@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Long reply, please do not start replying until I say *end*. — I’m always happy to discuss. Problem is that nothing ever comes from it. You only want to talk “ethos”. Facts are simple: Blocksize increase or not. Non mining full nodes have virtually zero benefit. Proven ad nauseum.
Olivier, I tried to reach out, and proposed to meet in person pre-fork to collaboratively discuss and write notes, on the economic & tech case for bitcoin with you, @rogerkver & a few others. You suddenly stopped responding. I think you'd be a lot richer if you had gone ahead.
— Adam Back (@adam3us) January 10, 2021
More from Crypto
1/ [December Bitcoin yield update]
Over the last year and a half, I’ve earned ~1.2BTC with various yield generating services to earn an average of 5% on 30 BTC.
Here’s my journey and how to guide👇
2/ Here are the ways you can earn yield:
Lending (Easiest/most popular)
Yield: 3-6%
- Ledn: https://t.co/4x0YATuQ0v
- BlockFi: https://t.co/90Xtg2cNka
Covered calls (Harder)
Yield: 1-80%
- Deribit: https://t.co/2iQVkXlylP
- LedgerX:
3/ Earning a yield enables you to stack more sats (what I’m doing), or reduce the temptation to sell your coin through earning an income.
The yield you earn comes with RISK!
Below is my current allocation for Dec (will update MoM)
(yellow = changes)
https://t.co/PZwVYs8lFT
4a/ [Nov > Dec Changelog]
- Covered calls: approx. 4 BTC was in $40k 12/28/20 contracts. Those closed without them being exercised (a good outcome for me). However, I was nervous about my January 1/28 $50k contract so I decided to close out my position at a small loss.
4b/ [Nov > Dec Changelog]
- In process of reallocating the 5 BTC (probably will be a lending platform).
- I incorrectly had my Ledn rate at 6.5%, it's 6.25%
Over the last year and a half, I’ve earned ~1.2BTC with various yield generating services to earn an average of 5% on 30 BTC.
Here’s my journey and how to guide👇
2/ Here are the ways you can earn yield:
Lending (Easiest/most popular)
Yield: 3-6%
- Ledn: https://t.co/4x0YATuQ0v
- BlockFi: https://t.co/90Xtg2cNka
Covered calls (Harder)
Yield: 1-80%
- Deribit: https://t.co/2iQVkXlylP
- LedgerX:
3/ Earning a yield enables you to stack more sats (what I’m doing), or reduce the temptation to sell your coin through earning an income.
The yield you earn comes with RISK!
Below is my current allocation for Dec (will update MoM)
(yellow = changes)
https://t.co/PZwVYs8lFT
4a/ [Nov > Dec Changelog]
- Covered calls: approx. 4 BTC was in $40k 12/28/20 contracts. Those closed without them being exercised (a good outcome for me). However, I was nervous about my January 1/28 $50k contract so I decided to close out my position at a small loss.
4b/ [Nov > Dec Changelog]
- In process of reallocating the 5 BTC (probably will be a lending platform).
- I incorrectly had my Ledn rate at 6.5%, it's 6.25%
1/ Bitcoin: a bold new world.
Satoshi published the white paper on 10/31/2008. Right at the moment of peak despair during the 2008 financial crisis. Trust had been lost in a world that ran on trust.
2/ But why October 31st? It certainly wasn’t because Satoshi was a fan of halloween, it must have had a deeper meaning. With all of his actions, he demonstrated a careful precision.
He had been working on Bitcoin for at least a year and a half before publishing the white paper.
3/ “I believe I've worked through all those little details over the last year and a half while coding it, and there were a lot of them. The functional details are not covered in the paper, but the sourcecode is coming soon” - Satoshi Nakamoto
4/ On August 18, 2008 Satoshi registers registers https://t.co/rMWwiEwtxT through https://t.co/Uj8lMr10kB.
Satoshi was ready and waiting to hit the send button throughout 2008. What was so special about October 31st?
5/ I believe that Satoshi published the Bitcoin white paper on 10/31 as a hat tip to the ancient Gaelic festival of “Samhain” which was also the date in which Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door. Both represent an end of the old and the beginning of the new.
Satoshi published the white paper on 10/31/2008. Right at the moment of peak despair during the 2008 financial crisis. Trust had been lost in a world that ran on trust.
2/ But why October 31st? It certainly wasn’t because Satoshi was a fan of halloween, it must have had a deeper meaning. With all of his actions, he demonstrated a careful precision.
He had been working on Bitcoin for at least a year and a half before publishing the white paper.
3/ “I believe I've worked through all those little details over the last year and a half while coding it, and there were a lot of them. The functional details are not covered in the paper, but the sourcecode is coming soon” - Satoshi Nakamoto
4/ On August 18, 2008 Satoshi registers registers https://t.co/rMWwiEwtxT through https://t.co/Uj8lMr10kB.
Satoshi was ready and waiting to hit the send button throughout 2008. What was so special about October 31st?
5/ I believe that Satoshi published the Bitcoin white paper on 10/31 as a hat tip to the ancient Gaelic festival of “Samhain” which was also the date in which Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door. Both represent an end of the old and the beginning of the new.
You may be wondering why @bristoliver rather cryptically RT’d a chart that I posted last night. The answer is not just that he loves quadratic fits on log axes, but that this chart may –and I stress may– hint at a vaccine effect amongst the over 80s THREAD
WARNING: this is a long thread, and it’s a bit of a roller-coaster. We find some apparently strong patterns in the data, and then start to unpick them a bit. So if you start getting excited half way through you might find you’re less excited at the end. But we’ll see…
First we first have to go back a bit. @bristoliver posted a thread a few days ago explaining why, with a constant vaccination rate, a log plot of cases should show a quadratic form. In other words, it should fit an equation like: a + b.x + c.x^2
I meant to link in the model thread there - here it is
the quadratic coefficient – the ‘c’ in that equation – gives an estimate of the % of the population who are being newly protected by the vaccine each day. Please note ‘protected by the vaccine’, not ‘vaccinated’ – as we don't expect 100% protection after the first dose
ok, I lied. but strictly it's not a new graph, just a new trendline (now a quadratic on the log plot). looks um... quite a good fit. so I'd say that was interesting. pic.twitter.com/qkgyMf1ya8
— James Ward (@JamesWard73) January 27, 2021
WARNING: this is a long thread, and it’s a bit of a roller-coaster. We find some apparently strong patterns in the data, and then start to unpick them a bit. So if you start getting excited half way through you might find you’re less excited at the end. But we’ll see…
First we first have to go back a bit. @bristoliver posted a thread a few days ago explaining why, with a constant vaccination rate, a log plot of cases should show a quadratic form. In other words, it should fit an equation like: a + b.x + c.x^2
I meant to link in the model thread there - here it is
Been thinking about where we are, where we might be going, what effect vaccines might have and how to tell. This thread may not happen all at once, and will get a bit mathematical in a couple of places (sorry!), but I will put in pictures. It's yet another argument for log scales
— Oliver Johnson (@BristOliver) January 24, 2021
the quadratic coefficient – the ‘c’ in that equation – gives an estimate of the % of the population who are being newly protected by the vaccine each day. Please note ‘protected by the vaccine’, not ‘vaccinated’ – as we don't expect 100% protection after the first dose
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)
Just added Telegram links to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)
Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L
Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨
💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
Just added Telegram links to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)
Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L
Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨
💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
1/12
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw