/26)

Maybe he'll give us a popcorn reference in the next couple days.

Pic also related. He RT'd something saying that it doesn't matter if he's a fraud. With the admissions of being involved in MI (Q talks specifically about MI a lot), I wonder if we are watching a movie.

The conclusion (using logic) I keep coming back to is that his arguments regarding bitcoin scaling are very strong, but at the same time, he does a thorough job of pissing everybody off at the same time.

Perhaps, like Q, he is speaking in a way that only "those with the ears to hear" (>Read the bible) understand. This forms an ultimate unflappable Q army. Nobody on this side would be tricked by any non-arguments as they were the only ones who saw past Craig's (for lack of a better word) antics, which perhaps are just a filter of sorts. This allows shills to be exposed on the way because they always use personal attacks. CSW makes personal attacks easy, which makes the shills always end up on the wrong side, being exposed along the way.

This is very much the same way that Q worked from the beginning. 4chan/8ch was a place seen as fringe, but Q built a massive Q army by being "right" so much.

People call the people that agree with CSW a cult. Many attempts to discredit. Personal attacks. But, when I talk to others who agree, they are very much in tune with a lot of facts.

If this is his (and the whitehats') strategy, it strikes me as very Q-like and smart.

>>2794689

Autist level finds there anon. Thanks.

The Emin Gun Sirer popcorn drop really got me digging (and almonds activated of course), although I am not convinced I found much of anything…perheps fellow anons can connect more dots.

Sirer's writings are all seem to try to poke holes at bitcoin, and from what I can tell, not very well.

He has two papers that are cited on his bio on Cornell's website, both bitcoin related. (pic related)

The selfish-mining one has been discussed at length in the bitcoin community and seems like (although I'm not sure if theoretically debunked - Nash equilbrium may play into this though), seem to not have been a problem on an emprical basis thus far. This could be because the theory is flawed or (as he mentions in the paper, that miners with enough hash are altruistic, pic related)

The Bitcoin NG paper may be a good solution, but the general consensus is that it's far removed from the original bitcoin system. Not sure what to make of that.

I think the most interesting part is that his research is funded by the NSF (5.7B budget federal agency and DARPA).

Not sure if blackhat or whitehat.

>Disinformation is necessary.

Avalanche D5 protocol is an intriguing lead. Haven't had time to dig, but I look forward to it.

>>2797519

>>2805133

Sorry clicked post before I wrote additional comments.

>>2797519

Thanks for the gift anon.

The guy in the video points out statistical improbabilities of the words used in the bible and the associated numerology. I see no flaws with his analysis.

He dismisses the idea that the coincidences therein were from conspiring forces to make it that way (hinting at diving intervention, I'd guess), but I think this is perhaps the best evidence I've seen of /ourguys/ having been working behind the scenes well before we would have ever guessed.

I am not a Christian myself, but the message of Jesus is very much in line with the mentality of /ourguys/.

>Read the BIBLE.

>You have more than you know.

>This movement is bigger than anyone can possibly imagine.

Pic related from video. (Matthew 21)

>>2805133

Sorry clicked post before I wrote additional comments.

>>2797519

Thanks for the gift anon.

The guy in the video points out statistical improbabilities of the words used in the bible and the associated numerology. I see no flaws with his analysis.

He dismisses the idea that the coincidences therein were from conspiring forces to make it that way (hinting at diving intervention, I'd guess), but I think this is perhaps the best evidence I've seen of /ourguys/ having been working behind the scenes well before we would have ever guessed.

I am not a Christian myself, but the message of Jesus is very much in line with the mentality of /ourguys/.

>Read the BIBLE.

>You have more than you know.

>This movement is bigger than anyone can possibly imagine.

Pic related from video. (Matthew 21)

>>2805367

>>2805380

sorry for double post. board running slow during Q SNOW WHITE post. Autist sperged.

>>2797519

>[MBM III/SS/E]

>"My bum is on your lips, my bum is on your lips"

>And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss

>And that's the message that we deliver to little kids

>And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is

>Of course they gonna know what intercourse is

>By the time they hit fourth grade

Hidden in plain sight?

SICK.

>>2859369

Tippy top tip top of keks

>>2856344

>Finder of this should apply to NSA.

>Q

Fantastic work, anon. I was explaining a lot of what has been researched in this bread to my brother last night (who is by no means a normie, but is a bit more skeptical of all of the Q/whitehat theories than I am) and it was blowing his mind. The 21 coincidences are really adding up.

>>2860664

>We are in full control.

>>2856278 anon digs on fellow anon's crumbs with spoopy results re Tesla, video game symbolism, another CSW, John Trump, bitcoin

>>2856344 Bitcoin intro email on CSW Dad's b-day, timestamp adds to 21,

>>2856320 more 21 coincidences after Bitcoin Cash stress test

>>2857505 anon concise explanation whitehat bitcoin theory

>>2859369 anon explains why post-apocalypse scenario unlikely in light of The Plan

NOTABLES

>>2858522

>] http://www.rivendellvillage.org/Eugene_Fersen-Science_Of_Being.pdf [

>Pg.327-328

(Pictured are pages 327-328 of the PDF but 327-328 of the book describe the same story. Both are worth reading.)

These pages describe the fall of lucifer [Mind] and his subsequent acknowledgement of his pride and forgiveness and redemption by God ]Love[. It describes Lucifer and God as twins. The book goes on to say that Lucifer/Mind/Pride and God/Love are twins who have never really been separate. Through the acknowledgement of the sins of L and the acceptance of hell, redemption is granted along with the insight that it was nothing but a dream.

On a societal/WW level:

[DS] fall >>God wins

Think Q1964:

>The World is NOW UNITED.

>HISTORY BOOKS.

>FAKE NEWS suppression creates a FALSE >REALITY.

>This movement is BIGGER than you can imagine.

>SILENT MAJORITY NO MORE.

Is "Silent Majority" bigger than we can imagine? Is it the uniting of the FALSE REALITY that we are separate from each other?

>Double meanings exist.

Within seconds of reading the introduction to this book, I immediately connected it to another book (pictured) by Huber Benoit, which describes what I believe is the exact same principle through the lens of Zen Buddhism, Satori/understanding, and the UNITING of the self with the non-self. He describes in detail how the experience is not that of attaining anything, but really acknowledging that we are not separate from God and that upon understanding that (by surrendering to it), we see that we were never separated from it in the first place. (as is described in the Science of Being)

>Double meanings exist.

>WWG1WGA

>Double meanings exist.

>You have more than you know.

>Double meanings exist.

>The Great Awakening

>>2877304

>EMP is a perma-death scenario for crypto

It's not. Bitcoin/crypto can be stored offline. Unless an EMP knocked the whole of the internet offline (i.e. everywhere in the world) it would still be just fine as long as even a chunk of miners kept mining. You wouldn't be able to move your own coins if you're not online, but if you've backed them up, they're perfectly safe.

>>2977157

Kek!

Reminds me of some articles I saw about russians and cryptocurrency:

https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/07/technology/russian-bitcoin-farm/index.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/investors-are-buying-power-stations-russia-mine-cryptocurrency

https://news.bitcoin.com/largest-crypto-mining-farm-russia/

>>2977157 - Russia an enemy for kicking out [Roths]?

>>2977322 - Russian government investing in crypto mining?

NOTABLES

>>3054841

Thank you anon. Beautiful breakdown of notables.

BAKER UP TO DATE NOTABLES FOR NEXT BREAD

>>3267312

Thank you anon. Your posts are always enlightening and thought provoking.

>/cicada/

I had yet to go down this rabbit hole. Very interesting.

Maybe this was already discussed, but I couldn't find it. Many cicadas have 17-year life cycles. I had a memory of going to a fair as a kid and seeing cicadas everywhere and the number 17 stuck in my mind.

On a semi related note…I was thinking about 17 recently, and realized it's the 7th prime number in order (2,3,5,7,11,13,17)

>3301

If we interpret it as 3+3+0+1 we get 7 (semi-kek).

However, if we use the digits on a keyboard in order, (that is 0 could represent 10 instead) we get 3+3+10+1 = 17 (full kek).

>5:5

If we use the same methodology of assigning primes to numbers based on their order (i.e. 17 = 7 like above), 5:5 becomes 11:11.

Interdasting?

>>3268724

>>3264490

>>3269229

I am not a chartfag, but that looked like a interesting line to draw.

Here's another interesting one from suspected /ourguy/ CSW.

Someone tweeted a pic of vitalik doing some oddball dance.

https://twitter.com/crypto_rand/status/1047064586028048384

When asked about it, the other pic is what CSW had to say.

>>3427497

BW sometimes misses the forest for the trees, but I agree that his general thesis is spot on and knew about the financial aspect of "The Plan" before just about any other civilian.

He doesn't discuss BCH because he says he "prefers to stay out of the BTC vs BCH fight" (paraphrasing) and prefers litecoin (LTC) instead.

An unnuanced position if you ask me as I don't think LTC values on-chain scaling like BCH does. (It also has segwit cancer).

Bix woke me to a lot of the rigging of markets, but I do my own research as Qanon says.

We are the cult of no cults.

Thought of something else.

RED_OCTOER

Dow down 800+ today.

Patriots in control?

If they are in control, they are letting this happen.

Americans care most about jobs/economy.

D_Party imploding, escalating violence, causing uncertainty?

Markets 'appear' spooked.

>RED_OCTOBER

>Double meanings.

November >>>

>Red Tsunami?

>11/11

Country reunited, uncertainty resolved, markets massive rebound?

]Patriots[ in control.

>>3437931

Kek tablecloth.

Van Valkenburgh was well spoken. Seems to like LN a lot, but his point stands that eventually second layer solutions can make things simple.

LN just seems like it's being pushed prematurely to strangle bitcoin before its necessary.

Roubini is a hack of epic proportions. Jon Faust was ripping him to shreds in my mind.

>>3054841

Getting close to this bread filling up.

Anon if you've got these notables in a good format, I think you'd be doing us a great service by baking new bread when the time comes.

Or anyone else that can bake that's great too. I will do it if nobody wants to but I am not certified.

This thread has been great fun and very enlightening. Thanks anons.

WWG1WGA

>>3428436

>Avoid the BCH trolls/bots/shills.

>Silverbugs will be naturally keen on LTC ('silver to Bitcoin's gold') and getting them onto LTC-crypto is better than nothing.

Interesting considerations, but I am more inclined to agree with your last point.

>Perhaps people who don't 'get' BCH shouldn't be buying it right now.

BW does not strike me as a 4D chess type. He was making bold specific predictions in the hype of last year on specific coins that never came true. Damaged his credibility IMO. I was telling my friends, "it could go up, could go down." BW was screeming for moons and lambos.

>RED_OCTOBER

>Yes, ever since I had a run-in with another anon in the main bread months ago, this has been my theory as well.

>He told me to think about the plan, to think about 11/11, and to think about timing and 'crescendos'.

>If the markets are to rebound before elections (a very important time), then the storm itself needs to wrap up before then, I would think. But who knows.

The RED results get people paying attention. Markets go down, FISA exposure, more corruption exposure, Trump pulls plug to drain swamp, markets rally. Perhaps this is a last chance for people to get in relatively cheap for the reset that's coming over the next years.