Gold Substitutes

[seajay]

But is vulnerable to where states with massive data centers might hack a central software server to roll out a virus/bug/feature whereby other states systems are impeded. Maybe something like where a later version of the software contains a 'bug' that is commonly rolled out, but ignored by the attackers systems that remains on a older version, that then triggers the bug to leave many servers down other than the attackers. A brief instant of a 51% majority condition even though that might be less than 10% of the 'normal' collective global processing power, during which time the ledger could be corrupted/changed to the attackers advantage.

A 51% majority isn't as disruptive as you're assuming. You can double spend your own coins, and prevent transactions from being confirmed.

A forked entirely corrupted ledger that by majority is taken as the official version would be entirely disruptive if not totally devastating if the primary/sole source of digital money/value.

[Jack Jones]

But is vulnerable to where states with massive data centers might hack a central software server to roll out a virus/bug/feature whereby other states systems are impeded. Maybe something like where a later version of the software contains a 'bug' that is commonly rolled out, but ignored by the attackers systems that remains on a older version, that then triggers the bug to leave many servers down other than the attackers. A brief instant of a 51% majority condition even though that might be less than 10% of the 'normal' collective global processing power, during which time the ledger could be corrupted/changed to the attackers advantage.

A 51% majority isn't as disruptive as you're assuming. You can double spend your own coins, and prevent transactions from being confirmed.

A forked entirely corrupted ledger that by majority is taken as the official version would be entirely disruptive if not totally devastating if the primary/sole source of digital money/value.

As an aside, this kind of describes fiat currency, doesn't it? At one point we forked off the gold system into a new system where corrupting the ledger could be done at will by those in power. It would be entirely disruptive and totally devastating if one held all their wealth in said system, so we hold as little as we can in our bank accounts and convert it to better forms of wealth.

Back to the matter at hand: again, the ledger would not be entirely corrupted. If you held a 51% majority of the network, here's what you could do:

You could send me a payment from your wallet, I would wait for 6 confirmations or so to be sure the transaction is buried in the block history, then I would send you the goods you purchased. Then you could modify the block containing your transaction, such that the transaction is no longer present. Since you represent a majority of the network, you're able to convince the rest of the network that this new history is the real history. You have the goods, and the Bitcoin never left your wallet.

Note that the new history still has to be valid. Transactions must still have valid signatures associated to them. So you're unable to sign a transaction that empties other people's wallets into your own.

Note also that no Bitcoins were created / destroyed in this process.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks: reversing a transaction. When a bank reverses a transaction, do we say the global ledger is corrupted?

[seajay]

But is vulnerable to where states with massive data centers might hack a central software server to roll out a virus/bug/feature whereby other states systems are impeded. Maybe something like where a later version of the software contains a 'bug' that is commonly rolled out, but ignored by the attackers systems that remains on a older version, that then triggers the bug to leave many servers down other than the attackers. A brief instant of a 51% majority condition even though that might be less than 10% of the 'normal' collective global processing power, during which time the ledger could be corrupted/changed to the attackers advantage.

A 51% majority isn't as disruptive as you're assuming. You can double spend your own coins, and prevent transactions from being confirmed.

A forked entirely corrupted ledger that by majority is taken as the official version would be entirely disruptive if not totally devastating if the primary/sole source of digital money/value.

As an aside, this kind of describes fiat currency, doesn't it? At one point we forked off the gold system into a new system where corrupting the ledger could be done at will by those in power. It would be entirely disruptive and totally devastating if one held all their wealth in said system, so we hold as little as we can in our bank accounts and convert it to better forms of wealth.

Back to the matter at hand: again, the ledger would not be entirely corrupted. If you held a 51% majority of the network, here's what you could do:

You could send me a payment from your wallet, I would wait for 6 confirmations or so to be sure the transaction is buried in the block history, then I would send you the goods you purchased. Then you could modify the block containing your transaction, such that the transaction is no longer present. Since you represent a majority of the network, you're able to convince the rest of the network that this new history is the real history. You have the goods, and the Bitcoin never left your wallet.

Note that the new history still has to be valid. Transactions must still have valid signatures associated to them. So you're unable to sign a transaction that empties other people's wallets into your own.

Note also that no Bitcoins were created / destroyed in this process.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks: reversing a transaction. When a bank reverses a transaction, do we say the global ledger is corrupted?

Conventional banking ledgers are isolated/secure/distributed, not a common public (albeit encrypted) ledger. In certain cases the attack wont be looking to fraud/steal, but simply to corrupt/crash, make bitcoins/whatever that were previously there ... disappear. The ledger history transitioned to garbage, due to the majority (51%) confirming that is the valid ledger version. Conventional banking total ledger corruption would involve the simultaneous breaching of many banks inner cores, pretty much impossible.

[Jack Jones]

But is vulnerable to where states with massive data centers might hack a central software server to roll out a virus/bug/feature whereby other states systems are impeded. Maybe something like where a later version of the software contains a 'bug' that is commonly rolled out, but ignored by the attackers systems that remains on a older version, that then triggers the bug to leave many servers down other than the attackers. A brief instant of a 51% majority condition even though that might be less than 10% of the 'normal' collective global processing power, during which time the ledger could be corrupted/changed to the attackers advantage.

A 51% majority isn't as disruptive as you're assuming. You can double spend your own coins, and prevent transactions from being confirmed.

A forked entirely corrupted ledger that by majority is taken as the official version would be entirely disruptive if not totally devastating if the primary/sole source of digital money/value.

As an aside, this kind of describes fiat currency, doesn't it? At one point we forked off the gold system into a new system where corrupting the ledger could be done at will by those in power. It would be entirely disruptive and totally devastating if one held all their wealth in said system, so we hold as little as we can in our bank accounts and convert it to better forms of wealth.

Back to the matter at hand: again, the ledger would not be entirely corrupted. If you held a 51% majority of the network, here's what you could do:

You could send me a payment from your wallet, I would wait for 6 confirmations or so to be sure the transaction is buried in the block history, then I would send you the goods you purchased. Then you could modify the block containing your transaction, such that the transaction is no longer present. Since you represent a majority of the network, you're able to convince the rest of the network that this new history is the real history. You have the goods, and the Bitcoin never left your wallet.

Note that the new history still has to be valid. Transactions must still have valid signatures associated to them. So you're unable to sign a transaction that empties other people's wallets into your own.

Note also that no Bitcoins were created / destroyed in this process.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks: reversing a transaction. When a bank reverses a transaction, do we say the global ledger is corrupted?

Conventional banking ledgers are isolated/secure/distributed, not a common public (albeit encrypted) ledger. In certain cases the attack wont be looking to fraud/steal, but simply to corrupt/crash, make bitcoins/whatever that were previously there ... disappear. The ledger history transitioned to garbage, due to the majority (51%) confirming that is the valid ledger version. Conventional banking total ledger corruption would involve the simultaneous breaching of many banks inner cores, pretty much impossible.

A 51% majority doesn't allow you trick the network into accepting invalid transactions. Even if the majority is telling you 2+2=5, you know better.

[Arthur Boe Nansa]

As an aside, this kind of describes fiat currency, doesn't it? At one point we forked off the gold system into a new system where corrupting the ledger could be done at will by those in power. It would be entirely disruptive and totally devastating if one held all their wealth in said system, so we hold as little as we can in our bank accounts and convert it to better forms of wealth.

Back to the matter at hand: again, the ledger would not be entirely corrupted. If you held a 51% majority of the network, here's what you could do:

You could send me a payment from your wallet, I would wait for 6 confirmations or so to be sure the transaction is buried in the block history, then I would send you the goods you purchased. Then you could modify the block containing your transaction, such that the transaction is no longer present. Since you represent a majority of the network, you're able to convince the rest of the network that this new history is the real history. You have the goods, and the Bitcoin never left your wallet.

Note that the new history still has to be valid. Transactions must still have valid signatures associated to them. So you're unable to sign a transaction that empties other people's wallets into your own.

Note also that no Bitcoins were created / destroyed in this process.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks: reversing a transaction. When a bank reverses a transaction, do we say the global ledger is corrupted?

It does not describe fiat currency. Fiat currency replaces one social consensus mechanism with another. The tradeoff is between a physical commodity that is hard to create (gold) and a theoretical commodity that is easy to create, but backed by the economic output and military strength of the government that produces it (fiat). There are many reasons to be for/against such a mechanism, but the two are conceptually different in how they allow users to store/use/have faith in their respective consensus mechanism.

Classic PoW does not afford such luxury. It can't, by design. Hashrate and longest chain define the "legitimacy" of the blockchain, in the sense that it can prove how robust it is to network attacks, namely 51% attacks.
But assuming a 51% attack can be sustained long enough, you've lost the main pillar on which PoW stands on. You can no longer define consensus because one party (or coordinated parties) are now defining consensus.

Regarding 6 confirmations, this was a reasonable "good enough" estimate that your transaction would not be double-spent, but has no mathematical significance. Despite Saifedean trying to push it as some magic formula, it was originally offered as a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.

Bitcoins may not have been created or destroyed, but they don't need to. If you're spending them twice, you've functionally reused the same unit of account...making it not a unit of account.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks, but at least with banks you have a government overseeing the consensus mechanism. With Bitcoin as a PoW you have no external party to rely on to "settle the ledger", the chain is the singular ledger and its own governance protocol. Once it is corrupted, it is effectively useless. At least banks are subject to laws and can be fined, broken up, go under, etc. With Bitcoin, you have no recourse.

Conventional banking ledgers are isolated/secure/distributed, not a common public (albeit encrypted) ledger. In certain cases the attack wont be looking to fraud/steal, but simply to corrupt/crash, make bitcoins/whatever that were previously there ... disappear. The ledger history transitioned to garbage, due to the majority (51%) confirming that is the valid ledger version. Conventional banking total ledger corruption would involve the simultaneous breaching of many banks inner cores, pretty much impossible.

This is correct.

A 51% majority doesn't allow you trick the network into accepting invalid transactions. Even if the majority is telling you 2+2=5, you know better.

But it does allow you to trick the network. There is no such thing as "knowing better". You may know better technically, but you'll still follow the authority defined by the consensus. At the point of a 51% attack, it would be functionally the same as putting a checkmark next to the equation 2+2=5. Even if you look at it and say "hey, that doesn't seem right", you'll put a checkmark next to it anyway, every time. You could decide not to agree with consensus, but then you'd be forking the network. You'd need to convince miners to move from a more secure network to a less secure one and convince them that what is generally considered to be a legitimate transaction is actually illegitimate. Why should people (miners, users, etc.) "trust you" and continue mining your blockchain? You may be able to convince them socially, but you've undermined the game theory, and frankly the point, of Bitcoin.

If it happens for a short enough period of time, it could potentially be brushed off, but no one can really define how long is "too long" and every second (next block) under attack further erodes the legitimacy of the network. This is one of my main criticisms- that although people like to pretend "it's all math/code!", that's only true if the game theory aspect of the PoW reward system keeps the system in check. If the game theory breaks down, you no longer have a functioning publicly distributed, permissionless ledger.

[Jack Jones]

It does not describe fiat currency. Fiat currency replaces one social consensus mechanism with another. The tradeoff is between a physical commodity that is hard to create (gold) and a theoretical commodity that is easy to create, but backed by the economic output and military strength of the government that produces it (fiat). There are many reasons to be for/against such a mechanism, but the two are conceptually different in how they allow users to store/use/have faith in their respective consensus mechanism.

Classic PoW does not afford such luxury. It can't, by design. Hashrate and longest chain define the "legitimacy" of the blockchain, in the sense that it can prove how robust it is to network attacks, namely 51% attacks.
But assuming a 51% attack can be sustained long enough, you've lost the main pillar on which PoW stands on. You can no longer define consensus because one party (or coordinated parties) are now defining consensus.

First off, great post overall, but I'm not following you here. What luxury does PoW not afford? I see three social consensus mechanisms w/ tradeoffs.

Regarding 6 confirmations, this was a reasonable "good enough" estimate that your transaction would not be double-spent, but has no mathematical significance. Despite Saifedean trying to push it as some magic formula, it was originally offered as a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule.

6 is just a common example. The mathematical significance is that the more confirmations you wait, the more confident you can be that the coins are yours.

51% gives you a power typically reserved to banks, but at least with banks you have a government overseeing the consensus mechanism. With Bitcoin as a PoW you have no external party to rely on to "settle the ledger", the chain is the singular ledger and its own governance protocol. Once it is corrupted, it is effectively useless. At least banks are subject to laws and can be fined, broken up, go under, etc. With Bitcoin, you have no recourse.

How has the government been doing in overseeing the consensus mechanism lately? Seems to me like they stepped on the pedal a bit too much during Covid. Gave out trillions of dollars to their friends, and are now tightening to recover from their error.

I'll take the Bitcoin tradeoffs over the Wizard of Oz / man behind the curtain treatment.

Also, money is too large of a concern for any government to do well. We need a global money.

A 51% majority doesn't allow you trick the network into accepting invalid transactions. Even if the majority is telling you 2+2=5, you know better.

But it does allow you to trick the network. There is no such thing as "knowing better". You may know better technically, but you'll still follow the authority defined by the consensus. At the point of a 51% attack, it would be functionally the same as putting a checkmark next to the equation 2+2=5. Even if you look at it and say "hey, that doesn't seem right", you'll put a checkmark next to it anyway, every time. You could decide not to agree with consensus, but then you'd be forking the network. You'd need to convince miners to move from a more secure network to a less secure one and convince them that what is generally considered to be a legitimate transaction is actually illegitimate. Why should people (miners, users, etc.) "trust you" and continue mining your blockchain? You may be able to convince them socially, but you've undermined the game theory, and frankly the point, of Bitcoin.

If it happens for a short enough period of time, it could potentially be brushed off, but no one can really define how long is "too long" and every second (next block) under attack further erodes the legitimacy of the network. This is one of my main criticisms- that although people like to pretend "it's all math/code!", that's only true if the game theory aspect of the PoW reward system keeps the system in check. If the game theory breaks down, you no longer have a functioning publicly distributed, permissionless ledger.

Seajay was talking about corrupting the ledger, so I was trying to point out that a 51% majority doesn't allow you to rewrite the ledger at will. You still may only double-spend Bitcoin from a wallet that you can sign for. For example, if you try to publish a transaction that empties my wallet into your own, you will be unable to sign it w/out my private key. If you sign it w/ another key, this would be an example of an invalid transaction, e.g. 2+2=5. Even if you have a 51% majority, it doesn't matter. The rest of the network will reject the block because it contains invalid transactions. A double-spend transaction is not invalid in this way. In a double-spend situation, you're right, there is no such thing as "knowing better".

[bitcoininthevp]

Hashrate and longest chain define the "legitimacy" of the blockchain, in the sense that it can prove how robust it is to network attacks, namely 51% attacks.
But assuming a 51% attack can be sustained long enough, you've lost the main pillar on which PoW stands on. You can no longer define consensus because one party (or coordinated parties) are now defining consensus.

This isnt really true. In Bitcoin its not defined as the longest chain nor the chain with the most hashrate. Its the chain with the most proof of work _that is valid_.

So if 90% of the Bitcoin hashrate (miners) starts mining _invalid_ blocks, they will be rejected by all of the other nodes on the network.

[Arthur Boe Nansa]

First off, great post overall, but I'm not following you here. What luxury does PoW not afford? I see three social consensus mechanisms w/ tradeoffs.

I appreciate it. If I understood you correctly, you responded with "As an aside, this kind of describes fiat currency, doesn't it?" to Seajay saying "A forked entirely corrupted ledger that by majority is taken as the official version would be entirely disruptive if not totally devastating if the primary/sole source of digital money/value."

My point is that this isn't a particularly good criticism of fiat because while your comment about fiat being "forked off the gold system into a new system where corrupting the ledger could be done at will by those in power" is historically true, it doesn't consider the real power of fiat. US money used gold as a stepping stone to it's real consensus mechanism- economic+military strength. I'm not taking a stance for or against this change and you'd be right to say that those who trusted USD to be gold-backed were "cheated", but my larger argument is that it doesn't matter (well, hasn't mattered so far). For "sound money" you need a consensus mechanism and stability. The truth is that America was in a position to swap out gold-backing for a robust economy with a military to back it, and for most average users of fiat that bargain was worthwhile. Fiat has that luxury because it never binds itself to a consensus mechanism, it simply exists as a perpetual IOU. A system defined by PoW does not have this luxury because it is the polar opposite, it is strictly defined. In the same way gold is defined by its elemental symbol, Bitcoin is defined by proof-of-work. The luxury I was referring to is the ability for a system to be able to change consensus mechanism/backing without eroding credibility. The takeaway from all this is:
Fiat's strength is that it is backed by its ability to be believed in, which currently manifests as an economy's moat + military strength to protect its interests. It's weakness is that this is a fragile definition. It works until it doesn't (social).
Bitcoin's PoW strength is that it is mathematical defined. It is not an IOU, but an understood ledger. Its weakness is that the ledger simply records information, it has no "weight" of it's own. That is both the genius and achilles heel of the system. It is an all-or-nothing situation because it holds no real world significance. This is why conceding to the legitimacy of alternate chains (or forked chains, etc.) is such a hot button issue. In this context, Seajay's forking scenario that would corrupt the whole network is accurate. Not because of total data corruption, but because of total consensus corruption.

6 is just a common example. The mathematical significance is that the more confirmations you wait, the more confident you can be that the coins are yours.

Very true.

How has the government been doing in overseeing the consensus mechanism lately? Seems to me like they stepped on the pedal a bit too much during Covid. Gave out trillions of dollars to their friends, and are now tightening to recover from their error.

I'll take the Bitcoin tradeoffs over the Wizard of Oz / man behind the curtain treatment.

Also, money is too large of a concern for any government to do well. We need a global money.

Not very well apparently. Believe me I have my fair share of criticisms, but I also think it's important to not jump the gun on PoW being the ultimate solution.

Seajay was talking about corrupting the ledger, so I was trying to point out that a 51% majority doesn't allow you to rewrite the ledger at will. You still may only double-spend Bitcoin from a wallet that you can sign for. For example, if you try to publish a transaction that empties my wallet into your own, you will be unable to sign it w/out my private key. If you sign it w/ another key, this would be an example of an invalid transaction, e.g. 2+2=5. Even if you have a 51% majority, it doesn't matter. The rest of the network will reject the block because it contains invalid transactions. A double-spend transaction is not invalid in this way. In a double-spend situation, you're right, there is no such thing as "knowing better".

Again, this goes back to what we mean by corruption which I mentioned in the last line of my first response in this post. I don't know exactly what Seajay meant, but I can tell you how I see it. 51% attacks do not rewrite whole of the ledger, you're definitely right about that, but it does rewrite "some" of the ledger and is recorded as valid by at least 51% of miners (e.g. the majority). This means, by definition, it is part of the consensus and is a legitimate transaction. This fact "corrupts" the entire ledger not from an accounting perspective, but from an agreement perspective. And the further this 51% attack goes on for, the more "legitimate" this new chain of transactions becomes. Which ones do you revert? Some of the attack? All of the attack? Who's to say it's even an attack if most miners are recording it? This is what corrupts the entirety of the ledger. It is the breakdown of the consensus of rules. Justified or not, one bad apple really does spoil the whole basket.

See my reply to BTCintheVP below:

This isnt really true. In Bitcoin its not defined as the longest chain nor the chain with the most hashrate. Its the chain with the most proof of work _that is valid_.

So if 90% of the Bitcoin hashrate (miners) starts mining _invalid_ blocks, they will be rejected by all of the other nodes on the network.

Of course it's true- assuming that's how you define consensus. This is how Satoshi defined it and it is how it is laid out in the abstract of the Bitcoin Whitepaper. https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/longest-chain

You say it's not defined that way and that the proof of work of the chain "must be valid", but you haven't defined what that validity actually is. Until you do you've created circular reasoning. I've defined it as longest chain with most hashrate (which is also, as far as I'm aware, the accepted definition). How are you defining it?

There's no such thing, from a consensus perspective of PoW, as an invalid block. It is only invalid because it is not agreed upon. If it is agreed upon, then it is by definition valid. You can't decide it's invalid just because you "know" it shouldn't be there, that undermines the whole point of Proof of Work. Nodes that do not prove work aren't relevant to consensus because they do not mine- they do not do any work within the system. They are effectively trackers that copy the consensus records of the miners, but they are not part of the mechanism. This is an often misunderstood talking point by maximalists to enforce public agreement over things which are not backed up by Bitcoin's mathematical structure.

[pmbug]

Let's acknowledge for moment that Gold is indeed a physical item that can be exchanged for cash. With that in mind, other physical items could serve the same role. ...

Collector/Numismatic premiums tend to disappear during economic dislocations or currency crises which is what gold is really hedging/insuring against.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj9v9s9buk

[bitcoininthevp]

See my reply to BTCintheVP below:

This isnt really true. In Bitcoin its not defined as the longest chain nor the chain with the most hashrate. Its the chain with the most proof of work _that is valid_.

So if 90% of the Bitcoin hashrate (miners) starts mining _invalid_ blocks, they will be rejected by all of the other nodes on the network.

Of course it's true- assuming that's how you define consensus. This is how Satoshi defined it and it is how it is laid out in the abstract of the Bitcoin Whitepaper. https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/longest-chain

You say it's not defined that way and that the proof of work of the chain "must be valid", but you haven't defined what that validity actually is. Until you do you've created circular reasoning. I've defined it as longest chain with most hashrate (which is also, as far as I'm aware, the accepted definition). How are you defining it?

I've defined it as longest chain with most hashrate (which is also, as far as I'm aware, the accepted definition).

Its easy to see this is incorrect with a recent example. Marathon Mining recently mined and submitted a block that extended the Bitcoin blockchain longer with the most hashrate, just as you stated.

But their block was rejected because it was invalid according to the rest of the network's consensus rules. See https://b10c.me/observations/07-invalid-block-809478/

How are you defining it?

The chain with the most proof of work that is valid.

What is valid, and broadly accepted, is known as consensus. But if I disagree with consensus (maybe miners made it 22m instead of 21m BTC), I can still have my node run by the 21m rules.

The rules around block validity can and do change. Most often this is a soft fork protocol change to the consensus rules that further restrict some rule around what a valid block can be. If such a change is supported broadly, it will achieve consensus and most nodes will run those validity rules. Even then, as noted, you could change your own node's code to have different validation rules, with all of the consequences that may come along with that.

[boglerdude]

Not smart enough to understand bitcoin, but Gates, Bezos, Buffett and the corporate boards ARE the US government and their megacorps arent going to accept gold, bitcoin, or any sound money that isnt theirs. The company store. 10% seingnorage + its very difficult to start a war when you have to raise taxes for it.

edit1: oh yeah, also difficult to have a "pandemic" when you'd have to raise taxes for those handouts

[pmbug]

Not smart enough to understand bitcoin, but Gates, Bezos, Buffett and the corporate boards ARE the US government and their megacorps arent going to accept gold, bitcoin, or any sound money that isnt theirs. ...

Some might argue that Blackrock is the government (or at least, it's financial arm) and they are apparently on board the Bitcoin train with a spot BTC ETF application pending with the SEC (deadline for decision in March 2024).

[boglerdude]

Yes, along with Vanguard. Asset holders + homeowners are the most powerful lobby. They arent going to allow assets to drop nominally in USD, for very long. The governance issues are interesting, with Blackrock and Vanguard CEOs voting on your behalf

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/com ... p_outrage/

[pmbug]

For the record, I do own some crypto (Bitcoin, Ethereum and a few other alt coins). For me, it was the best way to start learning about the whole ecosystem. I'm interested in the coming fight between decentralized crypto and centralized CBDCs. I'm also curious as to the potential innovations that crypto may bring with DeFi, tokenization + smart contracts and other vectors.

That said, I do not see crypto as a gold substitute. Gold is gold - no counterparties - no infrastructure requirements or points of failure. If/when central banks start holding crypto (or any other supposed gold substitutes), I would give consideration to changing my view on this point.

[vnatale]

Yes, along with Vanguard. Asset holders + homeowners are the most powerful lobby. They arent going to allow assets to drop nominally in USD, for very long. The governance issues are interesting, with Blackrock and Vanguard CEOs voting on your behalf

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/com ... p_outrage/

More than the NRA?

More than the Israel lobby?

More than the military lobbyists?

The teachers union?

Any others?

[boglerdude]

well...all those folks are counting on their home and 401k for retirement. They will not be consoled if asset prices fall 30% permanently even if CPI drops 40%. So in shrinking/deflationary Japan you have their FED buying private companies for more than their worth. "a merger of state and corporate power" as someone said. Israeli and CCP lobby create other problems which would be mitigated by term limits for congress.

And some content https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how ... idwit-meme

[pmbug]

... Blackrock ... a spot BTC ETF application pending with the SEC (deadline for decision in March 2024).

SEC approved all 11 pending spot BTC ETFs yesterday. One started trading 4am this morning:

Grayscale, the manager of GBTC, is claiming bragging rights for being the first of the newly approved crop of spot bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to begin trading, a representative for the firm said on Thursday.

“I am happy to confirm that GBTC started pre-market trading at 4 am EST this morning,” Grayscale’s head of comms Jennifer Rosenthal said via email.
...

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2024/0 ... =headlines